The unannounced decision by South Kesteven District Council to impose wheeled rubbish bins on residents of Queen's Street, Stamford, last Wednesday was shocking and doubly deplorable.
Firstly, because it was in direct contradiction of a letter sent out some months ago when the black sacks were discontinued, in which it was stated that these houses had been assessed as unsuitable for those same bins; and secondly in the manner of i
ts enforcement, whereby residents' wishes were crudely overruled and disregarded.
This same letter also offered bins as an option. Why this pretence of a choice if it was always intended to force them on everyone? This policy may be approved by the council, these actions may be perfectly within its legal powers, but it is morally indefensible and unjust for taxpayers' feelings to be treated with such contempt.
Why has the blunt instrument of compulsion been used? Would it really bankrupt the council to allow more people to use plastic sacks instead of bins?
My father and I do not generate a great amount of either landfill or recyclable rubbish, so the greater capacity of the bins is of no advantage to us and their use will not contribute to the council hitting any targets.
Last Wednesday's action, amounting as it does to a dictatorship of the majority, breeds justified resentment and a cynicism fatal to that essential bond of trust between the tax-paying public and their elected representatives.
Since when, in a free and supposedly democratic society, has it been acceptable for an elected council to behave in such an arbitrary, cynical, discourteous and decidedly undemocratic manner? And why, after this episode, should we have faith in rulings emanating from Grantham, when they can apparently be secretly reversed and peremptorily enforced at any time?
Robert Riley
Queen's Street,
Stamford
The full article contains 306 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
