Appalled at waste plans

Dear Editor I like many other readers and residents within Stirling am appalled at the latest piece of legislation passed through the Council Chambers.

To have a monthly uplift of general waste is simply unworkable. There are many old houses in Stirling which have little storage facilities in them, like those built in Braehead which were built prior to and after World War One. This will leave these residents without anywhere to put excess rubbish which is evidently going to build up and sit in the street in bin bags.

A grey bin requires to be emptied at least once a fortnight, especially if you have very young children or when the council does away with part of the recycling of glass as the deposit scheme will not cover every type of glass vessel - this too is going to add extra waste to general household waste.

It is simply unworkable.

Not everyone has their own transport to take it to the rubbish dump or bottle bank and even more cannot afford to stump up extra cash for excess uplifts, especially the elderly population who may be struggling to live on what they have and additionally, with the current crisis of mass unemployment looming, due to the Covid-19 outbreak, many families are going to be struggling to make ends meet.

This is going to lead to serious environmental issues in the form of fly tipping which is on the increase, and more importantly an increase of vermin.

Not good for anyone and is blatantly a breach of environmental policy, which brings me nicely to my next concern, which breaches environmental policy.

I am sure readers are aware that Stirling Council passed a piece of infrastructure legislation without a direct consultation of the affected residents; it is going to cost millions to build it. The proposed vanity project will increase already dangerous air pollution in the areas of Linden Avenue and Colquhoun Street.

The monies could be better spent on sorting out current infrastructure, upgrading the current bin collection vehicles to electric or improving cycleway provision, park and ride to the south of the city or even car charging hubs like the one at Falkirk Stadium.

However once again we are seen as being the ones who are there to serve Stirling Council and not as it should be the other way around; I have every sympathy with the employees at the sharp end who work for what could be better wages while executive positions at £50,000 and increasing.

In conclusion I would respectfully remind councillors of the impending local elections, there is sufficient ire in the affected areas to affect peoples voting preference and would ask them to consider their future accordingly.

Name and address supplied

The undoubted adverse impact of these proposals on the elderly, the disabled and those in poverty, are recognised but glossed over. The adverse impact on recycling is equally obvious but denied with the bizarre claim, without any evidence, that recycling will actually increase.

The move to monthly grey bin (landfill) collection will undoubtedly save the council money.

However, it is also being suggested that only by reducing the frequency of grey bin collection will people be encouraged to pay £35 for brown bin garden waste collection, otherwise they would just put it in the grey bin.

This seems a perverse way to nudge people into better recycling practices, especially as it is forecast that less than half the population would choose to pay £35 to continue their brown bin garden waste collection.

What will happen to the other half ’s garden waste?

Again the elderly, the disabled, those in poverty – and those without a car – will be forced to put their garden waste in the now monthly grey landfill bin, or dump it elsewhere - together with everything else that can’t be fitted into a monthly grey bin.

Glass recycling is also to be withdrawn, without ensuring accessible alternatives to prevent glass waste also going to landfill via the grey bin, further decreasing our overall recycling.

We fully understand and acknowledge Stirling Council’s need to save money, and lots of it, in these difficult times. There is particular concern regarding the likely need for major extra financial support for education following six months loss of schooling for our children, especially if a “blended” system of home and school with social distancing is required.

Much extra funding is also required to fix our broken Social Care system whose deficiencies have been so cruelly highlighted.

Therefore, it is clear Stirling Council needs to save money and redirect to these essential services.

Before cutting existing services, it must consider where money can most appropriately be saved.

The outstanding candidate for an immediate saving of several million pounds is the unwanted and unjustified Viewforth Link Road.

This project, to build a major new road through an environmentally sensitive area of our city, driving a vastly increased volume of polluting traffic through heavily populated areas of Braehead, Broomridge and Kings Park, is totally inconsistent with Stirling Council’s avowed commitment to a greener future for our city, and its recognition of the climate and ecological emergency we are all facing.

If Stirling Council wishes to get the people of Stirling on board in supporting its understandable need to save and redirect our money its first action should be to cancel the unwanted and vastly expensive white elephant that is the Viewforth Link Road.

William Ruddell, chairman, Kings Park Community Council