Always look on the dark side of life ...

It's not that long ago that we went to the exhibition staged by the Environment Agency to view the plans for the proposed Boston Barrier aimed at protecting the borough from flooding. According to reports, the barrier could be in place as early as 2014, and the good news for the 900 businesses and 10,000 homes at risk was that the EA told us on the day that flood insurance cover would once again be available to those Bostonians presently denied it, and also at a price which those who are currently lucky enough to find it can afford. We were also assured that once the barrier was in place and working, the Environment Agency would redraw its flood maps and that Boston would have its "high risk" status removed.

Yet in the same way that Boston always seems to be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, we read on the borough's website about a new study of how possible future coastal flooding could limit where new homes can be built.

A report says that whilst the coast is well protected the risk of tidal flooding remains - although the proposed Boston Barrier and associated Haven works will give the town one of the best standards of protection against tidal flooding in the country.

So far, so good.

But the study has produced an alarming "hazard map" on the consequences of coastal flooding - not the risk or probability of flooding.

It conjures up a "worst scenario" based on the assumption that in a 1 in 200-year storm/flood/surge event from the North Sea, the defences on the coast and in the town have not merely overtopped but breached.

Not bad enough yet? Well, then, let's assume that the breaches won't be closed for 72 hours, and for good measure add the assumption that defences on the inland Haven have a lesser breach than those on the coast.

Whilst it would be foolish to minimise the risk of flooding, we think that disaster movie style speculation is just as unhelpful.

Surprisingly for an area which is so well defended against the waves, Environment Agency maps calculate areas at risk as if there were no defences at all, which seems daft, to say the least.

And it's also worth noting that despite major flooding occurring in other parts of the country and county in recent years Boston, because of its flood defences and location inland from the coast, has not suffered any major flooding for 200 years.

All that assumptions like this do is give insurance companies the chance they need to refuse insurance cover or effectively to make it unaffordable for the majority of  residents and businesses in Boston.

The last thing we need in these difficult times is for Boston to get a reputation as a disaster prone zone, when it is simply not true.

Be cautious by all means, but don't scaremonger.

Having said that, what if a volcano were suddenly to erupt in the Market Place, flooding the town with molten lava, and raining down volcanic ash and turning us into another Pompeii or Herculaneum? We ought to plan for it. It might just happen in a few millennia. Better rush out a report.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.