In the unlikely event that waste disposal is ever admitted to the Olympic programme, Lincolnshire County Council and Boston Borough Council will have a head start on other would-be contenders – as they are already in training for the Synchronised Dumping on Taxpayers’ Marathon.

A report to Clownty Hall’s environmental scrutiny committee on 18^th March seeks approval to build a £1.5 million council-owned “exemplar” Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) on Nursery Road, in the Boston Riverside industrial estate, rather than pay for a service from a third party as at present.

If agreed the new tip will open on 1^st April next year.

Given the date, we assume that someone is having a laugh at the taxpayers’ expense – as the plan is a one-sided affair whose benefits are all in favour of Clownty Hall and Worst Street and against the interests of the people that they purport to “serve.”

The alleged window of opportunity to open a new rubbish tip centres on the arrival of a paid-for garden waste collection services in Boston – according to Lincoln’s account.

The present tip on Slippery Gowt is purpose built and privately owned and costs the county council £670,000 per year – which makes it the most expensive dump in the county.

Clownty Hall says that spending on an invest to save basis will save at least £300,000 a year, so the pay-back period is expected to be five years and four months.

Somewhat cryptically, Lincoln says: “As there is now a Boston Borough Council-wide green waste service provision, there is the potential for additional savings by aligning the present seven day opening to four day opening for a LCC owned site.

This is the point at which we start to smell a rat – and it’s not on a rubbish tip either.

Will someone tell us why County Hall is linking what to them seems to be a newly arrived Worst Street-wide green waste collection service with the building of a new facility?

The county council says that “the present site is open seven days a week due to the previous recognition that there was no provided green waste service by Boston Borough Council – which is untrue.

Boston’s brown bin collections began in 2013 – and if their arrival was contingent on a decision to relocate a tip and bring it under the county umbrella, why has it been left until now?

The only difference for some obscure reason appears to be that we now pay for the service, whereas before it was free – and accompanied by the false promise that this would forever be the case.

Given the current financial problems faced by Lincolnshire County Council we think it strange that the not-insignificant sum of £1½ million can be conjured out of thin air at a time when the county is looking at cutting such things as street lighting, and was also once contemplating doing away with local bus services.

The spending of such a sum must surely have been planned some time ago in budgetary terms – and as it is entailed with the advent of not just a green waste collection service, but a paid-for green waste collection service, the conclusion that there must have been some sort of connivance involving Boston Borough Council is inescapable.

Did Clownty Hall demand the imposition of a charge to remove green waste to fit in with its plans to save money and slash availability to the waste tip by a stonking 47% from seven days a week to four?

It seems that we are looking at another case of Lincoln telling Worst Street to jump, and Worst Street merely asking how high?” – yet again to the disadvantage of Boston taxpayers.

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Smile when you

call me that!

The famous words from poet John Lydgate –  later adapted by President Lincoln – sprang to mind when we read a report to Boston Borough Council: “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.

Obviously, an organisation like Worst Street can’t operate without attracting grumbles, but now has taken the interesting step of devising a policy to deal with “persistent and vexatious complaints.”

In a preamble to the policy a report says the council welcomes feedback when services are appreciated, but also wants to know when things go wrong.

“We are committed to dealing with complaints and provide a high quality service to those who make them in order we can continuously seek to improve our service, systems and procedures.

“As part of this service, the council does not normally limit the contact that customers have with its officers.”

But, it adds: “A very small minority of customers make complaints that are vexatious or unreasonably persistent in order to make life difficult for the council or individuals, rather than genuinely to resolve a grievance.”

It cites examples such as excessive telephoning or sending emails to numerous council officers,  and writing long, complex letters every few days and expecting immediate responses;

The report also mentions being abusive to officers in writing, verbally or by use of social media, and refusing to accept a decision by repeatedly arguing the point and complaining about it

The list of what the council considers vexatious is exhaustive, to say the least  - to the point where we suspect that merely saying good morning to an employee might meet with a punitive reaction.

It strikes us that there is a degree of over-touchiness here, and that much of the proposals are a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

When a policy like this is drawn up it would be interesting to know the scale of the problem that has prompted it – and we find it hard to believe that the level of aggressive complaints is high enough to warrant it.

In any case, Worst Street already has a little-known policy for dealing with people it considers to be a nuisance.

This takes the form of refusing to speak to them or accept any e-mails other than those sent through the borough’s quote “info” address. Such penalties are enforced for six months before being reviewed.

And again, as regular readers will know, the borough has other petty reprisals up its sleeve if needed. Boston Eye is barred from reading or following the borough on Twitter – and has  been excommunicated by the communications department, which now refuses to respond to our emails. Such a petty and pointless recrimination is normally reserved for serial trolls which we are not. Doubtless, though someone feels a lot better for this infantile action.

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Mud, mud – but nothing

glorious about this mess

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words – so here’s a couple of thousand words’ worth for you.

The pictures below were taken in Garfits Park last Thursday by a reader out walking his dog,

Any resemblance between a recreational area and a scene from a First World War battleground is entirely co-incidental – although the difference is not easy to spot.

In the way that many councils ‘work’ – and Boston is exemplary in this respect – tasks are done ‘by the book.’

This means that – even though the town had suffered heavy rain for some while a note in a diary somewhere said it was time to cut the grass in Garfits Park.

The fact that the result was to create a morass of mud which will take weeks if not months to recover does not appear to have bothered anyone for a moment.

Did it not occur to anybody to make a quick phone call to head office and ask whether it might be a better idea to postpone the work for a day or two?

Clearly the answer is no.

The dog walker came back wearing a pair of jeans that needed to go straight into the washing machine to be cleaned, whilst his dog had a huge amount of trouble even standing upright on the grass and using  all four legs – what  it was like when he had to resort to three is anyone's guess

To make matters even worse, attempts at football over the weekend have left the park in an even worse state – what sort of mind is work in Worst Street?

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Today is the first day of Clean for the Queen – a national three-day event to rid Britain of litter ahead of HRH’s 90^th birthday on 21^st April … but not in Boston. Our stick-in-the-mud council is clinging to the usual dates for its Big Boston Clean-up from Monday April 4^th to Thursday April 7^th – which doesn’t even come close to the Queen’s other ‘official’ birthday in June. Nonetheless, Worst Street is determined to bask in the reflected glory – prattling on about “the Big Boston Clean-up this spring will be by royal appointment”  … and that it “will incorporate the nationwide campaign to clear up Britain in time for Her Majesty's 90^th  birthday.” Wrong on both counts. It’s all a bit sad, really – but the bottom line is that as in previous years, Boston will sparkle for a few days then revert to the litter-strewn wilderness that has characterised it for so long.

***

As Boston’s Big Broken Promise Day nears, and paid-for garden waste collections begin, Worst Street is keen to appear helpful – but  as so often happens, without success.

Take the following as an example

This is a postcode generated guide to bin collections. Unfortunately, it features a choice between two brown garden waste bins.

One was apparently last emptied on Tuesday 23^rd February (a time when collections had not begun) and is due to be collected again two weeks later.

The other garden waste bin was last collected on Saturday 1^st January 2000 (which is well before collections began) and will next be emptied on Thursday 3^rd March.

So … is the collection day on a Tuesday, or on a Thursday? Thanks again Boston Borough Council.

***

It was rather disconcerting to read that after cuts are made across the county Boston will have just four police officers working in the district. The reason, apparently, is that 17 officers and sergeants are being taken off the streets to deal with “serious crime” – child sexual exploitation, cybercrime and missing persons. The policing of Boston has become a  bad joke – and the idea that in a town which regularly sees major violent crime on the streets, officers should be moved behind a desk to deal with “serious” crime is the none-too-funny punch line.

Lincolnshire’s outgoing Police and Crime Commissioner Alan Hardwick – whose departure may be no bad thing – tries to justify these cuts by saying: “Our on-going aim is to continue to reduce and detect crime and ensure that Lincolnshire remains one of the safest places to live in the country.”  This follows criticism in four official reports – against a backdrop of rising violent crime which the police tried to pass off  to look like a fall. The best the force clings to is a claim of giving value for money – which merely means doing what it can with insufficient finance.

***

On this page a couple of weeks ago we reported attendance problems for two Tory councillors due to their work taking them outside the area. 

This prompted one of them – Councillor Doctor Gordon Gregory – to write to say: “I am a medical (or more specifically surgical) doctor.  I had spent much time at Pilgrim, but Pilgrim being a rural hospital only does some operations – therefore all doctors have to rotate around many hospitals so as to learn all operations.  

“I am not that far away (Nottinghamshire) and have and will attend no fewer meetings that I would if I were at Pilgrim, I have booked off time for this purpose. 

“In fact since being elected in May, and being on monthly Health Scrutiny Committees, six-weekly other committees and full council, I have only missed one meeting (I was on call at Pilgrim in theatre.)”

***

Speaking of attendances, we’re told that Monday’s full council meeting saw two former councillors who were ousted last year in attendance, and a third of no real former political persuasion who got kicked out in 2011. Apparently, the Tories have even gone so far as to nominate candidates for the Lincolnshire County Council election next year. Whilst  keenness begins with a K, so does kamikaze.

***

Although we are sure that there is unlikely to be a dry eye in the chamber when this year’s mayor Richard Austin pulls his chain off for the last time, we have to remark that every cloud has a silver lining.

For most of his year in office, pole position on the Worst Street website has been dominated by the headline BOSTON - A Great Past and a Bright Future beneath which Councillor Austin invited everyone to write a few words to describe what they like best about the area.

The outcome was a list of comments from 25 people – many of them not only members of the great and the good of Boston (the usual suspects) but employees at West Street to boot. Later the borough told us that “more have risen to the challenge” and added another four names.

We suppose that Councillor Austin’s enthusiastic efforts to get someone to say something nice about Boston ought to be applauded – but instead they have just made him look silly, and it is a relief to see the idea relegated to the FIFI section of the borough’s website … File It, Forget It.

***

Councillor Austin’s departure will see the arrival of Councillor Stephen Woodliffe as the 482^nd mayor – and also his departure from the cabinet where he holds the portfolio for environmental health, community safety and emergency planning among other things. This was confirmed to us a couple of months ago when we were told that it was down  to the so-called leader ‘Nipper’ Bedford to decide how to manage the regulatory services portfolio, since when nothing more has been heard. Does this mean that he is strapped for choice rather than spoiled for it? Whoever is takes on a relatively significant role such as this needs time to get up to speed – and that time is running out.

***

Speaking of important new jobs – has Worst Street appointed a newly created £65,000 a year “Head of Service Economic Development and Growth” to provide “strategic, visionary and organisational leadership in all aspects of inward investment, growth and wider regeneration and economic development for the borough?”   We ask because the appointment was due to have been made more than a week ago – and the holder of a job of such importance (not to mention cost) it something we hope would be shared with the people who will be footing the bill. But then, this is Worst Street.

***

We salute an imaginative step by East Lindsey District Council to abandon charges in ten car parks – including some in Louth, Spilsby and Horncastle.

Council Leader Craig Leyland, is quoted as saying: "We've listened carefully to the messages we've received from local people, the business community and town and parish councils and I'm pleased the district council is able to reintroduce free parking again in some of its car parks.

"We are clear that we want businesses to thrive and this council will continue to work hard to support them to grow and prosper."

Are you listening, Worst Street? Is anyone there? Knock once for yes, twice for no.

***

That twice yearly event which local newspapers dread has come round again – the Audit Bureau of Circulation figures that show how they’re doing. The Boston Standard’s parent company refused to take part some years ago at a time when the readership was in free-fall. But the figures for the period July to December 2015 show the Boston Target shifting 8,456 copies – although they do not include a year-on-year comparison. Still, secrecy cannot hide a trend. The last time these papers were brave enough to issue complete figures was in 2012, when the Boston Standard reported sales of 7,684 … down 12.4% and the Target had a circulation of 14,121 … a fall of 8.1%. On this basis the Standard circulation must now be calculable using fingers and a few toes!

***

Our MP Matt Warman is nothing if not enthusiastic when it comes to getting involved in things – but for once, we think that he let his keenness run away with him.

 

Speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

***

Despite our comments last week, the Boston Beano keeps indifferently bob-bob-bobbing along. Content between Monday and Thursday began with a piece dated 29^th February, reporting the formation of a Hanse committee following a public meeting held on the 11^th – almost three weeks earlier, and nothing to do with Worst Street. Wednesday’s edition told us why we shouldn’t put garden waste in our green bin after an inquiry from a resident. It turned out that the question was asked in last week’s Boston Target and was followed this week by a response from Councillor Mike (“we will never charge to collect green waste”)  Brookes – and used in full without naming him in Boston Beano. Yesterday – although vaguely relevant, Worst Street found yet another reason to hark back to the floods of 2013. If Boston Beano was produced in print you might think that it would make a handy firelighter. But it wouldn’t – it’s far too soggy.

***

The ever changing face of Boston continues. We note that a recent planning application is to change the use of the ground floor of the former County Council Annex in Church Close into shops and a café, and to turn the first second and third floors into nine residential units. Another café. Oh joy. Mind you, it could have been worse – we could be getting another mobile ‘phone shop, betting shop, charity shop or nail bar.

***

 Finally, we celebrate something of a milestone for us – and doubtless a millstone for many at Worst Street.  Boston Eye this week enters its 10^th year of publication. Thanks to all our loyal readers – some of whom have followed us from the start, and the new readers who are joining us every week.

***

We’ll be back next week on Tuesday.

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

A strange metamorphosis seems to occur when some people acquire the designation of councillor before their name, and adopt a mantle of superiority, and lack of consideration for their fellow beings. 

There ought to be a collective noun for this. After all, we have such gatherings as a convocation of eagles, an unkindness of ravens, and a shrewdness of apes – so how about a rudeness of councillors?

Two fine examples have emerged in recent days.

The first came in an email exchange between former councillor Carol Taylor and the chairman of the self-appointed Prosperous Boston task and finish project Councillor Judith Skinner, and seen by Boston Eye.

The committee meets in secret, and is not formally minuted – but a rare chance of a glimpse into its boiler room was offered by a report from Councillor Skinner to a recent meeting of BTACky … the so-called “parish” council for town wards.

Sadly, the report was verbal – and thus unavailable to the voters unless they attended the meeting.

Mrs Taylor asked why the meetings were not open to the public, and, as the verbal report was presumably being read from a written one, whether it could be made available to read.

The reply was only little short of saying “stick your head up a bear’s bum.” “Thank you for your interest in the Task and Finish Group on Prosperous Boston.

“The Group will be making available a full report of its findings and recommendations in due course.

 “If you would like to put forward any points please feel free to email me.”

Mrs Taylor replied: “Unfortunately you have not answered my question. Why was this task and finish group not open to the public?

Cue the “I’m a councillor” syndrome.

“I thought as a former councillor you would remember that task and finish group meetings are not made open to the public (sic) and are A political (sic). As I stated the results and recommendations will be made public.

“We did hold a public consultation in the market place (sic) in December which was well advertised in the press.”

We remember it well – a four-hour session on a rainy Saturday two weeks before Christmas.

And as far as we are aware there is no rule excluding the public from task and finish group meetings.

The only such meetings in recent years were in 2012. One was about the Social Impact of Population Change in Boston, and the other an investigation into the activities of the former Boston Business ‘Improvement’ District.

In both cases, not only were local people permitted to attend, they were actively encouraged to participate.

Our second example of needless bad manners appeared in the minutes of the full council meeting in January.

UKIP Councillor Yvonne Stevens asked why the council did not put in place a competitive bidding process for the biomass boilers at the Moulder Leisure Centre and the PRSA – the cost of which a year ago surged by 64%, from £456,000 to £749,000, incidentally after the “experts” asked to quote “reviewed” the initial figure!.

Such actions could, Councillor Stevens claimed that  competitive bidding might have saved Boston’s council tax payers £249,000.

Enter Councillor Claire Rylott, portfolio holder for nine various roles best summarised as serving the quick and the dead who use the council’s sports services and cemeteries.

She said that the overriding consideration for the contract was to allow completion of the works to avoid a maximum potential reduction in renewable heating incentive which had fallen dramatically over the previous 18 months. An open tender was “simply not achievable.”

We’ve seen this before or course, when Worst Street pulled a similar stunt, rushing to buy solar panels to beat any reduction in subsidy.

Councillor Rylott went on: “Your comment regarding potential savings is entirely misleading and without proper foundation. I fail to see how any contractor can submit a valid and properly considered cost without sight of the specification and having a full understanding of what is being requested!”

And the rant concluded: “I hope now that Councillor Stevens is better informed she will apologise for providing misleading and unsubstantiated figures to elected members.”

Quite rightly, Councillor Stevens said that she had nothing to apologise for; the information was a ‘ball park’ figure, and not a quote.

She went on to ask if the council was going to pay for the biomass boiler fuel that will be needed and, if so how much it would cost each year. Unbelievably, Councillor Rylott dismissed this as having “no relevance” to the original question, and again demanded an apology for “misleading” the council”

This was a silly and petty response, which left us feeling that somehow we may have wound up paying more than we needed to.

The second question seemed entirely relevant, and to suggest otherwise made us wonder if reluctance to answer was hiding something that Worst Street doesn’t want us to know. 

The satisfying thing was that revenge became a dish served cold when Councillor Stevens asked the same question at the full council meeting this week.

Answer: Boston Borough Council is paying.

How much? We don’t know – we’re going through the procurement process at the moment.

This has a terribly deadly ring to it.

 

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

On 1950’s television, it was called the $64,000 Question – but on Monday night in Boston’s council chamber it was the £1 Million Question.

To try to solve the mystery of the Loan That No-One Conveniently Knows Very Much About, a public question was posed to finance portfolio holder Aaron ‘Frank’ Spencer.

It followed the surprising discovery after a Freedom of Information request of 51 items – even though it was always claimed nothing more than a receipt remained.

The questioner asked where these documents have been all these years and when they were found, and as they named people with knowledge of the loan who were still alive and contactable, how investigations were going to give the answers that have been sought over the last 25 years?

Councillor Spencer replied: “The council has always held documents in relation to the loan. The documents provided came to light during an archive and disposal project when the Council was clearing out old paper files during November 2015.

“All councillors were made aware of this at the time so it is perhaps not so remarkable but right and proper that they were provided as a response to your FOI request.

“The documents only support what the council already knew about the loan and that was reported to the council on this matter in 2010.

“I understand the chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee has already agreed to undertake a review of the loan and this will be reported on in the near future.”

As we reported on Monday the committee chairman mentioned – Councillor Doctor Gordon Gregory – decided to investigate the loan affair further because he found the lack of evidence “odd and suspicious.”

This sounds less like an inquiry instigated by a council concerned at an apparently unapproved or recorded loan at usurious interest rates which will cost taxpayers £6 million by the repayment date, and more like an Indiana Jones style search for the Writers of the Lost Cheque.

The questioner’s response to Councillor Spencer was that although his reply suggested that the file was sitting in a cabinet gathering dust for a number of years with no one knowing where it was or whether it even existed, documents had been added to it from the date the loan was taken out in 1991 to as late as February 2014.

“To me this suggests that at least one person within the Municipal Buildings knew where the file was and what is worrying, kept quiet about it when questions were asked.

“Are you not in the slightest concerned that over the last 25 years it appears officers have withheld these documents from councillors and the public? Does it suggest there is something to hide?”

Apparently Councillor Spencer’s response was to mutter something equivalent to the parliamentary “I refer my honourable friend to the answer I gave earlier,” shrug and sit down.

Incidentally, the supplementary question to Councillor Spencer was made longer by three interventions from the Mayor, Councillor Richard Austin, demanding brevity. A fourth interruption came from Mrs Mayor claiming that a response to her husband was disrespectful.

The question took well under minute to read, so Mr Austin’s comments seemed superfluous – not to say rude.

In future, it would be preferable if the Pearl Carr and Teddy Johnson of Boston politics realised that respect is a two-way street

We’ll be talking more about the discourtesy of councillors tomorrow.

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

The adage “don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is going” has its roots in the bible – Matthew 6:3 – where it forms part of the Sermon on the Mount.

And it seems that Worst Street has found these words worth heeding in its ambivalent dithering concerning the Grade II listed Witham Tavern pub, which is in the Boston Conservation Area.

Readers will recall that late last year a group of enthusiasts sought to have the pub declared an Asset of Community Value under the Localism Act after an application to convert it to six apartments.

Worst Street had not received such an application before, and instead of being big and bold and brave and grasping the nettle, it chose to invite someone from neighbouring East Lindsey District Council to do the job instead.

A representative from the group fighting to save the pub told Boston Eye that the council acted “shamefully” regarding the application – consulting only the owner of the pub, and none of the 21 people who had signed the ACV application before rejecting it.

The ELDC officer spoke of lack of support from the community and said that whilst the nomination referred to the pub’s prime position to attract tourism and this did not mean that it played a role in furthering the social well-being or interests of the local community.

The change of use application had been withdrawn before this and has reappeared at today’s Planning Committee meeting.

And guess what?

It has been recommended for refusal.

Since the application was first submitted 51 letters have been sent opposing the scheme with one supporting the application. Sixteen were received which did not have any address indicated.

By contrast the previous application for a similar scheme last year attracted just letters of opposition.

Not only have the numbers changed, but also the tune being played by Worst Street,

The report to today’s meeting declares: “The conversion of a public house represents a loss of a community facility which is normally resisted … 

“The Local Plan’s strategy is to revitalise all of the borough’s communities by boosting the local economy and promoting housing development where appropriate, but equally important is the retention of the existing community facilities.”

The huge increase in opposition to the scheme is described as a “significant” difference to the previous application and is a relevant material consideration. “It demonstrates perhaps that the loss of the public house will have a significant effect upon the needs of the local community according to that local community” says the report to today’s meeting.

It adds: “This level of opposition on valid planning grounds to this scheme is a material consideration and perhaps provides some evidence to suggest that although the Witham Tavern Public House has not been placed on the List of Assets of Community Value, according to the community it still has a significant role to play to meet that community’s needs and is a valued asset to the community.”

The report also rubbished the earlier ACV interpretation, saying: “Although the association with the marina may be only as a result of its physical location it is almost anecdotally a reason to assume the Tavern has a role for leisure and tourism. “

It says that many objectors – including   those from local businesses – consider that the loss of this riverside public house will have a ‘knock on’ effect on other businesses and the local tourist trade.

And says that the development would undermine the council’s long term aim of promoting tourism and the regeneration of the waterways.

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston