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.
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 5th 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.
 | |
|
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
No comments:
Post a Comment