Regular readers will recall that at the beginning of August, we criticised ‘open and transparent’ Worst Street for its failure to include a long list of questions from councillors for answer by the appropriate cabinet portfolio holder.

We pointed out that because of the secretive nature of the powers that ba’int it would take 77 days from the date of the meeting on 9^th July to the next scheduled meeting due to have been held this evening.

But all that’s now changed – because the tonight's meeting has been removed from the calendar.

There is no meeting in October – so we will now have to wait 140 days until the last meeting of the year on 26^th November to read the minutes, see the questions and learn the answers.

***

There is no other word to describe this than pathetic – what on earth were our so-called leaders thinking when they decided to act in this insulting way to the council tax payers?

***

What is more interesting is that the decision to cancel the meeting – not by any formal announcement, but simply by removing it from the calendar – was taken at least a week before the meeting was due to take place.

The reason given was that there was no business to discuss, nor were there any questions from councillors or the public.

It was also said that one item due to appear on the agenda would not be ready in time.

***

What has been overlooked in all of this is at there is an entitlement to ask questions which has been undemocratically withdrawn without any publicity.

According to the Worst Street constitution …

A question may only be asked if notice has been given by delivering it in writing or by electronic mail to the Chief Executive no later than 5 pm two clear working days before the day of the meeting.

“Each question must give the name and address of the questioner and must identify the office holder to whom it is to be put.”

By erasing details of the meeting without notice the council has not only robbed the public and other councillors of the chance to speak and perhaps raise an issue or issues of importance.

It has also broken the rules of its own constitution.

Will anyone apologise for this do you think?

Not a chance.

And how about a word in the ear of whoever declared more than a week ahead of the meeting that it wouldn’t be possible to get an agenda item written in time?

***

Last week we briefly mentioned the excitement generated by a council loan that made a profit – bringing with it talk about how best to invest in the £20 million loan that Worst Street has agreed to take out for the next half a century.

***

But we have been left wondering by a report in one of our local ‘newspapers’ which doesn’t appear to make financial sense.

The section in question from the Boston sub-Standard says: “Councillor Aaron Spencer has been buoyed by the success of a £1 million property fund investment made three years ago, which on March 31st had returned £1.111 million – giving the council an additional £111,000 capital.

“It comes as the authority and East Lindsey District Council look at how to spend a further £20 million loan.

“After revealing the news to cabinet leaders Councillor Spencer said: “When you consider we put in to our capital budget £100,000 every year in order to make capital available to replace our refuse fleet or whatever we need, another £111,000 from an investment, from £1 million, you can scale that up to the £20 million over five years. 

“This £20 million loan is a 5-year-project, so it’s worth bearing in mind any minor changes to the property market might not affect the overall position and it gives us the ability to be dynamic and flexible.”

As the initial reports that we saw discussed a loan of £20 million over 50 years, and solely to Boston Borough Council, you can imagine that we were rather bewildered.

***

The figures also raised an eyebrow with one of our readers who Knows His Numbers, and wrote: “Councillor Spencer seems to have been a little confused by rates of returns when making a presentation to his fellow cabinet members.

“He stated he was ‘quite confident that we'll be ok.’ But should we share his confidence?

“On a £1m investment made three years ago a return of £111,000 was gained and the portfolio holder was very proud to acclaim a return of 11%.

“Let’s look a little more closely at the figures; yes this was an 11% return on capital but when calculated this would only give an annual interest rate of 3.571%,

“OK I suppose this is not a bad interest rate if you’re the average investor.

“But Councillor Spencer seems to suggest an interest rate of 11% – and if this was the case we would be looking at a return of £367,631 which would actually be a return on capital of 36.76%.

“Councillor Spencer then went on to make a statement about scaling this return up on a £20m investment financed by a £20m loan from the government. It appears that Councillor Spencer would be over the moon at another return on capital of 11% … this return being (dependent on how much the management company would charge to carry out the investment) a maximum of £2.2m. 

“Unfortunately for Councillor Spencer we are investing the amount over a longer period of time and on a 5 year investment 11% return on capital would mean the interest rate decrease to 2.1092%.

“So an additional amount of £2.2m should not be sniffed at and may alleviate our worries about having our bins collected.

“But perhaps this is where he should have another look at his figures.

“In a previous article it was suggested that the interest rate on the £20m loan from the Government would be 5%.  

“Now hold on, the portfolio holder is happy to pay the Government an interest rate of 5% (which over a 5 year period would give an charge of £5,525,631.25 for interest) the figures now do not look so good getting a return on capital of 11% (£2.2m) as it appears he would be paying £3.5 more interest than he is receiving. 

“I am sure Councillor Spencer is confident in his maths considering he declaration of the overall budget position since he has been doing the job, but for the rest of us he may like to clarify things a little.”

***

Councillor Spencer’s excitement drew the following from one of our regular readers – one who enjoys the privilege of being In The Know.

“How pleased we must all be to read in our local press that Councillor Spencer is in sole charge of the Borough's finances.

“This means that we ratepayers will no longer have to pay for expensive finance officers, back up staff, costly meetings to consider our budgets, investments and spending.

“We can leave it all to Aaron; he's got complete control.

“Well; that's what it says in my paper, so it must be true.

“I suppose one could look at the declaration as part of the openness and transparency programme at Boston, however worrying it is.

“I wonder if the Chief Executive has been told of the new order of things.”

***

And while Boston ponders, other councils are acting.

This year, Lincoln City Council has bought an hotel in the city centre for £13 million which will be leased back to Travelodge; two car parks for £6.6 million which are again being leased back, and 172 new homes from developers for use as social housing to try to free up some of its existing properties.

West Lindsey District Council has allocated £30 million for property investments, and £13 million has already been spent.

Interestingly, three investments were outside the county … an hotel in Keighley costing £2.35 million and a gym and a lingerie factory in Sheffield for £5 million. West Lindsey also spent £6.1 million on an industrial unit in Gainsborough.

Meanwhile, Lord Gary Porter – leader of South Holland District Council –  has been quoted as saying that his authority could become a ‘free council’ and throw off the shackles of government control.

And while Boston continues to mutter darkly about jam tomorrow, South Kesteven District Council has been outlining plans for a joint venture called DeliverSK that would be responsible for ‘creating a pipeline of development and regeneration projects and taking them from the concept stage through to completion.’

Potential projects include medium to large-scale housing developments, including social and affordable homes; office and employment space; leisure facilities and mixed-use regeneration schemes.

Andon top of that, South Kesteven has launched its own lottery to support local charities and good causes, with £1 tickets giving the chance to win £25k.

***

Whilst many people think of local authorities as boring and pedestrian, all around us, we see new and imaginative ideas springing up.

But not here.

***

Do you want the good news, or the bad news?

Being Boston Eye, we’ll bring you the bad news first.

Repairs to the county’s lowest-priority roads could take up to 90 days after Lincolnshire County Council changed its policy.

The authority’s current five levels of classification will become nine with repair response times ranging from 24-hours, seven days, 28 days and 90.

The Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committee were told that the changes would make the council more efficient.

It doesn’t take a mastermind to guess what this will mean for Boston where many minor roads are already a complete disgrace – and we imagine the future is riddled with potholes as far as the Boston eye can see.

***

Now for the good news – if you live near Lincoln.

The same committee supported a £148m relief road to help ease congestion at North Hykeham near Lincoln which will complete a ring road around the city by joining the A46 Pennell’s roundabout to the Lincoln Eastern bypass.

There are now bypasses galore in Lincolnshire including Crowland, Wainfleet and Burgh le Marsh.

But what about Boston?

Still the same deafening silence – despite what’s claimed to be a personal interest shown by the Transport Secretary.

But if that turns out to be as personal as the interest that Boston Borough Council is showing in the taxpayers then we may all as well take to our bicycles.

And what happened to our bi for cash from the government’s National Roads Fund which is giving up to £100 million per bid to projects which it likes the look of.

A consultation period bid for money started on 23^rd December last year and ended on 16^th  March,  and an announcement from Worst Street said that local MP Matt Warman handed it over to Transport Secretary Chris Grayling  during the first week in August.

And still we wait. 

***

We had to look twice at the photos of the new look to Boston Crematorium when they appeared on WorstWeb …

 Its previously dull look has been replaced – and given a definite stairway to heaven makeover.

***

If organising things such as £20 million loans are complicated, we would have thought it was within the limited wit of Worst Street to organise a food festival.

But not so.

The festival – which should have taken place in the Market Place yesterday – was cancelled after organisers failed to receive a single stall application. This was despite a small event last year which ought to have provided a foundation for the future.

A Worst Street spokesman said: “Despite publicity and letters and personal visits to restaurant and cafe owners no stands have been booked.

“The event planned for Boston Market Place was being organised by Boston Borough Council and Lincolnshire Police but there appears to be no ‘appetite” for it.’”

Ho ho … ‘no appetite’ … smiling in the face of adversity.

***

Well if Worst Street can’t organise a food festival in a county which is a major food producer, then how about a flower festival? Even the lowliest church can manage one of those.

But back in May, beneath the headline ‘Flower show plan wilts’ WorstWeb reported:

“Sorry to say that ideas for a Boston flower show have not bloomed.” Ho ho again, another great pun on failure

“Not enough exhibitors have come forward to make the show, planned for Sunday, June 3^rd, viable, so organisers at Boston Borough Council have had to cancel the event.”

Worst Street is said to have an Events Department – so when is it going to start to earn its keep?

***

Undeterred by such things to date, Boston Borough Council  has painted a nightmare scenario for the coming months which includes  storms,  tidal surges, surface water flooding from heavy prolonged downpours, freezing temperatures, snow and high winds.

But if that’s not bad enough, says Worst Street … “if something else were to happen, maybe a major fire or an industrial accident or something more sinister … What could we do to safeguard ourselves, communities and communities and businesses in situations such as these?” (sic)

The answer, it seems is to go along to a  session with the borough’s emergency planning team which has developed an easy to use business continuity planning template and guide to identifying and understanding the risks to the everyday running of a business and planning how business will be maintained if an accident happens.

Our recollection of the last emergency – the flooding of 2013 – was that Boston Borough Council offices were about the only premises in town protected by sandbags, whilst Worst Street flatly refused to provide to anyone else.

And now, after a series of failures of easy-peasy bits and bobs, the council has the gall to believe it can lecture others on how to do a job properly.

***

We’ve mentioned before the ability of Boston Borough Council to piggy-back on the success of others by association.

Last time it was a fulsome quote about Boston College’s A level and GCSE results, from the council's economic development manager who said: “It’s fantastic, once again within a week to celebrate great results from students at Boston College. It certainly reflects the hard work the students and lecturers are putting in rising to the challenge of a more rigorous and demanding GCSE standard.”

As we noted at the time: “Indeed it does – but what does this have to do with Boston Borough Council and its economic development manager, may we ask?”

***

Now Worst Street is at it again.

This time it concerns the return of the HMV shop to its old premises in Pescod Square which it left five years ago after administrators were called in. The Boston store employed nine members of staff. Since then the business has enjoyed a renaissance, and we wish it every success.

The news prompted WorstWeb the reprint the store’s application for staff, and also carried yet another quote from the borough’s economic development manager, which said: “This reflects the growing confidence in Boston as a place to do business.”

Why is it that we feel that Boston Borough Council had little if anything to do with the return of HMV?

Because if it did we would expect it to take the credit.

***

It appears that Worst Street’s love affair with a local farm shop is back on.

Beneath the headline ‘Top marks so you can buy with confidence’ WorstWeb informs us: “The latest businesses to achieve the highest marks for food hygiene include the award-winning Pinchin's Farm Shop in Church Lane, Algarkirk.”

It was singled out for special mention from “a number of food premises inspected in August by Boston Borough Council's environmental health officers.

Eventually it goes on to name the other ten outlets on the list.

Readers with long memories will recall that some years ago we remarked on the fact that apparently irrelevant free plugs for Pinchin’s used to pepper the pages of the Boston Weakly Bulletin and appeared no fewer than five times in 12 months in one period.

Clearly, someone still carries a torch and we wonder whether the free plugs are destined to make a return!

Cheers! Make ours a pork pie!

***

That’s it for this week – don’t forget that we’re in normal mode now and back to publishing weekly. Our next edition will appear on Monday 1^st October

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

For the second blog in a row, Boston Borough Council’s planning procedures and policy take pole position.

Last time the spotlight was on the meetings themselves – the time they take and perhaps waste, and the cost of these taking shops … especially now that lunch for thirteen committee members and doubtless a hanger-on or two is included.

***

This time the focus turns to the way individual cases are handled – and at least one senior councillor is less than happy that one application has been ‘pushed through’ … saying: “I have seen planning documents which seemed to suggest to me that vital elements of planning ....were being … improperly addressed without any real explanation!”

The councillor is former mayor Brian Rush, and the case concerns the installation of a biomass boiler at Tanglewood Care Homes’ Hunters Creek nursing home on London Road in Boston.

***

Tanglewood sought retrospective permission after going ahead with the building and installing the boiler in Boston.

The application was made on 8^th June and has since sat around before being approved on 30^th August.

***

By a remarkable coincidence another Tanglewood home – Cedar Falls in Spalding – had also installed a biomass boiler and housing without planning permission … and is also seeking a retrospective go-ahead.

“Despite what is now being claimed, both these projects in my opinion are being pushed through under the radar, so to speak,” said Councillor Rush.

“This might have been a fait accompli until local residents in both towns stood up and let the public and the press know exactly what was going on.”

Councillor Rush said that he became interested in the Hunters Creek application … “which until now was being directed with little criticism or comment by ward representatives. 

“I have seen planning documents which seemed to suggest to me that vital elements of planning were being, I think, improperly addressed without any real explanation.

“I expect that I will be condemned by colleagues, but in my opinion every planning application should be laid before full committee, giving elected members an opportunity – no matter how brief – to inspect and examine possible implications.”

***

“I believe that both the Cedar Falls and the Hunters Creek proposal are a wakeup call to residents both in Boston and Spalding as to what could have turned out to be a real danger to the health and welfare of the complainants.”

***

They were certainly a wakeup call to someone – as although the retrospective application  was made at the beginning of June, it sat around for twelve weeks, and was then nodded through within days of councillor Rush raising questions about it.

***

There are also some interesting features surrounding the application.

When first we checked it out on WorstWeb – the Boston Borough Council website – this was the information we found.

The flow chart for dealing with the application clearly shows that it is not to be delegated to an officer for a decision.

But when we looked again a few days later the view was quite different.

This time the application is marked for delegation – which means that the decision for approval or otherwise is left to an officer, and not members of the Planning Committee.

And this has taken place, with the application among a number in a batch that was rubber stamped around the end of last month.

*** 

So was it or wasn’t it?

The answer – whilst first suggesting a change of heart at some time during the journey of the document from creation to finalisation – is most likely far more prosaic.

It may have to do with the report being created on a particular piece of software – whose format does not travel well when exchanged between interested parties who more than likely read it on different computer devices and with different browsers.

The result is complete confusion for people trying to access Worst Street’s hilarious policy of openness and transparency – in this case completely misleading them and causing uncertainty about who has been doing what.

***

What remain unchanged, though, are some of the key issues brought up by Councillor Rush in the first place.

The Spalding reapplication raised a number of issues mainly concerning Lincolnshire fire service and residents’ complaints which left it undecided.

The Boston reapplication also generated its own concerns – yet strangely the ever-expanding and ambitious Boston Town Area Committee could not be bothered to respond when consulted.

But as a result of publicity, three parties responded, sending in five letters between them which cited the inappropriateness of the boiler’s location; its negative impact and the charge that it was out of keeping with existing buildings; that neither the fire risk nor the flood risk has been considered along with pollution and noise, especially during the night. There were also concerns that the flue on the amended plans would not work.

Most of these complaints are covered in the council report with a condition to address any possible noise issues.

More worryingly, the response to fears about the flue is dealt with thus: “In relation to whether or not the flue will work is a matter for the applicant and their agent to determine. The amended plans were submitted by the agent, it is understood following the concerns raised by neighbours. It is therefore understood that they would have ensured that the flue ‘will work’ prior to submission.”

***

At some point, the long and winding road to a decision did rattle the cages of four councillors for ‘consultation.’  Planning committee Chairman David Brown responded next day;  Vice Chairman Sue Ransome, who also chairs BTAC-ky, failed to respond; Alison Austin replied that the development was not in her ward; and ward councillor Richard Austin also failed to respond.

So, the bottom line is that the whole application stood or fell on the basis of a dialogue between an officer and a single councillor.

***

Councillor Rush told Boston Eye that given the contentious nature of the application he could not see the need for a last minute sprint to get it approved, as it was installed and working, and had been for twelve weeks, and ought to have waited a little longer so that the full committee could have given the issue its full attention.

“What the heck were our officers doing, sitting on this application since June?

“What level of public consultation took place?

“Why also are they suddenly leaping around, when members are away on holiday, arranging a very ‘non-public’ planning meeting – if one even took place, at all?

“Which leads me to question what level of public consultation took place?

“Our senior officers constantly bang the drum about ‘openness, honesty and integrity’ – well, it seems these principles were not applied to the people of Woodside?

“Woodsiders need some straight honest answers – no more jiggery-pokery – this application should be brought straight back to the Planning Committee, now!

***

Everywhere you turn these days, it seems that the moment organisations lay their hands on some money they turn to “consultants” to help them spend it – and Boston appears to be no exception.

In the past few days, we have read of two local organisations buying third party help after receiving large sums of cash.

The first is Boston Borough Council, which in November scored a £1.39 million grant from the Government's Controlling Migration Fund, after a bid by the council and partners.

And even though we would think that some reasonably impressive ideas and support material would have been needed to clinch the grant, six months later it was announced that Worst Street had called in a Lincoln based company called Rose Regeneration to ‘evaluate’ a programme of activity aimed at promoting community cohesion the project.

The company reported: “We are working with Lincoln International Business School (University of Lincoln) to undertake an external evaluation and return on investment modelling of the programme” – whatever that means.

So, here we have a lot of cash – from which it appears that two other organisations may be looking for a slice to advise another organisation which ought to know everything there is to know about immigration in Boston and the best way to tackle any problems.

***

Rose Regeneration is also involved with a project involving Boston Stump which has received more than £1 million from the National Lottery towards a £2.7 million scheme of which the balance is being raised locally.

Rose tweeted at the end of last month “Proud to be evaluating it's (sic) role in Inclusive Boston @LincolnshireCVS.”

The money for the church will include an educational centre, new floors and under-floor heating; two glass porches near the entrance which will allow for the main doors to be left open and urgent repairs to the fabric of the building including the renovation of the 83-metre tower - one of the tallest medieval towers in England, and flood prevention measures.

***

It’s at this point that thing begin to get a bit confusing.

Is the evaluation of the church’s role in Inclusive Boston on behalf of the Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service connected with Worst Street’s migration project?

It would appear so, as Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service has declared itself to be “one of several partners working with Boston Borough Council to deliver the Inclusive Boston project to promote community cohesion throughout the town.”

***

So, at least two separate organisations appear each to have hired a third to evaluate what broadly seems to be the same thing – no doubt at a cost – when the hiring organisation ought to have all the necessary expertise to do the job themselves.

***

And it already seems that their evaluator has work aplenty – with enough projects to keep an army of consultants employed for the foreseeable future.

Mr Rose Regeneration is a chap named Ivan Annibal – described on the company website as having “a national reputation in economic and community development, with particular specialisms in coastal and rural issues” and “a practical ‘hands on’ style to delivering programmes and projects.”

***

We certainly hope the he and his company have a better time of  it than they did four years or thereabouts ago, when Mr Annibal was appointed as the Big Local Rep to Boston Big Local.

The job of the Big Local Reps is to help the local groups achieve their vision through support, advice and appropriate challenge.

But Mr Annibal’s time with Boston Big Local was a fraught one which culminated in the temporary resignation of the group's only paid official who cited ‘deep concern’ with the management of the project regarding a ‘lack of consultation and community engagement’.

A newspaper report in April 2014 said it was understood that questions about Mr Annibal had been raised with the company who train and supply the reps on behalf of the Local Trust.

Two months later, the reports said that the facilitator would return to her paid position and that Mr Annibal, had ‘chosen’ not to renew his contract.

***

Some gloomy news for Boston appeared in a set of figures tweeted by Worst Street 'Independent' Councillor Paul Gleeson.

Not only did Lincolnshire appear  fourth in a list of the ten poorest places in Northern Europe, but a second chart disclosed that the average full-time mid-point wages for the county showed that in Boston in 2017 pay was more than £700 lower than the previous year.

West Lindsey topped the list at £27,959 with Boston at £21,092 – a difference of £6,867 … and sad to say as these are average figures there will be many in Boston struggling on far lower pay.

***

Still with matters monetary, we note the whooping from Boston’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Councillor Aaron Spencer over the news that a £1 million property fund investment made three years ago has returned £1.111 million – giving the council an additional £111,000.

This was the first time we had heard about this loan being taken out – and none of those we spoke to could remember it either.

Ironically this must have been taken out at a time when Worst Street was screaming poverty left, right and centre – and it seems odd to be borrowing such a large sum  when you were also telling everyone how hard up you were. Perhaps that’s why no one seems to have heard about it until now.

Good as a £111,000 profit is, regular readers will recall that this three years’ worth of income represents just one year’s interest on a £1 million loan which Worst Street took out in January 1991 for sixty years at an interest rate of 11⅛%

Despite an internal inquiry it was never determined who borrowed the money or for what reason.

The cost at the end of the borrowing period will be nearly £7 million – all of it interest.

***

Finally, we wonder whether the newly formed Bostonian Independents Group might well benefit from a course in local geography.

A map used to illustrate its 20-point plan makes use of a mouldering signpost showing the way to Langrick, Haven Bank, New York, Hundle Houses, Coningsby, Dogdyke and Boston.

The first five of these places are in East Lindsey district, whilst Dogdyke is in North Kesteven.

One out of seven for a Boston political party isn’t exactly the highest score, is it?

***

Now for the good news – depending on your point of view.

Our summer silly season schedule has run its course.

We’ll be back next Monday 24^th September – online as always from 5am

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

It makes a pleasant change to find ourselves in agreement with a Boston Borough councillor – but ironically only, as it happens, because he is being critical of the system.

***

In an e-mail addressed to Planning Committee Chairman David Brown, and copied to all other councillors, the Chief Executive and his deputy, planning officers and Worst Street’s development manager, Councillor  Barrie Pierpoint – a founder of the Bostonian Independents Group – says: “Following the Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday 21^st August I am writing to complain of the long-winded process now adopted for running such a meeting.

“Firstly, the day is far too long. We had two hours for lunch, which is a waste of time – lunch was provided and some people did not bother with it as they went home. I thought we were trying to save money, not waste it! I noticed that at 2pm, just before we went back into the meeting there was still food left over – which no doubt would be eaten by the staff or thrown away. 

“The planning officer who gave a presentation in respect to the Middlegate Road, Frampton development on behalf of Larkfleet Homes – both in my opinion and of others on the Committee – spent far too much time selling the developer site, explaining the types of properties, showing us 24 photographs of different designs of properties, went into far too much detail and spent nearly 45 minutes speaking when he could have presented it within 20 minutes. I find that totally unacceptable and if committee members have read their papers, they would have known all that anyway. 
“Did we pay the officer by the hour to present this report?

“Speaking with other committee members, they were also complaining about the length of the planning committee meetings – a full day could quite easily be turned into half a day, starting at 9.30am and finishing by at least 1.30pm with a small 15 minute break in the middle.

“Is it necessary for planning committee members to be constantly reading the planning acts out and quoting them verbatim? That's the officers' job – not ours.

“Since returning to the planning committee, my personal opinion is that the meeting needs to be tighter, more concentrated, with more focus and less unnecessary waffle and wastes of valuable time.

“I certainly will not spend a whole day on a planning committee that can be run, operated and managed in my view within a matter of five hours, which I have proved can be done if all the timewasting is removed.

“I am against feeding councillors – we need to be saving money and not wasting it.

Site visits can be arranged at least a day or two before – again we had an hour and a half for that purpose, we all arrived back at the Council meeting for 10am and the meeting did not start until 10.30am. We wasted two and a half hours of valuable time.

“In my line of business time is money, and we are also tying up too many officers' time to be wasted – whose time is also money.

“We also need to think about the poor public sitting there for hours on end, wondering what they have let themselves in for.”

***

Councillor Pierpoint’s case is a difficult one to dismiss.

By an interesting co-incidence, the meeting he condemned was the subject of a blow-by-blow account tweeted by a local democracy reporter on the Lincolnshire Reporter website.

If anyone remains sceptic about councillor Pierpoint’s take on the meeting, they only need to read the reporter’s account to have their minds changed.

***

We were quite amazed at the way the meeting progressed and the attitudes of some of the councillors taking part – which clearly showed them to be out of touch with the modern day and sufficiently arrogant to believe that their opinions were the right ones and that no other arguments should be brooked.

***

As far as the issue of feeding councillors is concerned, we are in full agreement with Councillor Pierpoint.

There are 13 members of the planning committee, and the last time we looked Worst Street was spending about £6.50 on the cost of a ‘finger buffet.’

Something with the grander title of ‘lunch’ might well work out nearer a tenner – and we are sure that the largessewas not extended to councillors alone.

Not only that, but the taxman may be interested in taking his cut if this is deemed a benefit in kind – especially if it is a monthly occurrence.

So what would be our guess at the cost?  Say £150?

And why a two-hour break when everyone is already assembled?

***

To make matters worse, the recent recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel  – which doled out allowances left, right and centre – approved an award of £4,400  for the Chairman of the Planning Committee … a rise of £2,384 a year ... and a doubling of the Vice-Chairman’s allowance from £1,100 to £2,200.

The panel also felt there should be recognition for other planning committee members as they had to undertake specific regular training to be able to sit on the committee and were expected to attend monthly meetings that had recently been extended to all day sessions due to the number of applications coming through the system.

The panel considered it essential to ensure that these members were not financially penalised by the time commitment and that responsibility attached to the role should be recognised.

It recommended a brand new allowance of £600 a year per member – that’s £50 per meeting … and brings the total cost of the mere existence of the committee to almost £14,000 a year.

And now we’re feeding them as well

***

However, the cost of a soggy flan crumbles into insignificance when compared with Worst Street’s slapdash attitude towards collecting its debts.

A recent Freedom of Information request disclosed that councils in Greater Lincolnshire have waved goodbye to almost £30 million of uncollected debt over the past five years.

The debts include rent arrears; housing benefit overpayments, business rates and council tax – and they can be written off for reasons such as insolvency, death and the authority being unable to trace the debtor.

Between them, the seven district councils in Lincolnshire and the unitary authorities of North and North East Lincolnshire wrote off £29,778,849 between 2013 and 2018.

The figures – compiled by the Lincolnshire Reporter – showed that the top three authorities to write off debt were South Kesteven District Council with £3,704,785, Boston Borough Council on £3,513,602 and the City of Lincoln Council with £3,351,924.

What’s especially worrying about this is that Boston is the smallest district in financial terms, yet managed to write off almost the greatest debt figure.

Each year it has written off an average of £702,720 – more than the entire town centre budget of £655,000, or more than twice the £342,630 amount allocated for spending on tourism, arts, culture and heritage.

It represents the full council tax, which includes the charges made by Clownty Hall and Lincolnshire Police, on more than 600 properties every year … almost 2½% of the total.

***

Whilst most of the nine authorities questioned offered something by way of explanation – and even the occasional apology – Worst Street was less willing to accept any responsibility, saying that any comparisons between debt write-offs with other authorities needed to bear in mind the number of properties within an area.

***

It took the Taxpayers’ Alliance to point out that taxes were likely to increase as councils dropped debts from their books.

The organisation’s James Price, was quoted as saying: “The reality of writing off debt means that those taxpayers who do play by the rules will be forced to pay more, even more than they otherwise would, because their council isn’t collecting what they should be.

“If people or businesses can’t afford to pay their tax bills, that suggests that their taxes are far too high and the council should adjust their spending accordingly.

“Those residents who have paid their taxes will be forgiven for being upset that these councils are also likely increasing council tax again next year.”

 ***

Are we alone in thinking that using the side of a dustcart as an easel for a piece of artwork to commemorate the end of the First World War is neither the best nor the most respectful of ideas?

The £360 graphic – pictured here on the council’s website WorstWeb – was funded by the Boston Town Area Committee – which on this occasion fully lived up to the nickname we have bestowed by it … BTAC-ky.

Apparently, some members of the committee had concerns about the idea, feeling that putting the murals on a dustcart – sorry, a refuse freighter – was not an appropriate or sensitive way to commemorate the end of the war and pay tribute to those who had sacrificed their lives.

According to the minutes: “There was a suggestion that another council vehicle would be preferable and another that a much bigger commemoration should be planned, for example at the war memorial, and involve the migrant communities.

“Other members considered that using a refuse freighter was a very good idea as these vehicles went to every street so the murals would be highly visible and seen by more people.”

It was also claimed during the debate, that the scheme had the full backing of the

Royal British Legion and Poppy Appeal both nationally and locally.

***

Four years ago, BTAC underwrote the £5,000 cost of a granite obelisk to mark the start of the war after a tackily organised public appeal attracted just a few hundred quid.

But in a single bound we have gone from a permanent and timeless memorial to a piece of Blue Peter-style sticky-backed plastic, which will last a few months if we’re lucky.

Not for the first time, it seems almost as if Worst Street’s short attention span has found it wanting.

And surely, the end of that terrible conflict merits a more significant memorial than the start?

*** 

If nothing else, could Worst Street not have stumped up £750 for one of the 6ft aluminium and Perspex Tommy silhouettes that have been purchased by cities around the world, to be displayed at war memorial sites?

Yet surprisingly, when the former head of the Army Lord Dannatt personally wrote to 433 local authority leaders asking them to support the There But Not There campaign, a mere160 councils agreed to buy one of the silhouettes to display with many making “pitiful excuses” as to why there didn't want to.

Clearly Worst Street must have been among them – always assuming the council bothered to reply.

***

The wasting of money was at the heart of one of two national newspaper stories to feature Boston in the past few days.

An investigation by the Mail on Sunday discovered that 3.6 million patients who do not exist are registered with GPs’surgeries and that despite a crackdown launched three years ago on so-called ‘ghost patients’ numbers have risen at a rate of almost 6,000 a week.

The report said that doctors in England receive an average of £151 a year for each patient on their books, whether they see them or not.

The report claimed that the notional cost of phantom patients was almost £550 million – enough to hire 28,000 new nurses, 10,000 new doctors, or provide free parking at every NHS hospital in England for three years.

According to the report, Boston has 10% more people registered than there are people – which based on our 2014 population estimate means an extra 6,645 people.

At an average of £151 per ‘patient,’ this is slightly more than £1,000,000.

Think how much good use that money could be put to on local health services – it might mean make or break for the Pilgrim for example.

***

In another national report, a Sunday Times investigation found more than 7,000 traditional neighbourhood police officers, have been reassigned to other duties or left jobs altogether since March 2015.

The number of police community support officers (PCSOs) also fell by 18% over the same period to just over 10,000.

Meanwhile, officers assigned to back-office and administrative roles have multiplied by a quarter in three years, despite ministers’ pledges to protect “frontline” policing.

The study placed Lincoln shire Police fifth from bottom in the league table of forces with the fewest ‘front line’ officers.

This showed that there was one neighbourhood police officer to every 10,887 people – taking the number of police officers per 100,000 people to a meagre 9.2%

We reckon that it won’t be long before the Leporidae family are better served than Homo Sapiens given the number of officers and equipment such as drones and four-wheel drive vehicles dedicated to trapping hare coursers.

***

Not for the first time Worst Street has been riding piggyback on other peoples’ success to try to make it look better.

Beneath the headline GCSE results continue the celebrations at Boston College we were told: “Following last week's 100% A-level pass rate, the celebrations continue at Boston College with this year's GCSE results exceeding the national average.

“These results showcase the hard work and dedication displayed by the students to gain those all-important grades they did not achieve within secondary education, which now enables them to take the next step within their education.”

It rambled on with a couple of success stories and a quote from the vice-principal before this mysterious addition …

“Clive Gibbon, Boston Borough Council's economic development manager said: “It's fantastic, once again within a week to celebrate great results from students at Boston College. It certainly reflects the hard work the students and lecturers are putting in rising to the challenge of a more rigorous and demanding GCSE standard.”

Indeed it does – but what does this have to do with Boston Borough Council and its economic development manager, may we ask?

***

Our recent piece about the promotion of visitbostonuk.com drew an interesting response from Councillor Claire Rylott, Boston’s portfolio holder for tourism, arts, culture and heritage.

She e-mailed to say: “After sitting on many volunteering groups I was hearing the same problem, we had many groups in the town holding events but they were struggling to advertise them free.

“As we know, to advertise in local publications is rather expensive.

“So last year I championed the Visit Boston website, hopefully to encourage more tourists to the town and enable people to be more aware of what is happening in the town.

“What I aim to do in the coming months is hopefully to sit this on a Visit Lincolnshire platform together with others in our county so our hits to the site continue to increase, and people become more aware of this site.

“It is there to be used – hence the advertising of it near the park.

“We have many fantastic volunteering groups in the town who definitely needed more support regarding advertising the great events that are organised.

“Being a farmer and a councillor it intrigued me that a comment was made about my favourite car park! I think everyone needs a hobby in life; you’re correct, mine is golf. In the last 17 days my car has been parked in my favourite car park once. Work both as a farmer and a councillor takes priority over any hobby I choose to have.

“ I’m not quite sure what I do in my private life has to do with being a councillor, unless of course if it takes priority over meetings. Not sure anyone works 24/7 but I may be wrong.

“I enjoy your weekly blog, sometimes your information is correct but not always, but it is interesting reading.

“Keep up the good work.”

***

Sooner than we expected comes the news that St Botolph’s footbridge it to be given a much-needed clean up. The bridge will be closed on Monday 17^th September, with pedestrians redirected via Emery Lane, Town Bridge and Church Street.

County Councillor Richard Davies, Executive Member for Highways, said: “Over the last few years, we’ve seen green algae start to spread across the bridge, so we’re going in to clean it off.

“This is something we have been planning for some time  … “

Contrast that with a comment from Clownty Hall just a new weeks ago, which said: “Our structures team have already discussed this with Boston Borough Council and are planning to clean it this summer, but it is a low priority.

“Additionally, and in addition to planned works, they are having a run of things falling down/getting knocked down which are taking priority.”

There’s also the matter of how time is perceived.

The bridge opened in February 2014 – yet Councillor Davies says that the mould has been spreading over “the last few years”  … which would make it almost as soon as it opened.

It seems to us that the work should have been done a lot earlier than this, and that now would be a good time to paint the bridge green to obscure the regrowth in another “few years.”

***

Local MP Matt Warman was at the centre of a mini political mystery last week after the political blog Left Foot Forward identified him as “controversial” member of the Leave Means Leave group, saying: “Matt Warman originally campaigned for remain during the 2016 referendum. His constituency, however, had the highest Leave vote from all of Britain, with nearly 75% of people supporting Brexit.”

An accompanying list of Leave Means Leave supporters pictured Mr Warman alongside another politician with one-time county connections – Andrea Jenkyns … once a Boston county councillor, who won a Westminster seat for the Tories from Ed Balls, and who is now a leading poster girl for Brexit. 

However, a look at the Leave Means Leave page finds Mr Warman conspicuous by his absence, and the slot next to Ms Jenkyns occupied by Simon Clark MP.

Mr Warman told Boston Eye: “While I fully support a Brexit that respects the result of the referendum, I do not believe Leave Means Leave’s current approach offers the best chance of securing that, and therefore asked for my name to be removed from their list of supporters.”

  

***

When we mentioned the planning committee earlier, something else interesting caught our eye.

Councillors were given updates about appeals – and heard that four have been made recently.

One was withdrawn, two allowed and one dismissed.

Worst Street has previous for refusing plans that succeed on appeal. And let’s not forget that every lost appeal costs the taxpayers money.

A fifty per-cent unsuccessful appeal rate suggests that a little more time should be spent on the pros and cons of an application.

Avoiding a rush to judgement could say us taxpayers thousands.

For a monent, we thought about publishing this story beneath the headline ‘Boston Borough Council loses appeal’ – but of course you knew that already.

***

Finally, we noticed this interesting sounding display recently …

But what a shame that we need to travel to Woodhall Spa to see an exhibition by a Boston group.

What’s the matter with Central Park?

***

  We'll be back on a fortnight's time – on Monday 17^th  September.

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