Monday, 26 March 2018
Monday, 19 March 2018
Now that all the bluffing and waffling has been turned into
numbers it’s at last possible to find out how much council tax we’ll be paying
in the year ahead.
Until the final figures are known the tendency is to tell
voters that their contribution will only be x-pence
a week – and pitching the number as low as possible.
And in Boston – as with all other councils – for some
complicated reason the proposed increase is always given as that for a Band D
property … whilst most Boston taxpayers are in Band A.
Tax rates vary between the parishes and the Boston special
expense area – aka BTAC-ky – where a Band A property will pay £1,136.33 for the
year ahead.
That’s an increase of £52 – or 4.5% – compared with an
inflation rate of 2.7% in January.
***
We already know that we will get little or nothing for the
extra money – Worst Street has pared its responsibilities to the bone and will
soon be looking at the idea of hiving off its leisure and cultural services
(along with at least 70 jobs) to a charitable trust.
But at least BTAC-ky residents have got off a little more
lightly this time after the two previous years which saw hikes of 182.5% and
94.6%.
Around the county, Boston Borough Council’s tax rate is the third highest of the seven districts –
coming after Lincoln in top place with West Lindsey second.
Quite why it needs all this is something of a mystery, since
it has adopted the policy of charging more doing for less for quite some time
now.
And despite the fact that the least most of us can hope for
is another £1 a week overall, Worst Street still loves to demand money with
menaces …
***
Accompanying the council tax bill is a leaflet produced by Boston Big Local – which is of course
not supposed to spend money on tasks which are the job of the council – that
fairly bristles with threats in the name of Worst Street’s waste and environmental
crime departments.
At the cheap end of the penalty scale we’re warned that
dropping a fag end will mean a fine of £75, moving up to £100 for not tidying
up after your dog, £300 if someone you pay to cart rubbish away dumps it
instead, and at the top of the list £400 for fly tipping.
All of these are, of course, anti-social acts whose
perpetrators deserve a penalty. But the warnings are insensitive to say the least when they accompany a demand for hundreds of pounds for a decreasing level
of “service.”
***
This is, of course, the Worst Street way of doing things –
what we have previously called the iron fist in the iron glove approach.
The building in question is the middle of the small row in
this photo from Google street view.
Cases such as these crop up from time to time and have a
language all their own.
We were told that the UPVC windows were “an unsympathetic
alteration” and that traditional timber-framed windows were required “in
keeping with the special historic and architectural character of the listed
building.”
The building was listed in 1975 and is one in a terrace of the
shops. It was built in the mid-18th century with alterations in the
19th and 20th.
Yes, we know that alterations were made without permission
sand that the building is listed.
But can anyone point out its special historic and
architectural character to us, please? The windows of the shops on either side
are indistinguishable from plastic – and one has been filled in.
If the look of the buildings is so important, then why have
the powers that be not addressed the issue of the signage on them – which could
scarcely be said to be “in keeping” with much at all.
This is a building that is beyond the pale as far as we are
concerned – but that won’t get in the way of Worst Street when it comes to
being big, bold and brave instead of commonsensical
***
Ironically, we hear that at the same time that Worst Street
was getting heavy with one of its taxpayers, it was also treating a councillor
similarly.
A little bird tells us that an important councillor – well,
a member of the cabinet, anyway – was incandescent with rage recently over an
episode on the Worst Street car park.
This particular councillor has, we were told, long been an
advocate of allocated parking places at the rear of the council offices for the senior officers and leader of the
council – and recently spaces were allocated
to these various lofty holders of office.
Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago when some interloper had
the temerity to park in one of these places without holding the required senior
office.
The order went out to send for a Civil Enforcement Officer (traffic
warden to the uninitiated) and a penalty charge notice (ticket) was issued and slapped on the vehicle.
Ironically, we are told that is then emerged that the owner of the car was
none other than the campaigner for the issuing of exclusive parking rights to those on high – who had nipped into
town for a bit of shopping, so could not even claim to be on council business
at the time ...
***
It’s five weeks ago today that an extraordinary council demanded
the resignation of the mayor Councillor Brian Rush following a kangaroo court
that had made its mind up before the meeting even started.
Last week a story appeared yet again with copies of the
various undated Facebook entries that
prompted this demand – and again reminding us that they were “revealed” by
Boston Borough Council leader Michael Cooper.
The previous time it appeared was a fortnight before on 26th
February – which itself was a fortnight on from the original meeting date.
Surely, it’s now time to consider the case closed on this unfortunate
business – which has done more to damage the image of Boston Borough Council
than anything else.
***
The publication of KPMG’s external Audit Plan for Boston
Borough Council features what the powers that be probably assume features an
impressive cover which is presumably intended to be interpreted in all manner of inspiring ways
Our interpretation was that some wag with a slightly
perverse sense of humour was trying to imply that the bottom line at Worst Street was that you
can’t see the woods for the trees!
***
Even though it’s getting a little late in the day, next week’s
meeting of BTAC-ky is expected to discuss how to move forward on the success of
last year’s Christmas lights display.
The item has been postponed twice already – and next week’s
meeting could well prove interesting.
We expect that a long running internecine war between
members of the original ‘civilian’ group that delivered last year’s lights to
come to a head.
In a nutshell, a row broke out after some members of the
group felt that they should share the money left over from the project –
something that others said was contrary to the group’s constitution.
The wannas then
effectively declared themselves a separate group which voted to expel all
the people who didn’t agree with them.
Since then matters have advanced apace.
A letter from local businessman Darron Abbott who was – and
considers that he still is – the Christmas in Boston group’s treasurer has been
sent to Boston Chief Executive Phil Drury, summarising events.
Updating matters, he claims the group’s bank was persuaded
to remove him as a signatory, and that Boston Borough Council has since paid an
amount equal to the surplus repaid to BTAC-ky under the heading of a “loan” to
one of the newly-created committee members.
How on earth next week’s BTAC-ky meeting will tiptoe through
this minefield is anyone’s guess as we have been told that no decision has yet
been on who is to be tasked with the job of lighting the town this year – even
though monies appear to have been paid to a new group that has been created
without any discussion with or authorisation from BTAC.
***
Meanwhile, as the Santa Claws are flexed by the ghost of
Christmas Farce, we understand that all this to-ing and fro-ing has meant a
tough time for the BTAC committee chairman Councillor Nigel Welton – who is
also the portfolio holder for Boston town centre.
We understand that he has been subject to a barrage of
bullying, harassment and threats but has taken this as part of the ‘rough and
tumble’ of politics.
We think that bullying and threats go far beyond what might
be defined as rough and tumble – and that Boston Borough Council in recent
months has descended to the lowest level that we have seen since we started
writing about it all those years ago.
***
It looks as if poor old Boston has been left in the cold
once again – and that it has nothing to do with the weather either
Beneath the headline Lincolnshire
will receive a slice of £1 million to enhance its tourism offer to European
visitors a recent news report told us that following a bid for funding, the East of England Touring Route project – which
includes Lincolnshire – has received £1 million from Discover England.
The new East of England Touring Route is a 300-mile journey
that spans the length of Eastern England from London to Northumberland.
And where will it take us?
“In Lincolnshire it will encourage overseas tourists to
visit Lincoln Castle and Cathedral, Doddington Hall, Stokes Coffee at The Lawn,
International Bomber Command Centre, take part in the Mayflower Trail and visit
Gainsborough Old Hall, as well as other attractions and accommodation close to
the A1 road in Sleaford and Stamford.”
The bid to the government’s Discover England Fund was supported
by the Visit Lincoln group.
What, we wonder, were members of the Visit Boston UK doing while all this was going on?
Boston Borough Council has more than its fair share of
well-paid officers who are supposed to be across this sort of thing – but yet again,
we a left out.
***
And when we do get a bit of wide-scale publicity, things
seem to backfire.
A recent item in the Sunday
Times – titled 50 cool cottages –
included The Flour Mill …a one
bedroom holiday spot to rent in the Maud Foster.
It was described thus …
The canal?
What on earth are they talking about?
If you have a long memory, you’ll recall that it was two years ago this month since the Sunday Times last featured the Flour
Mill – when it said …
At least Boston is no longer referred to as small.
Whilst it’s tempting to regard the Times pieces as
inaccurate and lazy, the true culprit is the holiday website whose descriptions of the area should also be taken with a pinch of salt!
***
Finally, we bid farewell to Sir Richard Body, who has died
aged 90, and who represented us in parliament as MP for Holland with Boston
from 1966 to 1997, and then for Boston and Skegness from 1997 until he stood
down in 2001 – bequeathing us Mark Simmonds as his successor … although we were
told that he had serious misgivings about
this choice.
Sir Richard was a great character who knew and spoke his
mind and wouldn’t kow-tow to the Conservatives’ every whim despite being a dyed
in the wool Tory.
Would that we had more MPs of his character in parliament
today rather than the Walter-type softies to whom he then played Dicky the
Menace.
We well remember a day back in the early 1980s when a
colleague at Radio Lincolnshire thought that he had cleverly cornered Sir
Richard into admitting that he wrote the controversial farming column Muckspreader in the satirical magazine Private Eye.
Sir Richard’s response was to tell our hack that he was banning
the radio station from talking to him for six months.
When the news editor called him to try to persuade Sir
Richard that this would be a bad move in PR terms, the MP doubled the penalty –
and stuck to it!
You would expect nothing less from a descendant of the great
agricultural reformer, Jethro Tull. Another ancestor was a 17th-century MP who was
hanged for rebellion.
Sadly, poor old Sir Richard will more likely remember by an
insulting quote from Sir John Major who said: “Every time I hear the name Body,
I hear the sound of white coats flapping.”
Sir Richard, of course was famed as a loyal; supporter of
Margaret Thatcher.
***
Footnote:
Easter falls a little early and a little awkwardly this year
– so we will be taking a two-week break and will return on 9th April
– unless something important happens.
Don’t forget you can e-mail or Tweet us at any time with information,
a questions or anything else for that matter.
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com
E– mails will be treated in confidence
and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at:
http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com
We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston
Monday, 12 March 2018
Before we collapse into a heap of gibbering ecstasy at the
news of a “shopping village” for Boston, let us remember that there have been
many planning slips ‘twixt cup and lip over the years in the town.
It’s one thing to seek to turn a chunk of derelict land into
a glittering shoppers’ paradise – but between the wish and the ribbon-cutting
ceremony lies a road littered with potholes and possible setbacks.
***
The application in question is for the demolition of
properties in Strait Bargate and Wide Bargate with the NCP Red Lion Street car
park being built over to create what we would term a ‘precinct’ rather than a ‘village’ –
comprising 14 shops, two restaurants and 15 flats.
When recently advertised, the asking price for the lot was £3,250,000
plus VAT.
For lovers of jargon, a statement by the development company
behind the application – Texas Group PLC, which is based in Eccles, Manchester
– says: “The scheme is intended to provide a mix of buildings, spaces and uses
which fills an existing void in the urban fabric of Boston and opens up
pedestrian links through this space to fragmented areas of the town.
“The design will provide high quality, contemporary
buildings which respond and complement the existing conservation area and
surrounding historic buildings without resorting to pastiche.”
***
On the company website, we are told: “As a family owned
business we are able to take long term strategic decisions for the greater good of our
family members and our family of customers. This is because we value the
service we provide to our tenants, with many of them looking to build and grow
their businesses with our ready and willing support within the many buildings
we have in our portfolio ...”
“… our head office in Eccles
… supports, monitors and manages the group's diverse property portfolio,
extending the same degree of attention and value to the person with one desk on
a monthly requirement through to those clients who seek larger premises with
the security of holding a long-term lease.
“No customer has the same needs, our longstanding experience
in the market tells us that, but we aim to please.”
“ … The group prides itself on acquiring stagnating assets,
which using flair and imagination are refurbished and restructured to provide modern
day working environments.”
It all sounds a bit like a Waterfall Plaza II.
***
All of this took our mind back almost a decade, when Worst
Street was whooping and leaping about Merchants
Quay – the position of the apostrophe along with the rest of it, was never finalised
– an £80 million plan intended to revitalise a 12-acre area, stretching from
West Street to Lincoln Lane and
including a 60,000 sq. ft. department store, a food store, eight major space units, 17 other units of
various sizes, a new ‘riverside restaurant quarter,’ a 700 space gold standard car park, more than 100
new city-style apartments, an hotel and a new iconic pedestrian bridge to the town centre.
***
Sadly the idea came at the wrong time as the economy hit
problems and the shop which was to provide the ‘anchor’ for the development –
Debenhams – pulled out.
Soon afterwards the developer – Modus – went out of business, and remnants of its plans were taken
on by another company but Boston was again left out in the cold.
But we still remember the words of the mayor of the day Councillor
Peter Jordan, who was also the deputy leader of the Boston Bypass Independent –
when he famously described Modus as “a wonderful company. They are the sort of
straight dealers I want to be in bed with.”
***
The current application is not the first for this site –
there have been at least two others going back as far as 1988.
In each case it would appear that objections were made by
the borough’s planners and endorsed by the planning committee, as both
applications were withdrawn – in one case five years after it was submitted.
Another was withdrawn at the appeal stage – which suggests
that the would-be developers felt that Worst Street was being a bit heavy-handed
in its refusal of permission to build.
Heavy handed?
Worst Street?
Perish the thought.
***
Nonetheless, Boston Borough council does have something of a
history when it comes to fannying around with applications whose basic
intention is to make the town a more attractive place.
The was the almost comic messing about with the application
for the ASDA store off Sleaford Road, which appeared to be delayed forever
because a monkey puzzle tree was in the garden of a listed building that needed
to be demolished for the traffic plan.
Then there was all the to-ing and fro-ing over the original
application to build a Lidl store in Tawney Street that would have seen the
demolition of the former Bedworld eyesore.
Despite the appalling state of the site and its
surroundings, bizarrely it was located in a conservation area, which prompted planners
to suggest that the height of the building should be lowered by a few inches so
as not to spoil the view of Boston Stump.
And there was the famous quote by Conservative Independent
Councillor Alison Austin, who appeared to object to the social class of the application
(which is nothing to do with planning decisions) when she declared “Boston
deserves better.”
Whilst permission was grudgingly granted, Lidl thought long
and hard before finding an out of town site to build on – leaving the Tawney
Street eyesore in an even more shabby condition.
***
Whilst fourteen new shops for the town are to be welcomed,
we have to wonder what sort of shops they might be.
Let’s not forget that over time we have lost high street
names such as the Edinburgh Woollen Mill Shop, McKay’s, Milletts, Thornton’s,
Jessops, QD – so it seems unlikely that
they will be planning a comeback …whilst our only in-town supermarket on the
Boston Shopping Park morphed from Asda to Netto to Morrisons, before becoming a
second Iceland store.
***
The council's Economic Development Officer, Clive Gibbon,
has already made comment on the plans according to a local report.
“The council’s economic plan clearly sets out a vision ‘to
create a strong, successful and resilient economy that works for all by positioning
the borough as a destination of choice for investing, working, living and
visiting.’
“Our plan clearly supports this level of investment and the employment
growth leveraged through the application and if successful will have important
benefits not just for the town of Boston, but shared more widely across the
whole local economy.”
***
We echo those sentiments, as at long last Boston could be in
line for something by way of improvement – but not without a careful balancing act.
This is the time to turn our back on all the past messing
around that has left the town with such a poor shopping offer.
We should decide here and now that we do not need any more
vaping shops, or charity shops or mobile phone shops or coffee shops.
This is a chance to take back the town and begin to shape it
to our liking, and there is ample time to try to find out how to use the
planning laws in our favour to do so.
We must unravel the mind-set in the planning office which
always approves applications “with conditions” – and we must get the members of
the planning committee to work for the good of the town … not nit-pick or turn
their noses up at something they deem
infra dig.
***
Our piece last week about a bypass for the town did not go
unnoticed.
Former Independent Boston Borough Councillor Richard Leggott
e-mailed to say: “It’s nice to hear that representation on the
possibility of a bypass/distributor road is continuing.
“I say continuing
as that is all it is.
“A further round in talks with Lincolnshire County
Council that have been taking place since, if my failing memory serves me
correctly this time, 1999-2000.
“The Boston team at these BBC/LCC talks was led by
Joyce Dobson, and included several other councillors.
“At the time, we felt that progress – in the shape
of a route/discussion/rejection/
agreement/variation was a good start.
“Of course
there was always the thorny problem of finance through regional (does anyone
recall or grieve at the passing of the Regional Assemblies?)/LCC channels to be
dealt with.
“I can remember one alternative route put forward
was to use London Road, put a spur/bridge off it over the Haven, and take that
through the dock with an exit from the dock area to join up with A52 east of
Boston.
“I do recall that this suggestion was not supported
very strongly at county by our local county councillors at the time.
“Whether this was the sole cause of its failure I do
not know.
“Various other routes were also researched.
“Part of the solution to acquiring any necessary
finance was to put the right label on the project that would attract EU funds
also.
“Thus when the scheme finally broke into public view
it carried the Enterprise Corridor tag
– Enterprise being the EU flavour of the time.
“The noticeable and to some, unacceptable, omission
of the word bypass in any title led
to the formation of that great Boston disaster – no, not the Tea Party – the
Bypass Party.
***
The pressure group 38degrees is promoting a campaign to provide accommodation for the homeless in Lincolnshire.
A spokesman for Boston Borough Council said they accommodated ten homeless people overnight on February 28th – the worst night of the big freeze – and added: "No rough sleeper was refused accommodation.
Without question, no-one should have to sleep rough – especially during appalling conditions such as those we saw recently
But we have noticed a recent arrival of people whose genuineness we would query.
On one recent market day, we noticed no fewer than five sleeping bags and their occupants on the streets in waking and working hours at the same time – on the Town Bridge, outside KFC, outside Marks and Spencer, outside Oldrids and outside McColls.
Each was well bundled up with a metal begging bowl in front of them and in some cases sound asleep.
Were they homeless or not?
At one time we saw two occupants of one site swap places – perhaps to keep fresh faces in the system.
On another occasion – a Sunday morning – we saw a group of about half a dozen walking into town each armed with the necessary sleeping materials and on other occasions have seen what looks like a management meeting outside McColls as the shops are opening on a Sunday morning.
By an interesting co-incidence two towns have been in the news recently because they are taking action against people they believe are professional beggars rather than genuinely homeless.
Police in Ely – one of England’s smallest cities have urged people not to give beggars their money, insisting none of them are genuinely homeless.
Officers said those who claimed to be sleeping rough were actually fraudsters who were making “substantial amounts of money.”
They warned that kind hearted and well-meaning people were in danger of being misled and said if they wanted to offer beggars something it should be food or a hot drink, rather than cash.
Meanwhile a campaign has been launched in Torquay to deter street sleepers accused of being “fake homeless.”
Something like this will always be contentious – but unless we take the appropriate steps there is a serious risk that Boston will draw more and more people who are not homeless but after easy money to our streets and doorways.
In pursuit of the Worst Street motto Quoque Paulo Nimium Sero (too little, too late) we note the
triumphal retweeting of a message
from the organisation Love Your Local
Market thanking the council for signing up.
This event will be staged between 17th and 31st
May and has been running for the last six years.
We think this is the first time that Worst Street has got
involved – despite our previous suggestions that it should … the first time
being five years ago.
Kick a dinosaur in the tail and it will roar 20 minutes later
– Worst Street is no different.
***
Finally – round about this time of year Boston Eye notches up its anniversary.
As far as we can recall the end of February/beginning of
March saw the completion of 12 years’ blogging.
What will lucky thirteen have in store, we wonder?
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com
E– mails will be treated in
confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at:
http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com
We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston
Monday, 5 March 2018
The rubber stampers have bitten back at long last!
Our main story last week was about yet another attempt by
Worst Street to hive off services to a third party – in this case leisure,
culture and community services, including the Moulder Leisure Centre.
In the normal run of things the recommendation to start the
ball rolling would have been nodded through by our supine councillors.
But the item – the final one of a meagre three on the agenda
– by all accounts caused something of a hullabaloo before being abruptly
withdrawn.
We’re told that not only was the portfolio holder Councillor
Claire Rylott absent from the meeting, but that other councillors spoke out
against the item on the grounds that the 1,800 word report was not thoroughly
thought through and had come as something of a surprise.
Why they waited until this point in the meeting to raise
their concerns is anyone’s guess – but we suspect that standard operating
procedure among many councillors is to chuck agenda papers in their in-trays
and wait until the night of a meeting before leafing through the contents.
During the debate members commented that consideration by an
overview and scrutiny would be an appropriate first step in such a process.
***
We can’t help but agree.
As we said last week there are more implications than saving
money to farming out the Moulder Leisure Centre, along with responsibility for heritage, the
Guildhall, tourism, sports and play, events (including BTAC which has only just
taken on new responsibilities), the May Fair – and community support projects
including “controlling migration”
Almost as an aside, the report noted “The council is aware a
proposal will have implications for its staff.
“Staff and staff side representatives will be fully briefed
and consulted on an on-going basis as the proposal develops and be a key
stakeholder in the shaping of a final proposal which is in the best interests
of the Borough Council and its residents.”
This echoes the council standard approach to consultation –
i.e. ask … then do exactly as you intended all along, only this time, more than
70 jobs are involved.
***
One reader who knows about this sort of thing got in touch
after the report to say:
“I was interested to see Boston Borough Council have decided
to go with Magna Vitae which means
the residents of East Lindsey will keep any profit or pay for any loss – I don’t
suppose they were consulted on that!
“I wonder why they have decided to negotiate a deal rather
than a more formal (costs but open and transparent) tender.
“At the moment councils are getting really good deals
financially when they do this and with the country’s biggest provider, Greenwich Leisure, already running
libraries and taking over leisure in North Kesteven in April they would have
had a good chance of a low bid – and Greenwich Leisure are not 1Life (which operates the PRSA,) they
have a good track record.
“More to the point, as has occurred at many other
authorities, the real saving is in merging the officers of East Lindsey and
Boston Borough Council (I’m strangely not aware of members ever doing this,) so
only one Chief Executive for a start would save £100,000.
“Also the positive is with a larger (than individually but
smaller than the current combined if that makes sense) officer core you can
afford a decent structure. The shortage of planners nationally means to get a
well-qualified head planner costs but shared across two authorities is a
reasonable price.
“It seems like a half-grasped nettle, one that Peter Bedford
would not allow to be touched but now only half way.”
***
In most acrimonious debates there comes a time when the
participants decide to call it a day and that common-sense decrees it’s best to
bury the hatchet.
And in the case of the social media charges against Boston
Mayor Councillor Brian Rush, as least one person seems determined to just that
– just so long as the hatchet was firmly
buried between the Mayor’s shoulder
blades.
A lengthy report on the local news website Lincolnshire Reporter last week lumped together entry after entry purportedly
from Councillor Rush’s Facebook page
– even going so far as to offer interpretation of the entries concerned.
Lincolnshire Reporter
is a reputable news source which has been published since 2016 and is a sister title
to The Lincolnite and Lincolnshire Business – and certainly no
Flash Harry of local news sites.
But having said, that it underwent a frothing-at-the-mouth moment
when gifted a shedload of the Mayor’s alleged iniquities on a plate.
***
Beneath a picture which we hope was not deliberately chosen to show the Mayor in
the-not-very-best-possible-light, we were told that: “Controversial comments
made by the Mayor of Boston about his political colleagues and Muslims entering
the UK can now be revealed.”
The “now” in question was late afternoon last Monday – just a few hours ahead of
the full council meeting that evening … and a good time for anyone who wants to
disinter bad news with a virtual wooden spoon.
***
But what really struck a bum note with us was the disclosure
that: “Lincolnshire Reporter received paper copies of the comments made by the Mayor Brian Rush from
Boston Borough Council leader Michael Cooper, and scanned them for use
online.
***
Councillor Cooper was the man who proposed the move demand
that the Mayor resigned – and ended up with egg on his face because even though
councillors backed his call … underpinned by a threat to withdraw
administrative support if he refused – the reality was that nothing would
actually change, after Councillor Rush refused to quit.
But Councillor Cooper – whose other claim to fame is to run
a bubble car museum in Langrick – was apparently not keen to let matters rest …
hence his contribution to the Lincolnshire
Reporter.
***
The website reproduced reams of scans – some of which appear
to less than polite – but none of which are dated … or really terribly offensive.
Among the various arguments put forward after the hoo-ha
about the Mayor’s use of social media was launched was the issue of when they were published.
Supporters of the Mayor said that many of the allegedly
offensive comments appeared before
Councillor Rush was in office – and more significantly noted that his remarks
were made on his personal page … and not any kind of civic outlet.
In other words … he was writing as a private citizen – Mr Brian Rush – and ought not to see his remarks
conflated with his role as Mayor.
***
Regular readers will recall that in May last year, a row
erupted after the then newly-appointed leader Cooper was said to have expressed
his feelings over remarks by council critic Darron Abbott about his non-dom status. – he lives in East
Lindsey whilst representing a Boston ward – by nobbling a friend of Mr Abbott’s
at a drinks bash in a pub away from Worst Street after the announcement of his
appointment and telling him …
"The next time you see your f*****g mate Darron Abbott tell him
that if he puts anything else on Facebook I will punch him in the f*****g
face."
But when Mr Abbott formally complained about this, part of
Worst Street’s response made a sharp distinction between a leader at work and a
leader at play.
It said that the alleged comment was made at least an hour
after the council meeting closed, and was in a town centre pub – not the
Municipal Buildings.
The alleged comment was made in a social gathering of mixed
company – defined in this case as a mix of political views and not solely a
Conservative meeting and a mix of both councillors and non-councillors.
Worst Street’s response concluded: “For further clarity, the
content of the statement made by Mr Cooper is irrelevant for my purposes, as at the time of the incident he was Mr Cooper
not Councillor Cooper …
In that case, one might think that the adage ‘what's sauce
for the goose is sauce for the gander’ should apply – the definition being that
if one person is allowed to do something or to behave in a particular way, then
another person must be allowed to do that thing or behave in that way, too if
the circumstances are the same.
And surely Mayors have time off and a private life as well as well.
Forget it! – this is Worst Street.
***
Far better, we think to suggest to Councillor Cooper in
language that he might possibly understand that he admits: “Isetta goal to sack the Mayor but made a
Messerschmitt of it.”
And then he should call it a day.
***
We reported last week the “update” by Boston MP Matt Warman
on progress towards a bypass for Boston.
Almost immediately afterwards Councillor Alison Austin
announced her praise for Mr Warman on the bypass issue with a question to
county council executive member for highways and transportation, Richard
Davies.
What kind of black magic she weaves to get a question in at
every meeting still baffles us.
And what a shame it is that her Boston peers so
conspicuously fail to do likewise.
Quoting a headline from the Boston Target (Let’s get on
with it – MP’s promise to make town’s bypass happen) she asked Councillor
Davies if he shared Mr Warman’s optimism – and received a paean of praise in response.
“Isn’t it nice that we have a fresh-faced enthusiastic MP
who’s vociferously campaigning for his local area …?” oozed Councillor Davies
“If anybody can make it happen I think Matt Warman can. He
is constantly badgering myself and (leader) Martin Hill (and) as recently as
last Friday met to talk about this and other transport issues.
“As you may be aware, we’re already had our inaugural
meeting of the transport and transport pressure group in conjunction with
Boston Borough Council. We’re looking at not only the delivery of the bypass
but other improvements built on what we’ve already done over the past ten years
in the town.
“I know that you’re a very vociferous campaigner and won’t
allow me to take my foot off the pedal.
“Certainly we’re committed to the bypass, er, the distributor
road, and I think that if anybody can bring up that key link which has to be that
slug of government money to make it happen as we know, then Matt Warman is your
man.”
***
A couple of points here …
Everything was going so well until Councillor Davies seemed
to realise that he was making use of the B-word, and so slipped in the
modifying “ … er, the distributor road” lest our hopes be raised and his
comments come back to haunt him.
Secondly, he mentioned the transport and transport pressure
group in conjunction with Boston Borough Council and its inaugural meeting –
something that we haven’t heard about, and which is proving elusive to track down.
Perhaps something by way of detail would be helpful,
Councillor Davies?
***
At least Councillor Davies seems to be changing his tune a
little.
A couple of years ago he scoffed at the idea of a bypass, er
distributor road, because the latest
transport assessment showed inbound, not on-going through traffic using
Boston’s roads.
When we pointed out that Boston is the main through road to
Skegness which must count for something, as hundreds of thousands of people pay
the resort a visit each year, he said: “I understand what you mean but surveys
and sampling confirmed it. It's being looked at but traffic movements are key.”
He added that an analysis of a survey had shown that 82% of
vehicle movements ended up in Boston, with only 18% passing through – something
that we still find almost impossible to believe.
Councillor Davies said that another other “huge” problem was
low land values, which limit developer contributions.
After some searching, we found on page 234 of the 308 page
subtly-named “South East Lincolnshire Local Plan Strategy and Policies
Development Plan Document Combined Preferred Options and Sustainability
Appraisal Report Full Consultation Document (May 2013)” the news that: “Whilst the Boston Distributor Road remains an
aspiration, it is unlikely to come forward in its entirety in the plan
period.
“However, there is potential for future development at
Boston town to contribute to a ‘first phase’ of a new piece of highway
infrastructure, although there is no
underlying evidence to draw on relating to this at present.
“There is no evidence
to suggest the implementation of a Boston distributor road is critical for the
delivery of the growth strategy for Boston to 2031.”
That’s at least thirteen
years away – at least three more general elections – by which time the
fresh-faced Virgo Mr Warman (you are greatly appreciated for your generosity,
discipline and quick mind) will be 49 and this Scorpio writer (often has trust
issues and can be highly suspicious of everything)
will be long dead and past caring – and we’ll all be using drones instead of cars in any case.
will be long dead and past caring – and we’ll all be using drones instead of cars in any case.
***
Finally, we’ve said it before – but it’s always interesting
to see our point proved.
As road users around the county struggled to cope with some
of the worst weather conditions for many years last week, Clownty Hall made its
position crystal clear.
Lincoln always comes first.
Around the same time the A16 between Boston and
Skegness was closed – as were many other county roads.
We accept that prioritising is an almost impossible task in
such conditions.
So why single Lincoln out for special treatment?
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com
E–mails will be treated in
confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at:
http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com
We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)