As we reported on Friday, the Boston Town Area Committee bent the knee to the borough council’s cabinet and agreed to take over £34,000 of funding of the Garfits Lane playing field at its meeting last week.
For once, the decision was not as cut and dried as usual, and the meeting split 6:6 – leaving the casting vote to the chairman … and cabinet member … Mike Gilbert, who startled everyone by voting for the proposal (no, not really!)
Long standing BTAC critic and English Democrat group leader Councillor Elliott Fountain, described the evening as “All in all another sad meeting and voting like sheep and helping destroy the town and making a disastrous decision.  “Taking a park on with £34,000 expense and a £300 income – who would do that in the real world? 
“This makes all Boston council tax payers pay an increase in council tax – only by a few pounds – but an increase is an increase in anyone’s language.
“People are going to start hating the Conservatives.”
Councillor Fountain praised the “common-sense” suggestion by Labour Councillor Paul Gleeson, who called for a report before any decision and to postpone any move until next year’s budget,
“We reviewed the report but I am afraid to say the decision was already made before the meeting started.  How can a Boston parish council decide to take on a park with a £34,000 running cost and a £300 income in a 30 minute decision just because the council wants to offload it from their books? 
“Myself, Independent Councillor Carol Taylor, Councillors Paul Kenny, Paul Gleeson and Paul Goodale from Labour, and Conservative Gloria Smith voted against taking Garfits park on and increasing our budget by 44%.
“The vote went to wire with six Conservatives voting  in favour and Councillor Mike Gilbert having the deciding vote …  and we lost.”
“The Conservatives are voting like sheep, with no personal opinion. They are all waiting to be told what to do from the hierarchy.  Sad times for Boston.”
But worse was still to come.
Regular readers will remember that BTAC was railroaded into funding a £20,000 skateboard park in the St John’s recreation area, which at the time was acknowledged would be that “an investment in a council asset to be funded from BTAC funds.”
We commented at the time on the irony which followed. After allocating £500 to buy graffiti removal kits to tidy up the existing skate ramps, BTAC was recommended to spend £900 to fund a professional graffitist  to put it all back again during a two day “graffiti artwork” to mark the opening of the improved facility.
Last week’s meeting heard from three youngsters who used the skate park.
Councillor Fountain told Boston Eye: “They spoke about the town being a scary place and that vandals and drug users use the skate park, and that any money spent down there was a waste because it would be smashed up again.
“I asked the young lads if the skate park should be indoors, as it is in Skegness, and of course they agreed.
A small sub committee has now been formed to investigate moving the facility to the former  Fogarty Industrial Estate on  Fishtoft Road
“A lot of community stuff is happening down there at moment,” said Councillor Fountain, “with a new boxing gym by Cullum Johnson and a martial arts and MMA gym.”
“It seems like it is the new community hub for Boston, and not the council who are making things happen.”
We’ll watch with interest to see what develops.
But the bottom line is that £20,000 would appear to have been wasted on the skateboard park project that will now need re-siting, as the committee takes on yet another huge responsibility.
And the big question there is: “How on earth can you spend £34,000 a year on a playing field?
According to figures presented to BTAC, grounds maintenance accounts for £25,000 of that.
According to locals, the grass is cut a few times a year, and white lines are painted to mark the pitches – tasks which apparently cost £500 a week.
Hmmmm.

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

 

For the first time in a long while, Boston Borough Council’s Cabinet came within a whisker of not getting its own way.  Wednesday’s meeting of the Boston Town Area Committee was instructed to take on the cost of running the entire Garfit’s Lane playing field rather than just the play area. The move will add more than £30,000 to the committee’s costs – and relieve the main council budget of a charge which it has paid without a problem for many years. For once, there was some concerted opposition to the idea, with six of the committee members opposing it  – including one Conservative. That left the meeting split 6:6 – leaving the Chairman to give a casting vote. The Chairman, being Cabinet member Councillor Mike Gilbert, surprised no-one by voting for the Cabinet’s instruction.  More on this meeting next week.
The decision to hold some Boston Borough Council committee agenda items in secret has long been criticised – but now we are wondering whether someone has come up with a new cunning plan to keep items more or less under wraps … unless taxpayers actually turn up at Worst Street in person. Of the six agenda items at the previously mentioned BTAC meeting, only two had accompanying documents available to the public via the internet. The others were variously described as “discussions” or “presentations.” They included the conservation area “Partnerships Scheme,” which offers grants for repairs and shop front restoration work –which has received scarcely any applications since it was announced well over a year ago. The look of the conservation area is vital to the prosperity of the town, and the public should be kept up to date on developments.
Talking of which … next Tuesday’s meeting of the Cabinet of Curiosities plans to throw out the public and the press to stop them hearing a report on the Princess Royal Sports Arena by Chief Executive Richard Harbord  – on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information.  Since the taxpayers have never been exempted from the burden of paying millions of pounds to prop up this disastrous white elephant ever since it opened almost ten years ago, it seems a little disingenuous to plead confidentiality every time the issue crops up. We all know that the people who run the PRSA seem incapable of organising a booze-up in a brewery – so what else remains untold? More on this next week
In order, no doubt, to avoid accusations of a facelessness, Boston Borough Council has announced that “new” information boards about policy and decision makers and ward representatives have gone up in the entrance at Boston Borough Council's Worst Street offices – to “tell at a glance who your local councillor is and how to get in touch and put faces to the names and titles of senior officers.” Yet again, it seems a shame to have to go to West Street to find this out, although we believe the information is available on the internet – but none too easy to find. But we do like the the display –  pictured above ... which resembles a collection of exotic foreign stamps. Do our Tory masters plan a Republic of Boston as their next exercise in power grabbing, we wonder?
What is it about Boston and the drinking culture? After the news that the new owner of the town’s Assembly Rooms wants to facilitate pub crawling around the town,  we hear of plans to create 10 one and two-bedroom flats in the Wide Bargate Post Office building. Not only that, but as part of the application, Postman Pratt wants to turn the old delivery office into a cafe and “drinking establishment.” If that wasn’t bad enough, there are no parking spaces planned for the site, “because it is within the town centre” – but a number of cycle stores will be built.  Of course, that will do the trick, as no-one with a car will ever consider buying a flat in the town centre. More drinking, more cars trying to park – when all we really want is to use the Post Office without standing in a queue for 20 minutes at least.
Poetry isn’t something that we normally publish in Boston Eye – unless it’s our own puny attempts at doggerel. However, we’re making an exception this week with the following contribution by T. Coope, and submitted by Shirley Coope.

Build it, give it away
sell it, fill it in,
run it off, knock it down
it's just a down right sin.
With gagging orders, relaxed borders
Theresa tell us why,
will our government youth, let the bad old truth
spoil a good ole' lie.

A two tier strategy Paul Kenny graced our ears

Grot spots and alcohol reduced the town to tears.
Now Councillor Pete has chaired his seat
camera smile and keys,
for our town hall has answered the call
Fish Hill is now on its knees.

Was it three times eleven or the magnificent seven
that left us in the dark,
but what the heck, a right fat old cheque
changed hands from a man called Clark.

Seems everything we've got, has a time slot
we can't even spend a penny,
for all the town’s loos will be yesterday’s news
thanks Bedford , Gleeson and Kenny.
Last year we heard a lot about a fall in the number of stallholders at Boston’s Wednesday and Saturday markets. Such doom-saying was strenuously denied, and countered by claims were made that the markets were so popular that there was a waiting list for places. Despite that, we hear that up to four long-serving stallholders have decided to call it a day as the “new look” location is not producing the business that they once enjoyed. We had hoped for better things once the Market Place had time to settle in. Yet, even though a variety of attractions was promised to make use of the site on non-market days, we still only have the craft market as an alternative.

Something else that crossed our mind regarding the Market Place was to do with traffic. Everyone – apart from Boston Borough Council – acknowledges that the area is now disorganised and dangerous … particularly because of the lack of clarity over rights of way, and the disregard shown by motorists towards pedestrians. Given the speed that some vehicles drive at in the Market Place, we wonder if there are any “official” speed limits in operation.  If there aren’t, then there should be. And if there are limits, they should be enforced.

We hope that the plan for a memorial to 12 Puritan men and women who sailed from Boston to found our daughter city in Massachusetts on 7^th September 1630 will prompt a much bigger enterprise. The 13 memorial stones will be put around Boston Stump by Easter as part of a new trail called the Puritan Path. It’s a good foundation on which to build a wider attraction along the lines of the other Boston’s “Freedom Trail” (pictured left) which takes visitors to 16 historical sites in the course of two or three hours and covers two and a half centuries of America's most significant past. A red brick or painted line connects the sites on the trail and serves as a guide. Let’s hope some local entrepreneur picks up on the idea.
Congratulations to the Boston Standard for pioneering the way in Lincolnshire with an app for tablet computers. However, the newspaper has again shot itself in the foot by roughing up people who have taken out a subscription.  Subscriptions were introduced a couple of months, ago using a formula that appeared to save readers more than it actually did.  But not long afterwards the Standard published four discount vouchers that cut the cost of the paper to little more than the subscription price. We regarded this as a funny way to offer what was promoted as a “loyalty” reward for subscribing – and actually received a small refund as a result. The app which appeared three weeks ago has now provided the entire paper free of charge, and back numbers pre-dating the start of the subscription service are also available. This means that subscribers have thrown their money down the drain.  The blub in the paper says “you can try our app for free” which suggests that a charge might be introduced eventually.  Whatever, we shall be e-mailing head office to ask for another refund, and suggest that if you feel similarly mistreated that you do the same.
Meanwhile, the Standard still seems to be devoting more pages to items about itself than it should – especially when what we  really want is more local news, and it has also introduced what someone doubtless thought to be a bright idea that merely contributes to the gradual dumbing-down of the paper. Now, certain photographs are labelled with a circular badge announcing “The Image.” Surely, most of us can work that out without the need for a dummies’ guide to what are pictures and what they aren’t.  Far better to spend more time looking out for basic errors – such  as spelling “umberella” for “umbrella” –   unless the item in question is a natural brown in colour.

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

“Where fear is, happiness is not” – Seneca, Roman philosopher.

We wonder what it is about authority which makes it use fear as a driving force.
Recently, Boston Borough Council’s publicity machine used the threat of £70 fines for improper parking, and action by the planners if someone puts up security shutters without permission – to give just two examples.
In May last year it also relaunched its “name and shame” campaign jointly with the Boston Standard, but that one apparently died at birth, as we heard nothing  more of it.
Now – some may say appropriately – flooding is the buzzword.
“Be prepared for flooding” pleads one story on the borough council website.
“Stormy weather: building business resilience” cries another, plugging a free half-day workshop for companies concerned about the impact of severe weather on their operations and supply chains.
Yet a third story cautions: “Don't get into deep water” and warns about the potential dangers of “ignoring a road closed sign and driving through a muddy puddle …” an item of information repeated from the county council website.
If that’s not enough, a fourth item asks: “Are you experiencing flooding or do you want to report potential flooding?”
County Hall takes up the baton and runs with it in the latest issue of County News reminding us of the devastating Lincolnshire floods of sixty years ago in which 42 people died.
And  leader Martin Hill tells us that he will be speaking at the launch of the East Coast Co-ordination  Network,  which he hopes  will be an opportunity for agencies with responsibilities during flooding incidents, “to get together and share vital information” – something that we hope they would be doing already.
Cumulatively, this paints a depressing portrait.
But, as has already been noted, Boston – which is purportedly the worst flood risk area in Britain – escaped relatively unscathed in the recent catastrophic weather.
This is because of the sterling service done by our local drainage boards, which have been credited with sparing us from major flooding.
Whilst it would be wrong to be complacent about the risks, we think that it is possible to develop too negative a position on the issue.
The time for many of the seminars aimed at making people more aware of flooding and how to cope with it are better staged during the drier months when action can be taken – rather than waiting until the waters are lapping at the doorstep.
A crucial factor in all of this is the proposed Boston flood barrier, which will protect Boston from sea flooding, reduce the risk of tidal flooding in from 2% in any one year to 0.3%, and protect about 10,000 homes and 900 businesses in the area.
Initial reports claimed that the barrier could be in operation by 2014, but the last we heard, the Environment Agency said that construction is planned to take place between spring 2016 and spring 2018.
It’s now a year since the Environment Agency made a  survey of the ground below the bed of the Haven as part of the “on-going work” towards a proposed multi-million flood barrier for the town – and  what has happened since then  is anyone’s guess.
But given the current fractured financial climate nothing can be regarded as definite.
The quoted cost of £50 million is big money for an organisation, and the Environment Agency must be under considerable pressure to invest in areas that others deem under a greater threat than Boston.
Lincolnshire County Council has promised £11 million towards unlocking the tourism potential created by the installation of a flood barrier which could unlock between £230m, and £500m in benefits to the community.
But County Hall remains under pressure to cut its budget – so who knows how secure that money is?
Amidst all of this, the government is waiting for the Association of British Insurers to deliver “constructive proposals” about the future of flood insurance, and replace the current deal, which ends in July.
After that, it may become even more expensive or difficult – or impossible – for local people to obtain insurance cover in the event of flooding that the powers that be seem to believe is becoming ever more remote.
We need some organisation and clarification … and hopefully some sort of action – please.
 

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

 

There are always furious denials whenever it is suggested that the Boston Town Area Committee is being used as a piggy bank for the council.
Stand by for that debate to reignite with a report before today’s meeting recommending that the committee takes on even more spending that is presently part of the council’s general budget.
BTAC is described as a “parish council” for the town, whose job it is to reflect and represent the views of the town wards and residents – and the only items which can legally be charged to it are those provided exclusively or mainly for those people. 
If the wider population use facilities, they are subject to the council wide council tax.
However, regular readers will recall the rumpus after the committee funded last year’s feeble Queen’s Jubilee celebrations in Central Park to the tune of £5,000 – an event that that was undoubtedly a borough-wide attraction which should therefore have been funded from  the whole council budget.
A couple of years ago, BTAC paid for the herb garden in Central Park which again was deemed by many to be borough-wide facility, spending on which  deprived town residents of £10,000 that could have been used for local needs.
And last year, English Democrat Councillor Elliott Fountain attacked BTAC for meetings that were “more like a hand-out shop, where people or groups from all over the Boston area ask for money and the committee gives to them – even though it is not just for Boston town area residents.
“There are no discussions or views on anything else in this committee except to give money away.
“I think I have witnessed at least £40,000 given away – in my opinion to projects, furniture or groups that should have been given from the council’s budget.”
The latest cunning plan for BTAC’s funds comes from finance portfolio holder Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire, who tells today’s meeting in a draft budget report that “consultation has suggested that BTAC should adopt the whole Garfits Lane footprint rather than only the playground.”
The Garfits Lane  playing field is within the BTAC area, but  currently BTAC only pays for the maintenance of the play area within the playing field.
The apparent justification for taking on the whole site is that “this gives BTAC the opportunity to manage the site and for example look at either reducing its costs or raising further income, in the spirit of localism.
This will add almost £34,000 to BTAC’s outgoings – and at the same time relieve another budget … presumably Leisure Services … which has already benefitted handsomely from BTAC’s funding in the past.
If BTAC incurred these costs immediately, the band D special expense for 2013/14 will soar from £8.85 to £12.72.
The committee’s total expenditure on the premises it would be responsible for will rise by almost 62% from £56,980 to £92,140, whilst its bill for supplies and services will increase from 16,360 to £19,100 – or 16.7%.
We find it very difficult to see how anyone can argue that this proposal is nothing more than a way to hive off a large chunk of general council spending on to a committee with a specific budgetary remit.
It would be interesting to hear an explanation as to why the borough has picked up the bill for the Garfits Lane site quite cheerfully for donkey’s years until now.
Polspeak dresses the idea up in terms of a window of opportunity for BTAC – when the real beneficiary would appear to be the leisure services budget.
Expect no surprises in terms of opposition to the plan.
We are told that the cabinet has endorsed the idea.
The Tories have a comfortable majority on BTAC – which includes three cabinet members.
The Tories always do what the cabinet tells them.
So … why they bother to hold the meeting in the first place is what baffles us.

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

 

 Figures for anti-social behaviour being presented at tomorrow’s meeting of the Boston Town Area Committee make interesting reading.
They show that the total number of reported incidents dealt with by the Community Safety Department at Boston Borough Council between November 2011 and November last year was 131.
Of this figure, neighbourhood disputes – which totalled 31 – headed the list of the top five categories, with a total of 48 incidents accounting for the rest.
These all appeared to be related, covering as they do misuse of public areas, drunken behaviour, rowdy behaviour and street drinking.
A bigger picture – of incidents reported to Lincolnshire Police between April and October last year – reflects a similar pattern.
Drunken behaviour, street drinking and shouting and swearing between them accounted for 370 of a total of 1,921 incidents.
Bad as the figures are, they actually represent an improvement, with a drop in offences reported to the police of 356, or just over 11%.
However, the fall doesn’t look so good when compared with the other local authority areas of Lincolnshire, with Boston ranked sixth out of seven – well behind the table leader West Lindsey, where crime for the six month period fell by more than 20%.
Boston’s tendency to find trouble in a bottle continues despite numerous promises of a “clampdown” on such behaviour – although public concern remains as high as ever it was.
Something that worries us amidst all of this is the path being taken by the new owner of Boston’s Assembly Rooms, Matthew Clark.
Whilst the pussyfooting around the use of the words night club continues, there is no doubt that this will form a core use of the premises.
Mr Clark declared:  “Entertainment is our catalyst and we want to put on some big acts here that bring out everyone from 18 to 40, 50, and 60 years old that can enjoy it.”
Asked whether the place would be run as a bar every night of the week,  he continued:
“The final plans aren’t there yet. It’s anticipated that, yes, it will remain pretty much as it is in forms of operation, but there will be a licensed area there will be an area for dancing and there will be a stage  – so we don’t see any radical changes to the building that it was actually constructed for.
“Again, it’s just that people are scared of the word night club I suppose …”
Having said that,   he also announced that between thirty and fifty people would be needed to staff the operation.
Since then, things have moved on.
At the end of last month, Mr Clark announced that he had bought the Waterfront pub, to "complement” the Assembly Rooms, and added: “I am on the lookout. There are at least two other properties I have got my eye on in Boston.”
More worryingly, he was quoted as saying: “It’s really important to us that we got a separate venue to make sure people can have a whole night out of entertainment. “Everyone wants to pub crawl, and we want to make sure we have quality venues for them to visit.”
A quick count turned up at least 25 pubs in the immediate town centre area plus a couple of nightclubs.
Given the problems that Boston experiences with alcohol, we have to ask whether we really want a local entrepreneur going to the trouble to organise a pub crawl, and would question whether it is truly what “everyone wants.”
It’s rather disappointing to realise that the “economic boost” promised for Boston will apparently take the form of parting fools from their money by turning them into drunken fools.
At the time the Assembly Rooms sale was announced, Council Leader Pete Bedford was fulsome in his praise for Matthew Clark.
“The great thing about it is the fact that he is a local chap, I mean he was born in Kirton just down the road from Boston.”
The Leader emphasised the problems of absentee landlords, and added: “How do you then control things? We’ve got somebody now who we are confident will deliver something for Boston.”
We doubt that our so-called leadership will try to control anything to do with the Assembly Rooms, and however many other pubs may be enjoined in this hokey cokey binge-up.
But we hope that if there are planning conditions that can be enforced, or police recommendations that must be adhered to, then the powers that be will do their best to protect the town from the predations of even more drunks on our  streets.
 

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

 

A happy new year to all our readers, and welcome back to the Boston Eye blog.
There’s nothing like a fairy-tale at Christmas, which is why we so enjoyed the story in Boston Borough Council’s good newsletter purportedly written by leader Councillor Peter Bedford.
Somewhat mixing his countryside metaphors, he told us: “Challenges were met, improvements were made, thorny issues tackled, some including old chestnuts that had been around for a long time.”
And confusingly, we are told that: “It’s not until you sit down to reflect on all business done in the past year that you realise how much was accomplished in 2012.”
Apparently, the year was so hectic that Councillor Bedford claims that his wife hardly saw him in 2012 -  although a visual aid in the form of new portrait of the leader is provided by way of an aide-mémoire … which we have to say that it looks more like an e-fit of a politician on the run than anything else. A tough new look for 2013, perhaps?
So just what were all these achievements of which the leader is so proud?
Sadly, it’s a case of same old, same old.
The last stages of improvements to the Geoff Moulder Leisure Complex are underway – and appear to be far in excess of the monies allocated to the project –  which primarily benefits an elite partnership of the Witham Schools Federation and Boston Amateur Swimming Club.  
The council “enabled” £1 million to be spent on improvements at the Peter Paine
Sports Centre.
“The facility was in much need of improvement and this is a sum the council could never have afforded to spend. By handing the centre over to Boston College, cash for refurbishment was unlocked creating another superb sports facility,” says the Leader.
What he fails to mention is that the council had never owned or operated the centre, but reportedly threatened the trustees that it would be closed if they didn’t spend £400,000 on refurbishment … or hand the lease to the council.
Certainly, the deal gave the college access to £1 million of funding - and coincidentally opened a window of opportunity to sell its De Montfort campus to developers and make another £1,500,000 in the process.
The council has had the effrontery to suggest that the sport centre deal –made through an offer that the Peter Paine trustees could not refuse – has saved the borough a million pounds.
Hmmmm.
In  a similar elitist deal to that of the Moulder project, it was agreed that the college will use the centre and grounds on weekdays, and the public at “locally-comparable rates” during the evenings and weekends.
A “new future” for the Assembly Rooms thanks to private investment is welcomed … even though a side effect was the loss of the Market Place public toilets.
Then, we are down to the leaves at the bottom of the teacup – the ones that always stick to your tongue and make you gag.
They include the completion of the Market Place refurbishment – which has turned the area into a take-you-life-into-your-hands-if-you-want-to-get-across-in-one-piece and a “worthwhile” project to restore historic 116 High Street – another neglected and one time council-owned property which was flogged to Heritage Lincolnshire to turn into something hallway decent.
Other causes for celebration were the Boston in Bloom competition – really? – the “big picnic” in the park  to mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee –  which barely anyone attended –   and the “success” of the Olympic torch relay through the borough that cost a small fortune.
The leader tells us that we are “well placed to tackle what 2013 will throw at us” and that “arrangements are now at an advanced stage to put the Boston Sports Initiative into the position of managing the Princess Royal Sports Arena.
“This will enable it to become a successful venue for sport and public entertainment, providing an alternative venue for some of the more traditional Assembly Rooms events.”
Hang on … that sounds as though we expect the new Assembly are unlikely to remain at the heart of the town’s public life as has been repeatedly claimed.
Some truly good news is that Boston has been given £1 million in lottery funding for community projects – which excludes the sticky fingers of the usual suspects – though we think that this will be unlikely.
It’s often the case that the items omitted from lists like these are more interesting than those which are shouted from the rooftops.
Mention of the Market Place ignores the dangers the new design has created.
There are no reports of the decision to charge disabled blue badge holders to park their cars, nor of the 20% rise in allowances that senior councillors awarded themselves.
And we will be interested to hear the proposals concerning the PRSA – particularly as the quotes about it make no mention of an end to public funding – which is now supposed to have ended.
And perhaps once all this is over, Councillor Bedford could focus on something other than sporting facilities for a change.

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