Boston Borough Council’s annual report emerged at the beginning of the week – and as was to be expected did a pretty thorough job of proving that you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

A grim-faced photo of Leader Bedford loomed above a mostly rehashed pastiche of his thoughts on flooding and the Boston Barrier – and as you've heard them all many times before, we’ll not bore you any further.

But a comparison of the writing style with last week’s example of the leader’s e-mail diplomacy suggests that if he’s ever looking for an escape hatch, he can claim that someone else wrote the piece for him!

Instead of grasping the nettle of current reality, Chairman Pete instead left that thankless task to Chief Executive Richard Harbord, who explained that government support for the council has been cut and it needs to find an estimated £1,795,000 by 2018/19 – £639,000 of which has to be found in 2015/16. “That can only come from increased income or from savings,” he proclaimed.

Having set the tone, the report looks back over the period between April 2013 and April this year in a digest of borough bulletin stories from the past twelve months.

Whilst the list combines the good news with the bad, for us it served to highlight how little has really been achieved in a relatively long period.

And, it seemed that the bad outweighed the good as we read a litany of litter, houses in multiple occupation, immigration, dog poo, drunkenness, spitting, urination and defecation in the streets, rogue landlords, CCTV and flooding.

In an almost futile attempt to claw victory from the jaws of defeat, the council listed ways in which it planned to do better, the first of which was to examine reasons for a decline in car parking tickets sold, and a resulting fall in income.

We would have thought that this was obvious – even to councillors wearing a gadget to simulate blindness.

Parking in Boston is too expensive.

And why is it that we think that any solution will involve yet another “reluctant” increase in parking fees?

The report also noted a small reduction in market occupancy, but glossed over the broken promises to make the Market Place more vibrant and attractive by introducing a range of different markets.

“Sadly” it went on “one of the highest dissatisfaction levels remains street cleanliness – a new environmental crime strategy has been drawn up to deal with this.”

But whatever you do, don’t blame the council.

“It must be remembered that the cause is people who litter, fly tip and refuse (to avoid confusion, that’s pronounced ree-fuse, not reff-youss) to take responsibility for their own waste” the report preached – ignoring the fact that if you were to place an item of litter on the ground in some parts of the town it would still be there weeks later, as we have witnessed first-hand.

There was “a decrease in satisfaction with the council’s value for money” – which translated means an increase in dissatisfaction with the council’s value for money – and the highest levels highlighted by the council’s Have Your Say survey were for car parking, street cleaning and the town centre.

The street cleaning task and finish group took on board comments when developing their action plan.

That ought to do it.

Not a year to recall with much by way of affection.

 ***

 On the financial side, the report says that past 12 months have been extremely challenging from a financial perspective given “on-going severe reductions in government funding and increasing demand for services.”

Yet the council reserves increased from £7.3m to £9.8m “mainly due to flood grants received.”

Just one question … if Boston received flood grants, why are they in the reserves?

Are they sitting there in case there’s another flood; are they to be spent on the purpose for which they were given (and if so, where and when will that be) … or what?

The report says that the reserves are “to support future spending plans and to ensure enough money is in hand in working balances,” which sounds as if they are simply there to gloat over, like a miser’s hoard.

In overall budgets, one of the biggest was “cultural and related services” which came to £3,088,000.

Three million quid?

On culture?

In Boston?

Again, a little more detail would be appreciated.

But at least someone kept a sense of humour amid all the gloom,

Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire, the council’s finance portfolio holder, said in the report that the recommendation not to increase council tax was thanks to “the hard work of this administration and prudent housekeeping.”

That’s strange; we always thought that council tax remained frozen because of a government bribe to local authorities to keep it that way.

He said: “We will spend every penny wisely for the benefit of the people we serve. This budget ensures we do more with less.”

And the concept that the current leadership seeks to serve people for their benefit is one that fills us with mirth.

 ***

In his pre-ramble to the report, Chief Executive Richard Harbord recommends reading the council’s declared priorities in its corporate plan which was drawn up in 2011,  alongside the annual report.

So we did.

It opens as you might expect with another sermon from The Leader – this one alongside an earlier, more mellow portrait totally unlike that in the annual report … which is the sort of picture that you put on the mantelpiece to keep the kids away from the fire.

As if we needed reminding, it recalls that we elected The Leader and his Merrie People in May 2011 to “serve” us for the following five years – or so we believed at the time.

“This plan is our commitment for dealing with what is important to you during our time in office. We will not deliver this alone but will work with our partners across a range of organisations to help us achieve.

“Our council plan shows what we and our partners are committed to doing now and in the future to improve Boston for you.”

It might have been believable then, but it certainly isn’t now.

Unfortunately, one of the few partners mentioned in the report was the useless and doomed Boston Business “Improvement” District, which the leadership fought tooth and nail to force down the throats of local businesses who were only able to throw it out after suffering five years of incompetence, wastefulness and expense.

By and large, the corporate plan is a list of the job you would normally expect district council to perform – but turned into a list of promises that we’ve heard before – although against the background of the annual report, some serve to show just how little has been done

For instance, the corporate plan tells us: “Having litter free streets and public areas helps you to feel proud of your community. We are investing time and resources into these services as you have told us they are important to you.”

Three years after that appeared the annual report is admitting that the highest dissatisfaction level remains street cleanliness – but promises its now traditional approach to a solution, which is to criminalise people for its own incompetence.

Similarly with car parking, where we are told: “Where services are chargeable … we have to balance the need to retain affordable charges with the need to obtain sufficient income … (and) make them affordable …”

***

Interestingly, future threats to local government budgets have generated a gloomy outlook among an overwhelming majority of 434 local government chief executives and senior officers responding to a confidence survey by the Local Government Chronicle.

They believe that the worst of the cuts is still to come, with nearly a fifth anticipating that their council faces a financial crisis in the next year.

Of the officers surveyed, 93% believed their council faced significant further budget difficulties, while 17% thought their council faced a financial crisis which would leave it unable to provide the statutory minimum level of service required.

The level of pessimism was such that one in five senior district council staff believed their employer would no longer be in existence by the end of the next parliament.

Asked if they thought their council would still exist in 2020, 15% said “no.”

The negative figure was 21% for districts in comparison with 12% at unitaries, 11% at metropolitan councils, 8% at counties and 6% at London boroughs.

A reader who spotted the survey told us: “While we may criticise Worst Street, wait until Lincolnshire gets its way and all is run from Lincoln and you cannot influence anything.

“The new administration will not only find itself wondering what to do over the chief executive but could find itself fighting to survive unless it is proactive, which seems beyond the current administration.

“West Devon with a population of 55,000 is merging all its officers with its neighbours, South Hams (one chief exec etc.) but keeping two separate councils.

“It’s not wonderful but it maximises budget efficiencies and retains political identity.”

But apparently the disappearance of Boston as a borough council can’t come soon enough for one member of the County Hall hierarchy.

County Councillor Richard (Bob the Builder) Davies – the man politically responsible for Boston’s disastrous transport chaos – posted the item above on his Facebook page.

Thanks for that Bob … er Dick.

If the rest of his henchpeople in the county cabinet feel the same, then Boston has even fewer friends in higher places than we might have hoped.

  

***

When we heard a sound like the bottom of a barrel being scraped, we thought that it might have been one of the town’s many flood victims baling out the last of the water that inundated their homes last year.

But no, it was merely Boston Borough Council coming up with a justification for its refusal to help people out during the floods by issuing sandbags.

Beneath the headline “Council is right not to issue sandbags’ – expert” the council quotes “a nationally-recognised flooding expert” who has “backed” its “stand” on sandbags.

Mary Dhonau, a flood victim turned adviser, is surely right when she says sandbags are extremely heavy and can be beyond the capability of most ordinary householders to lift into place – let  alone the elderly and vulnerable.

But the glee with which The Leader – who now it seems is an expert on sandbags as well as all his other attributes – seizes the moment to whitewash the council’s lack of social conscience.

“It’s easy to see that it would take massive resources to deliver an expectation of all properties at risk being provided with sandbags,” he bleats.

“The council doesn’t have the manpower or the fleet of vehicles required to meet this expectation, and that is why we issued public information as far back as last October that the council would not provide sandbags and urged property owners to take responsibility for protecting their premises from the potential of flooding.

“It is reassuring to hear that someone as high-profile and knowledgeable as Mary Dhonau agrees with us where provision of sandbags is concerned.”

That October warning – reissued bluntly in December at a time when people were beside themselves with worry – was terse, to the point, and completely lacking any kind of consideration to people facing disaster.

“For the avoidance of doubt, in a flooding incident, Boston Borough Council does not supply sandbags, neither empty nor filled, to any resident or business in Boston borough as the responsibility for safeguarding homes and businesses lies with the owner.”

But this was not, apparently, because sandbags were about as much use as a chocolate teapot, as the council “advice” continued: “If there is time, sandbags and sharp sand are available from many builders' merchants and DIY stores but far better to be prepared and have a supply of sandbags to hand rather than waiting for an emergency to occur.”

So it seems that sandbags have their uses – as long as Boston Borough Council does not have to buy and distribute them.

The subject was raised earlier this month by the council’s Labour group.

It learned from the Chairman of the Environment Agency that “Boston Borough Council had taken an executive decision not to use sandbags” – which sounds more to do with costs than care … but then we’re used to that aren’t we?

The group also pointed out that some of the few buildings to actually have sandbags at their doors on the 5^th December were Boston Borough Council buildings, which “strongly suggests it is one rule for us and one rule for them.”

In fact – although the information has been widely withdrawn – it is still possible to find the “Lincolnshire Local Authority Sandbag Policy online, which makes is clear that: “Local Authorities will maintain a stock of sandbags and sand strategically located within their district.

“During a flooding event the local authority will attempt to deliver sandbags to properties occupied by vulnerable people within the flood warning zone directly e.g. the elderly, the infirm and those without their own transport etc.

“Other groups will be asked to collect sandbags either from designated distribution points identified in public literature or radio broadcasts, from each local authority or from local builder’s merchants.

No charge will be made for sandbags issued by the local authority during a flooding event but costs will be recorded for possible cost recovery by the local authority from central government.”

But, like so many thinks that represent thoughtfulness, and “service” this does not happen in Boston – even though millions have been stashed under the Worst Street mattress … in case of a rainy day, perhaps?

***

Despite Boston Borough Council’s terse dismissal of claims that the choice of venue for the planning meeting called to rubber stamp the Quadrant development in Wyberton is undemocratic, “no” campaigner Brian Rush has reservations in other areas as well.

Mr Rush – a former Boston borough councillor – is concerned about impartiality – as well he might be.

He tells Boston Eye: Mr Richard Austin now takes the chair on Wyberton Parish Council.

“This cannot be politically correct, given his involvement with borough decisions (note: Councillor Austin represents Wyberton at Worst Street.)

“His first test was to declare one way or the other his political stance, or interest as a resident! He, it seems, has an open mind on this issue.

“For heaven’s sake, borough councillors should not be allowed to have an interest in both camps; it really must be parish or borough!

“Question: if an issue in Wyberton somehow causes a problem in Kirton, what position should a dual councillor take, given we cannot serve two masters?

Still with that annoying matter of democracy, we note that people wanting tickets for the Quadrant circus at the Haven High next month appear to be unable to obtain them online – instead they have to telephone a planning information officer.

We have to say that this rule seems a little out-dated in the internet age, especially coming from a council which boasts of its “interactivity.”

The maximum allocation is two tickets, and both ticket holder names must be given at the time, which again is a bit of a chore – but “under our evacuation procedures we will require a confirmed list of attendees at the meeting and tickets will be checked at the door.”

Does this happen at other council meetings attended by the public, we wonder?

A cynic might think that having to get tickets the hard way, and submit to a third degree to obtain them could be seen as putting obstacles in the way of people wishing to attend.

We couldn’t possibly comment!

***

Last week’s mention of the Chief Executive, his pay arrangements and his contract extension beyond next year’s elections produced an e-mail that pointed out that the decision will bring him a generous farewell payment – that’s unless his contract is further extended … which might well prove to be the only option for a floundering, newly-elected council.

A reader told us: “Mr Harbord’s leaving date means that he will be returning officer for a joint local and national election, which I believe will be substantially beneficial to him on top of his normal pay.

“In the old days the Chief Executive would retire after just such an event as it had such an effect on increasing the pension pot.”

Figures to support this are hard to find – but from what we have read, the payments for comparable council areas run into many thousands of pounds.

Nice work if you can get it, eh?

***

We mentioned Boston Business “Improvement” District earlier on, and one-time levy payers to that organisation will certainly be pleased to learn that the company’s former manager Niall Armstrong, who was roundly humiliated when Boston businesses decided to vote the BID out of existence, has landed on his feet at last.

He has popped up on LinkedIn with a new look to match his new job.

click on photo to enlarge it

For the past couple of months, Mr Armstrong has been Regional Growth Fund Co-ordinator for North Lincolnshire – which marks a move from a publicly funded organisation to a government funded quango-style operation … although he has held a long running role as director and treasurer of Sleaford Masonic Buildings since 2009.

Clearly, his time since leaving Boston BID has been well spent, as among his talents, he now lists business strategy and planning, management, event management, strategy and leadership.

And before you ask … yes, it is the same Niall Armstrong.

***

Whilst we are sure that the use is an important one, we wish that some alternative could have been found for the former Haven Art Gallery in Boston’s “Cultural Quarter” as it is laughingly described,  than to turn it into a training centre for 16-19 year olds who are  not in education, employment or training – NEETs.

The £1 million pound gallery – another of Boston Borough Council’s great white elephants – opened in 2005 and was mothballed five years later as a cost-cutting exercise.

For years it has been on the market to rent, with a tenant sought for a five to ten year period at £38,000 a year.

Now, Nacro –  formerly the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, and now styled the crime reduction charity –  will offer a programme of courses, including sport, child care, retail, English, maths and ICT qualifications, “employability” plus traineeships and work placements.

If the names of these courses sound familiar, it’s because most of them are already on offer at Boston College, and around half a dozen other training centres that litter the town centre.

The Haven failed as a gallery because it never had anything worth looking at on offer –  and like many other costly ventures involving local taxpayers’ money was another example of how  the eyes of Boston Borough Council are bigger than its mouth.

We hope that Boston Borough Council will put the income from the rent to good use – perhaps some more hanging baskets to try to coax a badge out of next year’s Britain in Bloom competition judges – but we would be interested to know whether it achieved anything like the £38,000 rental that was being sought. Somehow we doubt it.

So, Boston is now the go-to centre for ‘phone shops, charity shops and training organisations.

How about a few shop shops for a change?

***

And talking of Britain in Bloom, we note the chortling from Boston Borough Council after last Friday’s visit from the judges – who were herded along a carefully chosen and adorned route guaranteed to get them into medal-minting mood.

According to the council’s Daily Drone, “All the indications are good – judge Ian Cooke, from the Royal Horticultural Society, said “Wow” after touring the town and “Wow” again when he and fellow RHS judge Diane Moore concluded with a visit to Boston West Academy.”

Wow!

That could, or course, mean that they were simply lost for words – or just that they might have simply been intimidated by the  numbers of hangers-on who dogged their visit  … in one photo the two judges are swamped by no fewer than 23 and in another by fifteen!

However, confidence remains high after the Drone reports “Asked for a clue as to the final result” one of the judges said: “You won’t be disappointed” – which seems a rather unfair position in which to put a so-called independent judge.

***

As the judges toured the pristine, cared for route, the rest of us had to make do with Boston in the raw.

Users of the borough council’s Botolph Street car park had to negotiate water some inches deep, as did pedestrians.

It’s a problem that we have highlighted time and again, but as there are no medals involved, and it’s only the riff raff who live here who are inconvenienced, we imagine  that the problem will come and go with the rains for years to come.

***

It sounds as though our local MP Mark Simmonds can combine business with pleasure in that arduous job that takes him to almost everywhere in the world aside from regular stays in Boston.

The MP enjoyed a brief flash of fame – or rather notoriety – after the Westminster expenses debacle when it emerged that he was charging for the wine lovers’ magazine Decanter.

Now he is back in the news in a oenophilic context as the man tasked with issuing a written statement to parliament about the annual health of the government wine cellar – which is run by the Foreign Office and lies beneath a grand London mansion owned by the Queen and leased to the government – and which has stocks valued at £824,406.

We’ll drink to that!

It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

***

Last week’s item about the problems at the Assembly Rooms and the rumours about the company Activ Leisure became slightly more understandable when we realised just how many companies the owner Matt Clark and his family have to keep an eye on.

The Assembly Rooms was connected with the name of a company called Totally Ordinary Limited with an address at a Lincoln postcode used by no fewer than 324 companies.

According to internet sources the company has £31,634 in cash, with assets of £59,576, liabilities of £281,458 and net worth of £-590.

But Mr Clark is also connected with so many other companies – or has been – that keeping track can’t be easy.

click on photo to enlarge it

Then there are family connections with other companies such as the subtly named Honeybars Leisure as well.

Isn’t it complicated being an entrepreneur?

***

Another burst of schadenfreude came our way with the news that the £100m bypass to ease congestion in Lincoln has been rejected by the transport secretary because of a lack of pedestrian access.

Plans for the scheme, to link Wragby Road, north of Lincoln, with the A15 Sleaford Road to the south, will have to be revised and resubmitted.

Councillor Richard (Bob the Builder) Davies, Lincolnshire’s Unilateralist cabinet member for highways, said he was "completely gutted" with the decision.

Work on the road was expected to start later this year but the plans were rejected following a planning inquiry.

The Department of Transport said: "Lincolnshire County Council's plans for a bypass did not make adequate provision for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to access Hawthorn Road, via a footbridge.

"The council is welcome to consider these conclusions and submit a fresh application."

The road was to be funded by the government with contributions from the county council and developers.

Hopefully, the delay will give Lincoln motorists a feel for the problems we face here in Boston – but without any hope of a bypass or distributor road in sight – although we doubt that it will generate any sympathy for us.

  

***

Finally, given that the essence of the written word ought to be that it is as widely understood as possible, we weren’t quite sure what this headline in the Boston Daily Burble was trying to tell us.

“Don’t let £75 fine be enough to make you spit.”

Is it an exhortation to carry on spitting despite the penalties?

It could well be.

It certainly requires careful reading.

Given that messages posted around the town to discourage spitting, urination in the street and worse are sometimes produced in foreign languages (it is not politically correct, and probably deemed racist to suggest that any particular nationality could be culpable) could we suggest that when they are produced in English they can at least be taken on board with as little ambiguity as possible.

  

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

As the elections tiptoe ever closer,  we are reminded that whatever the ballot box may hold in store for the 30 councillors elected on May 7^th next year (two fewer than the present compliment) there will be at least one winner.

He is of course the Chief Executive, Richard Harbord, the subject of countless contract extensions since August 2009 – at least the last two described as “final” – who was brought in to get the council back on its feet … a task completed some considerable time ago.

Mr Harbord will continue as Chief Executive until 31^st July 2015 “to provide stability and oversee any changes that may occur at the next election in May 2015,” which must make him one of Boston’s longest serving bosses since the days of  town clerk C. L. Hoffrock-Griffiths in the fifties and his successor R. Ernest Coley a decade later.

His appointment has long been controversial, as he is employed on a peppercorn contract for £10 a year with his main terms of engagement through a contract for services via his private company – MRF (UK) Ltd …  the erstwhile Modular Raised Floors.

This form of a payment gives him certain tax advantages, as you will see later on.

His monthly payment of £9,500 is for fifteen days’ work and equates to £114,000 a year.

Given that this is only for working half-time, at an annualised rate it is equivalent of £228,000 – more than the prime minister earns, and among the highest local government  payments to chief executives – even though in terms of size, Boston is ranked 331st out of 354 English local councils.

This method of payment has long been frowned upon in the bigger boys’ corridors of power, but it seems not to matter to Mr Harbord’s cabinet paymasters in Boston.

Looking back over the debate on the appointment, we note the words of Council Leader Pete Bedford, who in a radio interview on the subject said: “Our Chief Executive is only a part-time position. He is perfectly at liberty to work for other clients on the days he does not work for us. The council’s contract with the company means that the council has no liability for holiday pay, sick pay, national insurance or pension contributions. There is also no question of employment rights and the cost arising from that.”

However, a report on the future of the chief executive role in September 2011 contradicted this, saying: “As the Chief Executive has been employed continuously since August 2009, albeit on a series of short term contracts, there is a risk that he will have acquired statutory rights. This broadly means that if the Chief Executive were to be dismissed, the council would have to have a fair and legally recognised reason for dismissal (e.g. conduct, capability, etc.) and would have to follow a fair procedure. If an employee does not have unfair dismissal rights then these steps are not necessary, although with an organisation the size of the council, these steps should not be omitted even where they legally can be.”

This raises a few questions – especially as we would think it unlikely that the council will replace Mr Harbord with a full-time chief executive because of the growing trend to share this particular role – and we recall mention in Worst Street that the next chief executive will not be full time.

One local(ish) example is that of South Holland District Council and Breckland District Council – which are some distance apart – but which share a chief executive paid in the band between £100,879 and £124,004 ... which on a fifty-fifty share trims costs considerably.

So, looking ahead to July next year …  

Mr Harbord’s contracts have until now been extended ahead of expiry almost automatically for almost six years – so  what if it was felt that a decision not to carry on with the mixture as before constituted a form of dismissal – as after such a long time,  during which praise has continually been heaped on the post holder there could clearly be no grounds such as those cited in the report?

We think that it is worrying that the present arrangement leaves a poisoned chalice lurking amongst the civic regalia to await what might be a drastically different council if the elections cause a shake-up.

Think of such a decision in the hands of a divisive bunch of untried Ukippers if you want to imagine a worst-case scenario.

We do not think that it is right to sweep this issue under the carpet and leave it there until after the elections, as it is not the sort of task for a newly appointed – and possibly newly-led and inexperienced council – to have to deal with after a mere two and a half months in office.

Any questions about what might arise at the end of Mr Harbord’s “final, final” contract need asking during the rump of this particular council – although we are certain that the less-than-magnificent-seven cabinet of curiosities would much prefer it to land in anyone else’s lap other than their own.

If there was an opposition in the Worst Street council chamber we would expect it to raise the issue.

But there isn’t, is there? 

*** 

Mention of our Chief Executive, and his incredibly generous pay packet, reminds us that by an unlucky piece of timing the filing of his two-person band company’s annual accounts for the year ending September last year occurred at about the same time as the strike by local government union members protesting at what Unite – the country’s largest union – described as “poverty pay” which would see the national minimum wage soon overtaking local government pay scales.

“Members are choosing between heating and eating.”

No such problems for the dynamic duo that apparently comprises MRF (UK), as the figures speak for themselves.

click on photo to enlarge it

 And isn't corporation tax so much better than that expensive old income tax that the rest of us pay?

***

And still the Quadrant simmers on …

After last week’s blog, we heard from Mike Borrill – a former Boston bypass pressure group campaigner, who told us: “I am not against the idea behind the Quadrant scheme, but the way it is being pushed forward without a full investigation into other sites.

“It is well understood that Boston United Football club will be without a ground unless action is taken quickly. Most people will also understand that investment in the town is badly required and the idea of the Quadrant could be a quick start. But, will it?

“Infrastructure: Although football matches will only take place once or twice a week there other activities at the site are proposed. The proposed house building of 500 will generate at least that amount of vehicles. Access to these places will be via the A16, London Road or from the A52 and onwards via Chain Bridge and West End Road. The latter is already heavily used both for access and “rat run” procedures.

“Doctors: Most practices in Boston are now overrun and to get a quick appointment with your doctor is nigh impossible. In view of this, any application on the scale envisaged should have a surgery incorporated into the scheme. If not, any planning application should be declined.

“Schools: Kirton primary school is having a new classroom built for every child's school year. Many new homes are planned for Kirton, and if those houses are occupied with several young children and then the proposed 500 houses at the Quadrant, where will the places be? Perhaps someone in office will explain how they will overcome this. It is not long ago that people of wisdom suggested closing one of our two high schools!

“Distributor road: The Boston Transport Study found that a bypass for Boston was not suitable but a distributor road was and any funding of this long awaited road should be from ‘developers contributions’ I was always mystified why the ASDA development was not subject to this, but here we have a large scale development planned and yet a sum of £4.75m is given to the developer. This should, of course, in a sensible and fair way be put towards this road and together with a developer contribution could go a long way towards the first part from the A16 to the A52. So why are we giving this amount of taxpayers’ money to a company when the overall grant to Lincolnshire gives money to Grantham for their bypass (when it was advertised that money would be from developers) and also to Skegness although this is shown as a part of a parcel.

“Questions need to be asked and we also need to know why money is being spent on meetings etc. if the deal has already been reached. But then ... this is Boston!”

  

***

And perhaps only in Boston could the focus on such a huge potential development be so narrowcast as to allow the local football club to dominate the agenda despite the fact that there are only 1,300 supporters at the club of which just 400 are season ticket holders.

Headline from the Boston Standard website screamed “No Quadrant means no Boston United!” Pilgrims chairman David Newton puts forward his case for ‘community asset.’”

We’ve encountered some interesting ways of putting one’s case over the years but this one reeks more of threat than persuasion.

The piece went on: “No Quadrant means no Boston United,  Newton told those gathered at a packed Pilgrim Lounge.

“We’re not just doing this for Boston United, we’re doing this for Boston United and the town of Boston.

“We think this is a fantastic development for the whole town.”

He added: “People are complaining about having a football stadium on their doorstep, but the reality is that the amount of time that football will be played there is in fact very rare.

“What you’ll have for 11 out of 12 months every year is nothing but a community asset which will also create jobs.”

We wonder whether Mr Newton has ever considered a career in PR, as we have never before thought of developers as the sort of people who do anything for others than themselves and their balance sheet.

Mr Newton said that the club lost £130,000 this year, but believed the additional income which would be generated by the proposed new site would help the Pilgrims back into the black.

And if it doesn’t work that way?

Remember the PPRSA and be afraid … be very afraid.

And again we ask … what are the plans for the site currently occupied by Boston United once the new stadium is nodded through, as we are sure that they are on some developer’s agenda.

  

***

  

Meanwhile, campaigners against the Quadrant proposals have attacked the choice of venue for the special planning meeting that will approve the plans.

Oops! Did we say that? What were we thinking?

An e-mail to borough Chief Executive Richard Harbord from Brian Rush – a former councillor and now a leading light in the protest group – criticises the choice of Haven High School as “a most unsuitable venue.”

“I am therefore putting this on record as an observation, which I believe is detrimental to democracy,” he writes

“The location, does not, in my opinion, address or take account of the age, condition, and transport availability for many of our local and most affected residents and families.

“The rule of Democracy should be equally available and accessible to all.

“The selection of the Haven High School cannot be thought to address those issues, nor the concerns of older or less mobile residents, to say nothing of the difficulty of location and distance from Wyberton.

“I understand that all of Boston may have an interest in this issue, but I am sure you will agree that the site of the development must no doubt be of most concern.

“Therefore with this in mind, I believe that the seat of local democracy, namely the Municipal Buildings, despite certain accessibility issues, is a proper and more acceptable location, despite your misgivings.”

In a further message, Mr Rush adds: “I respectfully request that both you, and the Leader of the Council, give these further observations your urgent attention.

"I, nor the group I represent, are pleased nor indeed convinced by the reasons, given by you, or your officers for this relocation.

“The strength of feeling regarding this ‘proposal’ may, I admit, be high, however, relocating members, and the public of Wyberton,  to what has to be a  much less familiar location does not, I suggest, serve the interests the democratic rights of those residents fairly.

“It is only fair that we inform you that, in light of your decision to relocate we reserve the right to seek professional guidance, on the propriety of such an action, should your response to this notification be thought unacceptable and/or unhelpful.

“In fact, I am not surprised, that some residents of Wyberton, appear to have already drawn a different opinion of the motives that might lie behind this ‘relocation.’

“I concede, it is difficult to disagree with other less trusting individuals, when they arrive at a different conclusion, some have even suggested that this seems an unfair, if not deliberately cynical attempt, to influence the outcome.

“In fact it has been mooted by some, that the selection of the venue is more to do with the residential accessibility for supporters, who are ‘town’ residents.  Thereby the outcome could be seen, by some, as a desire to create and accommodate larger and stronger support, in favour of the project proposal, rather than those who may, for their own very valid reasons not be in favour of it being given permission.

“You must surely also agree with me, that many of the potential attendees of Boston United are more likely to reside in Boston, and as a consequence, be better able to access Haven High School, much easier than for the people of Wyberton.

“So it must be accepted therefore, that this location provides less of an ‘accommodation’ for those who, will doubtless, stand to be most seriously affected by the proposal, should it go ahead.

“It also should be accepted, that were this proposal granted permission, it will, we believe, create serious access consequences for all residents not only in Wyberton, but also in Boston and the surrounding areas.

“I believe therefore, that the public interest is in fact better served by the meeting taking place in the Municipal Buildings, and would beg that your officers and staff be instructed to make, as best they can, extended facilities available.

“I look forward to your speedy and courteous response.”

***

Mr Rush also requested a response from Councillor Bedford, and received this eloquent e-mail – which we reproduce untrammelled by such tiresome things as the use of capital letters, punctuation, fluency or sense – by way of reply.

click on photo to enlarge it

It read: “Dear Brian our officers at Boston have looked at our own buildings and we do not have any rooms capable of seating up to Two Hundred Fifty people for a meeting such as this. Haven High has sound equipment and Video Screens etc required which will be required. The planning committee will judge this application with the facts put before them. Public Speakers etc will be allowed making the whole process transparent. On the issue of Supporters being mainly town centre based I think you are way of (sic) the mark as they travel in from all the surrounding area. Regards Peter”

We won’t comment on the style or absence of punctuation –  but one thing that the reply is clearly not is thoughtful and considered – although it plainly demonstrates that the leader’s diplomatic, political and literacy skills are all on a par!

  

***

Which moves us seamlessly to another glittering piece of indifference and disrespect from our leader.

Time and again we have mentioned his complete disregard for local media – and the voters who read it – by fobbing off the editors of the monthly magazine Simply Boston with some scrappy offering for their feature “Peter’s Notes” – in which the leader “discusses the important topics in and around Boston.”

The latest – like so many previous offerings – demonstrates his couldn't care less attitude to public relations.

The July issue’s notes maunder on at length about the Boston barrier – one of the many issues on which we have repeatedly been told that “Peter knows best” whenever anyone dares to criticise the scheme.

As with many previous columns … if the content seems familiar, that is because it is.

Much of the material is cobbled together from a piece which appeared on the borough council’s webpage almost seven weeks ago – aside from a mention of the new school in Fydell Crescent, about which we are told: “It will be good to see a modern new school complex rise from the rubble over the coming months.”

Would that be the same flat pack “entire twin-storey school that rose from the rubble” in one of Boston’s biggest and fastest builds amid much publicity in the local “newspapers” and which was heavily reported on the borough council website and in its Daily Drivel a month ago?

It surely would!

***

How time flies when you’re having fun!

We are reminded Boston Borough Council’s Daily Drone that today is “B-Day” – bloom day … when the judges from the Britain in Bloom dog-hanging descend on Boston to award points to specially selected and nurtured areas of town lucky enough to have been decorated to a decent standard.

We’d guessed that the visit must be imminent earlier in the week, when we noticed the sudden arrival of floral displays and hanging baskets – which could only mean one thing ... that Boston was being tarted up for someone other than the people who live here.

The judges will be shown garden improvements at the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre, and then taken to the top of Rowley Road to walk along John Adams Way into the rear garden entrance of Fydell House. Then it’s on to Beadsmans Lane down the side of the Guildhall to Custom House Quay, followed by a walk over the town bridge (which will include a chance to view the “freshly decorated” Assembly Rooms) through the Market Place to the knot garden (the low level hedge) in the grounds of the Stump. Then they will “take in” the Ingram Memorial  area before going down Petticoat Lane to Pescod Square and thence  Wide Bargate and Park Gate to look at the Memorial Gardens  before being whisked away to Boston West Academy via John Adams Way, Liquorpond Street and Sleaford Road – we do hope that the usual traffic chaos can be avoided for once.

The route visits in all the places where an effort has been made to make the town attractive – and is a little like a royal route, where extreme lengths are taken to avoid a regal visitor seeing anything of what real life is like.

We’ve said before that the main motive in entering Britain in Bloom appears to be to claim a medal of some sort that the powers that be seem to believe will bring about the transformation of Boston from a litter strewn wasteland into a Garden of Eden to which tourists will flock in their droves.

It would be interesting to know how much this pantomime has cost local tax payers.

And if by any chance you stumble across the judges on their tour of Boston in Wonderland, why not tell them how much nicer it would be if the whole place could be as attractive as their specially decorated route?

***

Back in the real world it seems that no matter how hard it tries, Boston Borough Council is almost incapable of hosting a decent event in the newly “improved” Market Place.

A poorly promoted but nonetheless “vibrant” and “special” vintage market on Sunday would, we were told “bring together stallholders selling vintage delights from clothing and accessories to homeware and collectibles.”

What we found when we arrived was a handful of stalls that took just minutes to browse, and which mostly comprised old clothing – some of it looking as though it has missed out on a  decent wash before going on sale … perhaps it was felt this this added to the ambience.

Truthfully, it was more of a pop-up Oxfam shop than anything else.

When the Market Place was refurbished, we were promised so much by way of extra markets, attractions and entertainment, and have yet been given so little.

It is all so disappointing 

***

The borough’s mention of the “freshly decorated” Assembly Rooms, tickled the funny bone of one reader, who got in touch to ask: “Does the author of the Boston Bulletin really intend the publication to be so funny.

“Let’s start with Monday's edition. The picture of councillors with ear defenders and blindfolds on made me think ‘that's two of the wise monkeys, where's the third.’ Then I remembered the last full council meeting I attended where there had been many candidates for the missing primate with the lack of contribution that many of our elected members make.

“We then progress to Wednesday’s Boston Bulletin and the visit by the judges for the Britain in Bloom competition.

“The bulletin reports: ‘They will walk to the town bridge, observe the new St Botolph’s footbridge, the White Hart garden and freshly decorated Assembly Rooms.’

“It is at this point I realise how seriously the writer had taken the experiment of wearing a blindfold … goodness me, he must be still wearing it over a week later, because he certainly has a different vision of the Assembly Rooms to that of the photograph I took on Wednesday after reading the daily funny page.

“I’m now off to scrutinise the councils spending schedules.

“Why, you ask?

“In the Monday bulletin, the Mayor of Boston was pictured wearing special glasses to replicate a condition that gives peripheral vision only.

“They must be expensive, and to have bought all of the councillors and officers a set  should be easy to spot – along with the standard issue ear defenders that they all seem to wear.”

  

***

 At long last, the totally pointless £2,500,000 money pit known as the Transported art project has unveiled its first lorry to be used as a “canvas” to exhibit art celebrating Lincolnshire's "unique landscape" and Boston and South Holland's "culture and people".

The vehicle one of ten that will carry ten designs around the UK and Europe will feature a field of tulips, and was officially launched at the Houses of Parliament yesterday.

Boston’s MP Mark Simmonds, who we are told by the BBC “has sponsored the project”, said: "Transported have done great work in my constituency amongst the local community, and I am pleased that both their work and talent from Lincolnshire will be showcased in Parliament."

For once we agree with Leader Bedford that Mr Simmonds needs to spend more time in the constituency.

***

Wedding days are days to remember – but we hope that one in Boston will not be looked back on for all the wrong reasons.

Saturday saw us strolling along Worst Street, past a line of cars parked as bride, groom and guests attended a ceremony in Boston Register Office where the council chamber is used to make them feel at home.

Also trawling the street, diligently writing registration numbers in his book was none other than a traffic warden.

Isn't that what they call shooting fish in a barrel?  

***

News that – yet again – a prisoner has absconded from North Sea Camp highlights the use of inmates to assist Boston Borough Council’s Operation Flyswat … which travels the borough removing rubbish that has been dumped in ditches and fields.

At least once before, concern has been expressed about inmates being allowed the use of council owned transport and also being unsupervised.

The last time this happened, assurances were given that it would not happen again.

But a reader who has sent us this photograph tells us that the people in the picture are from Frieston Shore and were not apparently under any supervision – not only that but their vehicle was parked illegally!

Our reader raised the issue with Boston Borough Council but no response has been forthcoming.

However, two years ago an almost identical episode occurred, and the response from the council then was unequivocal.

Deputy Chief Executive Phil Drury wrote to say: “The operatives should not have parked as they did and this has been brought to their attention as a result of your enquiry.  They have, as you would expect, apologised for their actions and provided reassurances that there will be no repeat."

So that’s all right then.

***

Finally, a number of readers have asked why the Assembly Rooms nightclub was suddenly and mysteriously closed earlier in the month.

We found the answer on a Spalding website which said that the problem was caused by an “administrative error” which left a number of premises owned by local entrepreneur Matt Clark unable to serve alcohol.

A statement by his Activ Group said: “Recently, when officers of the company became aware of a failure to complete application within a stipulated time permitted, steps were taken to regularise the position with the local authority. On receiving the applications, the local authority research confirmed that the deadline to make said application had expired, and thus they could not complete.”

More interestingly, we read that Mr Clark’s assurances followed “rampant” rumour that the company had gone out of business and the venues closed permanently –“further fuelled by the posting of a notice from The London Gazette which showed Activ Leisure in liquidation.

“But a statement issued on behalf of Activ Group said: ‘Activ Leisure, a former management company, having no freehold interest, nor employed staff, ceased trading some time ago.

“’More recently a decision was taken by the directors to formally close.”

“‘As a result the company was placed in voluntary liquidation.’”

  

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

Just as Boston Borough Council was cobbling together its cunning plan for the Great Quadrant Development Meeting, news came in which completely moved the goalposts – and made the idea of democratic decision based on the pros and cons of the scheme completely pointless.

On Monday, the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership trumpeted the announcement of a £40 million funding boost for Greater Lincolnshire – including almost £5 million for the Quadrant scheme.

The GLLEP said: “The Government’s Growth Deal, which the LEP and its partners have been negotiating for nine months, will give Greater Lincolnshire new resources and powers to build infrastructure, create jobs and train local people.

Six projects were listed to receive government cash for 2015-16 – with the Quadrant receiving the third largest sum.

They are:

• Grantham Southern Relief Road – £16 million

• Boston Quadrant – £4.75 million

• Boole Technology Centre, Lincoln – £3.38 million

• Unlocking Rural Housing – £4.13 million

• Bishop Burton College – £7.5 million

• Skegness Countryside Business Park (including western relief road) – £4 million

Ironically, we note that two of the projects involve relief roads – which if Boston didn't need one before, it certainly will when thousands of new residents move into Wyberton.

So what is the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership?

In its mission statement, it declares: “The LEP is a partnership, not a bureaucracy. We understand that our partners, individually and collectively, have primary roles to play in realising our vision. That means we work with them to support existing and upcoming projects – we are clear that the LEP should focus on where it can add value to the efforts of others.".

And what is the GLLEP’s connection with Boston?

As far as we can see – none at all aside from the borough council appearing on a list of “partners” alongside all the other district councils in the county and beyond.

The GLLEP board is chaired by Ursula Lidbetter, Chief Executive of the Lincolnshire Co-Op and her deputy is David Dexter, of Horncastle, a founder member of the Federation of Small Businesses.

Private sector board members represent Butlins in Skegness, Siemens and the Lindum Group in Lincoln, P C Tinsley of Holbeach Hurn, the University of Lincoln and the Employment Agency, whilst the public sector representatives are from Lincolnshire County Council, North and North East Lincolnshire councils, East Lindsey District Council and the NHS.

So, how do Boston’s interests – and in particular those of a local property developer get on to the GLLEP’s radar.

The most likely answer must be through Boston Borough Council –  although Chestnut Homes is described as the “lead applicant.”

And if the council is backing such a huge grant – we’re talking about £4.75 million towards a project costing £23.8 million – which is almost 20% of the total, then it surely isn’t going to turn the plans down, is it?

So why not cut to the chase, cancel the public planning committee meeting to save a few quid and rubber stamp the whole thing as a done deal?

Which is what will most likely happen in any case.

***

Even before the news of the GLLEP deal, the Quadrant Development rumbled on, with Boston Eye readers queuing to have their say.

One e-mail drew specific attention to the benefits to be had by the council if the scheme goes ahead, amid fears that Worst Street regards self-interest as a major benefit from housing schemes.

“Having spoken to a member of the council's cabinet last Friday regarding the Quadrant development, I pointed out that there were many more houses empty in the borough than were to be built in Q1 – so why was there a need for the 500 houses?” wrote our reader.

“Would it not be more beneficial to encourage the owners of these properties to make them available?

“The response I got was ‘why would the council want that?’ and ‘why would they not want the Quadrant development to go ahead?’

“‘If the Government targets are met for the provision of affordable housing, the council would receive loads of money in grants.’

click to enlarge photo

“I have to ask if councillors can really make an unbiased decision on the development with large amounts of cash available if they pass the application.

“Do they not have a conflict of interest?

“Then I did some research about the government’s New Homes Bonus Scheme, which basically details how things work. The word bribe springs to mind.

“Here are the website details.

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-number-of-available-homes/supporting-pages/new-homes-bonus

I also came across the schedule which details the cash available.

So having looked at this and heard the cabinet member’s comments it looks even more of a formality that the Quadrant Development will go ahead.

“What a great democracy we live in.”

***

Two further areas of comment from readers have offered even more food for thought.

In the first, a correspondent suggests that more could, should – and perhaps can still be done – to consider a different site for a new Boston United stadium that avoids concreting over half of Wyberton.

“During the Quadrant presentation some months back in Wyberton Parish Hall, a question was asked as to why this ‘new’ project was not integrated in some way on the land somewhere near the DABSI/ PRSA Arena.

“The managing director of Chestnut Homes stated that some of their people had looked at this location, but found the amount, or standard of available land was not thought to be adequate for the project.

“However, because of this answer, I have since had an informal and specific meeting with the company which owned, and indeed subsequently provided the land for the PRSA.

“They assured me that they had only  heard of an enquiry having been made some time ago, with someone from the football club, but that no real detail had ever been presented, or gone into, and since had heard nothing else.

“They also assured me that they had had no contact of any consequence with anyone, but had heard on the grapevine that a neighbouring farm might also have had some additional land, and it was thought the developer might have been interested in it at the time, and which may have been available to supplement any shortfall.

“So it seems that there may have been alternative options that the developer is either ignoring or has his own reasons for rejecting.

“Looking back, and given the level of past investment in the PRSA, such an offer, if progressed, could help the arena enormously – and in turn the people of Boston.

“With this in mind, am I wrong to suggest that, a directive ought to have been presented to the contractor at the outset of enquiry by our senior officers, in order to find a way to alleviate the expensive burden carried by the borough, and to encourage all similar sporting developments to be constructed in this one area.”

***

The PRSA suggestion also appears in another e-mail in which the little remarked departure of council leader Pete Bedford from his role on the Planning Committee raised the eyebrow of at least one of our readers – a Person Who Knows Whereof He/She Speaks – and who  tells Boston Eye:-

“One of the most challenging proposals ever presented to Boston Borough Council is about to test the values and integrity of our ‘local’ politicians.

“The recent, but sudden resignation of Councillor Peter Bedford from the Planning Committee, may, at some stage, give rise to some questions.

“One cannot help but wonder if he simply awoke one morning and decided it would not be fair for him to sit in judgement on this soon to be presented planning proposal – especially given its seriousness and size, and the possible impact this will no doubt have upon the parish and ward of Wyberton.

“Maybe he has reservations about the fairness of seeking to replant this once proud, semi-professional Boston United Football Club to some outlandish village called Wyberton!

“It would be an unusual and unselfish act, rarely seen in politics, were it to actually be the case.

“However none of the above is actually the case.

“Councillor Bedford has long been an attending supporter of Boston United.  He, along with other ‘staff’ members of Boston Borough Council have been well-known attenders and supporters of the Pilgrims.

“I am not suggesting there is anything wrong in that, providing everything is correctly and properly handled.

 “So, what steps are in place to re-assure the public of Boston that the actions of everyone involved in deciding the outcome of this proposal are both fair and unbiased?

 “I have never understood why it is the duty of expectation for elected members to declare any interest at the outset of a meeting, yet I am unsure if this same expectation is extended to officers of the council – especially those who are in responsible and/or advisory roles. It seems to me that such positions could easily be subject to undue influence from outside bodies.

“Finally, it is only fair on all councillors on this panel to –  for once –  have the freedom and anonymity of a secret ballot.

It is, I suggest, the duty of every serving councillor to earnestly consider the serious and likely impact on the residents of Wyberton, to ask themselves whether they would welcome this project in such close proximity to their own residence, or should they counter propose that there is in fact a more suitable and acceptable location for such a sporting development.

“Indeed a location that has, over many years, cost the public of Boston many, many, thousands, if not millions of pounds.

“This group of councillors could be the very first group, brave enough to make a non-political statement to the people of Boston, by rejection of the proposed location, and then seek to put forward a proposal to relocate to a more sensible and tailor-made location such as suggested above.

“I can assure members there is ample land and opportunity in that location despite what has been suggested.”

***

There was a certain sense of schadenfreude during the full council debate on the Quadrant planning application when a suggestion from Wyberton ward councillor  and Parish Council Chairman Richard Austin to allow the two main campaign groups a guaranteed chance to have their say was kicked into touch.

Councillor Austin’s novel proposal that “the council must be seen to be fair” was dismissed in favour of a free-for-all that will allow objectors and supporters each to have half an hour to state their case in bite-sized nuggets of three minutes each for the first ten people to register as an objector and three minutes each for the first ten people to register as a supporter.

If more people register to speak than there is allocated time for, the chairman – Worst Street trouper Councillor Mary Wright – has authority to extend the public speaking time, subject to any extra time being shared equally between objectors and supporters.

That’s all right then.

It rules out any possibility whatever of people claiming that they didn’t get a chance to have their say.

Doesn’t it?

And why the schadenfreude, we hear you ask?

Simply because we lost count during Councillor Austin’s reign as leader of Boston Borough Council of the number of times calls for his administration “to be seen to be fair” fell upon deaf ears.

***

Perhaps we’re being picky about definitions, but one thing about the Quadrant proposals that seems to have escaped most people is how little is actually known about the overall scheme.

A quadrant is one quarter of a circle – which suggests that there will be four phases of planning and building.

Q1 is being sold largely on the creation of a new home for Boston United – and the stick behind the carrot is the threat that without it the club has no future. Many of the people in favour of this choose to overlook the fact that it will swamp Wyberton with another 500 houses.

Q2 is said to include development of a further 200 acres which will be likely to include “a(nother) marina, housing; open spaces; retail and leisure units; community facilities, and employment land.”

But – “the timings depend on sales and progress on Q1, and also the time-scales for the conclusion of the local plan process,” so you can make of it what you will.

And what about Q3 and Q4 – assuming they ever come to anything at all.

As our French friends would say … pas d’un oiseau.*

Ought a glimpse of the overall picture – however vague – be worth asking for?

***

  

We were somewhat bemused to hear that Boston Borough Council  is being encouraged by MP Mark Simmonds to adopt  powers to restrict where off  licences can open.

The  call came after  Mr Simmonds and  Lincolnshire’s police and crime commissioner Alan Hardwick  met Home Office crime minister Norman Baker to talk about Boston’s anti-social behaviour problems.

Mr Baker reportedly told them that action could be taken to restrict the number of licensed premises in a designated area, using something called  a Cumulative Impact Policy, which can not only block more licensed premises but can also designate areas as alcohol free –  which could bring in the street drinking ban which many local people would like.

Mr Hardwick offered the backing of officers to enforce new rules – which gave us the best laugh we’d had on that particular day.

In that strange way he apparently has of speaking, we read that Mr Simmonds said: “I am pleased with the outcome of this meeting. The minister was clear that action can be taken to tackle anti-social behaviour in our town and stated that laws already exist to protect communities from this type of behaviour and offered to arrange a meeting between Boston Borough Council representatives and the Home Office team so that they could properly understand the measures they can implement.”

Complaints that there are too many off licences in Boston, and that nothing is being done to stop even more of them opening have been on-going for years, and the excuse has always been that  without strong and valid objections, nothing can be done to prevent what is simply open competition between traders.

Now that is appears not to be the case, everyone is jumping up and down with glee and anticipating an end to all of our problems.

But there’s just one question.

The Home Office tells us: “Cumulative Impact Policies were introduced as a tool for licensing authorities to limit the growth of licensed premises in a problem area. This is set out in the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.”

Many local authorities have been using them for years to reduce the problems of street drinking – Doncaster, for instance first adopted a Cumulative Impact Policy in January 2008.

It would appear that we have been misled for many years, and told that nothing could be done when the reverse is the case.

Had our licensing committee members been better informed and more on the ball, a lot of what are now serious problems for Boston could have been nipped in the bud – as could another problem highlighted in our next story …

***

Beneath the unappetising headline “No pee, no poo, no go,” Boston Borough Council alerted us to the news that “a lane off one of Boston’s most historic streets is being used as a test bed for areas requiring drastic action to combat anti-social behaviour.”

Apparently all attempts so far (whatever they might have been) to persuade people not to use Archers Lane, off Wormgate, as an open-air toilet have failed.

“Now one end of the lane, nicknamed “poo corner” (and we thought that they were taking it seriously!)  has been temporarily fenced off, physically preventing access …

“The ‘gated’ lane will test the effectiveness of denying access. Gating orders are not normally issued,” trumpets the council

The latter sentence is a complete understatement.

The council’s B-TACky committee considered the suggestion of a gating order to deal with problems in Punchbowl Lane a couple of years or so ago.

A report at the time said: “Research undertaken by Lincolnshire County Council’s Countryside Access Manager showed that gating orders were principally driven by the police and/or Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) teams and used as a last resort to address crime and anti-social behaviour.  The impact on a right of way’s legitimate users and the alternative routes they would need to use, together with a lack of formally reported incidents, were the primary reasons gating orders were not pursued. 

“Research also showed that liaison would be needed with neighbours to take security measures and a gating order would be funded by those immediately affected ...  In addition, the legislation required evidence that other solutions to reduce identified problems had been considered.”

Whilst the problem is doubtless an unpleasant one, we are not sure that a back of the fag packet solution is the answer.

The thin end of this particular wedge was hammered in some time ago.

Where people congregated on neighbourhood community benches – whether or not they caused trouble – the council ripped them up.

Where homeless people camped out in bushes the council hacked them down.

When shrubbery in the park was used as an open air toilet the council dug it out.

The outcome was to turn areas of the town which were formerly pleasant to view and which added to the town’s amenity value into unwelcoming wastelands.

Now the idea is to make some parts of Boston a no-go area – without any real authority.

What next?

Local checkpoint controls and body searches to flush out the town’s toilet terrorists?

***

Mention of B-TACky reminds us that something approaching democracy and transparency seems to have slipped past the committee.

Last week we remarked on how a promised public meeting on the future of Garfit’s Park had somehow morphed into the doling out of an easy to manipulate questionnaire and a “drop-in” meeting for locals to share their opinions with a couple of committee members.

In the spirit of Winston Churchill’s famous claim that history is written by the victors all members of B-TACky have now been e-mailed to “assist” their considerations for future options for the recreation area.

They have been told that “a survey and drop in session have been arranged to support a future public meeting with the community and BTAC members” and that “it is hoped that the consultation survey responses will be helpful to BTAC members in preparation for the future public meeting to discuss future management options for the site.”

The drop in session will be held at St Thomas’ Church Hall this coming Wednesday 16^th July from 3pm to 7pm.

***

Boston Borough Council set a dangerous precedent earlier this week with the publication of a Meteorological Office and Environment Agency weather warning on its website.

A "yellow warning" for the possibility of heavy rain on Tuesday talked of the chance of localised instances of minor surface water flooding.

As this warning was clearly spotted on a weekday and during working hours, someone must have felt that it was worth a few brownie points to dump on to the borough’s website.

The problem here is if it creates a sense of expectation among readers, who may well turn to the borough for this type of information in the future – but will not find it if the warning is issued after 5pm or at weekends.

Best leave this sort of thing to the experts – although having said that the prediction followed the usual pattern where the Met Office in concerned, and the rain failed to materialise.

Which made the warning sound like the council crying wolf.

***

It seems that Boston Borough Council is perfectly happy burying its head in the sand where industrial relations are concerned.

Yesterday saw a major strike by several local government unions.

In Lincolnshire, it was the lead story on the BBC’s local news pages, and also topped the national news agenda for the BBC and Sky.

A number of district council websites warned about the possibility of disruption to services, as did Lincolnshire County Council.

But in Boston … nothing, nada, zilch, bupkis, diddly squat.

Of course, Boston is the borough council whose staff famously “voted with their hearts and their minds” to accept a rubbish terms and conditions deal which – had they rejected it – would have seen them sacked en masse.

Doubtless no one went on strike either.

And we are sure that those who did donated a day’s pay to the borough's war memorial obelisk fund!

  

***

Not surprisingly, the match between Lincolnshire County Council’s Highways Department and Boston drivers using John Adams Way and Main Ridge went into extra time, having been due for completion at the end of last week.

We say it was not surprising because of the days spent apparently without any sign of activity, and on the occasions when work was seen to be done it was often of the “one man digs a hole whilst four others look on” variety.

At least the work maintains the tradition of other areas of Boston which says that any newly-laid surfaces must accumulate plenty of water each time it rains.

Incidentally, the floristry adorning the picture is nothing to do with Boston in Bloom.

You are simply seeing how weeds crowd the street everywhere except in the town centre.

***

After that, it came as no real shock that a reading of the thrillingly named State of the County Roads – a report by Lincolnshire County Council confirmed our worst fears.

The percentage of the unclassified road network that reached an acceptable standard was just 68% in the south and east of the county – which includes our bit – compared with 74% for the north (the Lincoln bit) and 72% for the west … broadly the Grantham area.

And the report also said that just 34% of the unclassified road network was at an “acceptable standard.”

As far as potholes are concerned, permanent repairs were made to 9,229 potholes during April – 4,361 in the east, 2,614 in the north, 1,422 in the west and 832 in the south.

Boston provided rich pickings for the county traffic wardens in January.

There were 1,198 tickets issued in Lincoln, 598 in East Lindsey, 419 in Boston, 264 South Kesteven,  238 in South Holland, 150 in North Kesteven and  just 72 in West Lindsey.

If so many people were ticketed in Boston, why is it a) that we seldom see anyone out and about doing the job, and b) why are people still parking wherever they like regardless?

It seems that the only effect of civil parking enforcement – for Boston at any rate – is to provide shed-loads of cash for county hall whilst doing nothing to ease parking problems in the town

Two other interesting snippets that explain things quite well are also in the report ...

Only one in three road works in Lincolnshire are commissioned by the council ...

And  84% of the county’s highways contractors have performed to “a high standard” – which means that 16% haven’t.

***

click to enlarge photo

We always like it when people nail their colours – in this case blue – to the mast … but not when it serves to underline the poor deal that Boston gets from the Lincolnshire County Council Highwaymen.

Councillor Richard Davies, the council’s portfolio holder for highways – the one who came dressed as Bob the Builder for the opening of the new St Botolph’s Bridge – alerted internet users to the report on his Facebook page.

Whilst it’s one thing to encourage his followers to “Get the facts about the state of Lincolnshire’s roads …” we think that it is something else entirely to add the exhortation “make Grantham a better place to live, work and raise a family. www.votedavies.co.uk.”.”

***

* Not a dicky bird

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com