Why everything in

the garden isn't rosy!

Amidst all the upheavals of the past couple of days, it’s important not to lose sight of some of the more apparently routine issues within Boston Borough Council.
The business of the £10,000 garden project for Central Park, passed by the Tory majority at a recent meeting of BTAC - the Boston Town Area Committee - has given some councillors cause for concern, and two members say that the decision has broken both the spirit and letter of the committee’s raison d’etre.
Labour Councillor Paul Gleeson told Boston Eye that two issues seem to have been merged into one - and he not sure whether the Conservative group understood the proceedings at the meeting.
“The first issue was the construction of an herb garden in Central Park. As Central Park is a benefit to the whole of the borough, Labour councillors questioned whether the works should be paid for by using BTAC money, and argued that it should be paid for using general funds.
“BTAC money is the same as a parish council precept and should only be spent on items solely for the benefit of the town. We proposed, inter alia, that the committee didn’t authorise the expenditure pending clarification of whether it is proper expenditure for BTAC and pending a full review of how BTAC wants to spend project money during the next four years.
“During the subsequent debate, which was on the principal of how BTAC money was spent - not the herb garden - some of the Conservatives seemed to be agreeing with the points we had made.
“When we came to the vote, all the Conservatives voted against, they went on to propose and support the expenditure on the herb garden, using BTAC money on a borough-wide facility and depriving Boston town residents of £10,000 that could have been spent on their local needs.
“The next issue was, under the previous administration each councillor had a small pot of money - £800 - that they could allocate to projects in their area.
“This was different money to the £10,000 spent on an herb garden in Central Park. “Last year most councillors didn’t allocate the money, and the question was what BTAC should do with the money.
“I questioned the propriety of councillors allocating money in this way and doubted the benefit of what could be achieved by money being spent in small-unplanned amounts.
“Labour councillors again proposed that that the committee didn’t authorise the expenditure pending a full review of how BTAC wants to spend project money during the next four years and that the committee should visit all of the major open spaces that they are responsible for. This proposal was passed.”
Another councillor who feels the same way is English Democrat Elliott Fountain.
“To spend the money on the town park was from money already allocated from BTAC committee resources, and to put all the money together from each individual ward into one pot was two totally different subjects.
“May I just add that the Conservatives decided instead on each ward councillor having £2,000 to spend on their own individual ward and do what they thought was best. They decided to put the money into one pot and they - the committee on which the Conservatives have the majority - will decide where that money is best well spent.
“It kind of amuses me when they talk about £2,000 not being a lot of money to spend on items for each ward - £2,000 being spent on my ward is better than ZERO being spent on my ward.
“The main point I need to make is that the people who voted to adjourn this spend on the park only wanted to clarify if this was the best area to spend money on.
“To spend £10,000 on child's drawing is a bit hasty at the very least.”
A child’s drawing?
That was another area of contention, and we now have a copy of the plan as presented to the committee, from Boston’s other English Democrat Councillor, David Owens.

click on the photo to enlarge it

Councillor Owens says: “I think we could have asked for entries from the children of a local primary school and got a better quality drawing, and I am sure they would have found a more imaginative idea of a way to squander £10,000!”
We have to say that we think such an expensive scheme should have been much better depicted, and fully agree that if this represents the level of design quality, then it might have been a better idea to open it to a wider audience – given that no technical craftsmanship was apparently needed.

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