Stamford, Spalding, Grantham and Rutland letter writers share their views with LincsOnline
Readers have shared their thoughts on what’s in the news.
Here we share some of the letters, emails and comments that have come in over the week, including this cartoon from John Elson on the Rutland Pretty Muddy Race for Life event - a report on that is here.
Send your letters to news@lincsonline.co.uk
I don't believe wheelie bins are the way forward
I don’t believe going with wheelie bins is the best way forward as we have a brilliant service at the moment. If paper and cardboard is something they want to try and recycle separately then, maybe another colour bin bag could be introduced.
I have two bins in the house and I try to recycle as much as possible. I put out more recycling each week than I do other waste. I don’t think people will have another bin in the house just for cardboard and paper, it will probably just get put into the black bag if it isn’t allowed in normal recycling.
My daughter lives in Market Deeping which is South Kesteven and not only do the collection guys refuse to take wet cardboard and paper which means it ends up in the general wheelie bin. At Christmas time when there is extra waste, they don’t take it if it isn’t in the wheelie bin, like big cardboard boxes.
At least in our district, if we have cardboard boxes, we can put them out as they are and I also use the bigger boxes to put other cardboard boxes and recycling in - it also doesn’t matter if they get wet, the recycling guys still take it.
I have a wheelie bin at home that I put my black bags in and then just take them out either the night before or the morning of the collection. I also have storage box that I tend to keep my recycling in, then I also do the same and put my recycling out either the night before or on the morning of collection. It also doesn’t matter how much I put out, it all gets collected.
I believe this is one of the biggest downsides to having wheelie bins, as they will only take what is in the wheelie bin and the lid also has to shut properly else they don’t take it. I know this has led my daughter to put some recycling items in the normal refuse collection so her wheelie bins don’t overflow and she has the large wheelie bins. She has also sometimes had to drive to the household waste centre in Spalding to dispose of excess waste herself.
On paper it may look like the councils are doing their bit to achieve net zero, recycle more, reduce their carbon footprint etc but in reality if you factor in people having to drive to household waste centres themselves etc to dispose of excess waste then the councils are not really achieving anything.
If the councils relaxed the restrictions on wheelie bins, like if you put an extra bag/box in so the lid didn’t shut or you put extra cardboard boxes next to the wheelie bin for collection and the guys still collected them, then that would help.
Another problem is, certainly around my area. there is some terraced houses and flats that have no space or only limited space to try and store these wheelie bins, some of these places have nowhere at the front of their properties as they are straight on the pavement and to access the rear of their property, then it’s a narrow alleyway that goes behind maybe four or five other properties.
Also some of these properties do not have any land either at the front or rear of their property to store a wheelie bin, it’s either a narrow pavement at the front of the house or on the roadway, so that would hinder pedestrians and traffic.
It’s not a case of one size fits all scenario, there has to be a proper look into what is best for each community/area and certainly a more relaxed view on additional waste that doesn’t fit into the wheelie bin itself.
South Holland resident
via email
Worries over car park plan
We, the residents of South Luffenham, wish to raise awareness of a proposed car park development on the Parish Field that has caused considerable concern in our village.
The plan involves constructing a 20-space car park adjacent to the children's play area, with proposed lighting and restricted access only to those using the village hall. As a result, it will not benefit the wider public or address general parking needs in the village. Instead, it would remove a portion of one of our few remaining public green spaces.
A number of residents have voiced their objections during parish council discussions, particularly after seeing the agenda posted on Facebook. However, many feel their concerns have not been acknowledged.
Matters of conservation, safety, and the overall scale of the development remain unresolved.
We are especially troubled by the dismissal of alternative parking locations without full community engagement or transparency.
The proximity of the proposed car park to a children's park also raises serious safety issues. Increased traffic and lighting could compromise the safety and atmosphere of this vital play area.
We believe this development would irreversibly alter the character of our rural village. It is vital that local voices are heard, that all options are considered, and that future development respects the values and spaces that define our community.
We hope your coverage will bring this issue to broader public attention, prompting further scrutiny and a more inclusive dialogue around the future of the Parish Field.
Elisha Purton
On behalf of concerned residents of South Luffenham
Reorganisation is about one thing
I would just like to add my two pennyworths to the current discussion on Rutland’s future under the Local Government Re-Organisation Plans which are being inflicted on us by Central Government. Firstly, let us forget all the nonsense about so called agendas, also let us ignore sentiment and geography. I my humble opinion its all about the money.
Rutland is a well-managed, financially secure and forward-looking authority. We cannot put all the hard work and excellent progress we have made at risk by merging with an authority that does not bring some value to the table. We need a larger Business Rate Base on which to build our future growth, since it is clear that the central government is not going to come up with the extra funds that rural counties like Rutland desperately need. We also need genuine opportunities to make savings by economies of scale, joining with an authority whose financials virtually mimic our own is hardly likely to do this. This is a very difficult decision for all of us, it will not be made any easier by meaningless sound bites or sloganizing. We need a sensible, rational and adult conversation about Rutland’s future, perhaps we can begin to have it via the letters page of our local paper?
Raymond Payne
Rutland County Council (LIb Dem)
Merger is not convincing
May I reply to letter "have your say before it's to late" Mercury of June 20.
Mr Nebel seems rather economical with the truth when he claims that meetings held in Oakham and Stamford organised by Alicia Kearns MP demonstrated overwhelming support for a merger with Rutland and SKDC as part of any Government reorganisation.
On the contrary, both meetings combined held no more than 150 people in attendance. This is in no way an overwhelming mandate for any council mergers considering the silent thousands of taxpayers residing in both counties including the forgotten Grantham, which were all offered no vote, or say, in the matter?
During the Stamford and Rutland meetings not one resident gave any convincing reason for any merger, except to say that it makes sense personally to them - very unconvincing reasons.
South Kesteven residents’ council taxes will have to massively increase should any merger go ahead to bail out Rutland’s overwhelming adult social care overhead that now swallows over 52% of its own council budget, or the similar overwhelming children's services overhead. SKDC residents and councillors please take note of this.
Does the South Kesteven taxpayer really want to have their council taxes raised to pay for Rutland’s self inflicted independence overhead, or the lack of any council run sports facilities, and no guarantees to maintain expensive library repairs?
My council tax is over £300 cheaper in SKDC than a similar tax band in Rutland. The Rutland County Council website loosely states that council taxes could either go up or down in any merger, I think we already know the answer to that one this side of the border.
Rutland’s towns and villages will be financially much better off being back in Leicestershire again, their tax base is much bigger and will financially cope much easier. They should therefore fully support leader Gale Waller in making that merger with Leicestershire happen.
Name and address supplied
Rutland doesn’t favour Leicestershire
In your letters column of June 20, your correspondent, Andrew Nebel, rightly urges readers to take part in Rutland County Council’s engagement exercise on the future of the county council. More information, including a link to the survey, can be found here https://www.rutland.gov.uk/council-councillors/devolution-local-government-reorganisation.
Mr Nebel is not correct, though, when he says RCC favours Leicestershire. The Government wrote to councils in defined “invitation areas” requesting they submit proposals for Devolution and local government reorganisation. Rutland’s invitation area was with Leicestershire County Council, its district councils and Leicester City. Lincolnshire County Council, it’s District Councils, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire were in a different “invitation area”. This is why RCC has continued to work with the Leicestershire councils.
Mr Nebel is correct when he says RCC will not be conducting a referendum. This is because the council has no power to decide the pattern of local government in our area. It is the Secretary of State who will decide. RCC is, however, undertaking a survey (see link above) and I would encourage every Rutland resident to complete it.
Councillor Linda Chatfield
Oakham North East (Lib Dem and Green Group)
Town bridge closure is daft
Are the council a bunch of complete morons or do they approve daft ideas for another reason? It wouldn't surprise me if they decided to do something important like re painting the parking areas on Water Street on Burghley Horse Trials week! Wake up councillors!
Will Fenn
King’s Cliffe
Bridge could be closed at night
I'm always struck when in France by their common sense approach of carrying out road works at night - and doing one stretch at a time before moving on. Why do our lazy politicians allow penny pinching highways departments to cost every person in the country valuable time and money by taking the lowest tender and not taking into account the massive damage done to us all by ignoring our interests.
The bridge in Stamford should be shut midnight to 7.30am if it has to close at all. It's frankly disrespectful.
Kevin Philbin
Ufford
Stamford’s employment potential sacrificed for yet more housing
I am deeply shocked and disappointed with the recent decision by SKDC to grant planning permission for 268 residential homes on the last remaining piece of strategic employment land in Stamford, Exeter Fields. There are many reasons why this decision is absurd and counterintuitive not least because SKDC themselves only a week beforehand had agreed to a revision within their draft Local Plan to retain 5ha of employment land and cap development at 105 homes. Many locals, including members of the public, local councillors and even Rutland County Council, had successfully argued that with such a rapid expansion in housing (upwards of 2,500), employment space was essential to provide the growing community with essential jobs and services and to stop Stamford from becoming an overly congested dormitory town. The fact this argument was accepted by SKDC then promptly rejected at the panel in favour of ticking ridiculous housing quotas makes a mockery of the planning system itself and the quest for sustainable development.
To add insult to injury, the item was ranked third on the planning committee agenda, behind an application for change of use to one property (which the planning department took two hours debating!) and a no-brainer of an affordable homes scheme for 11 houses in Grantham. By the time Exeter Fields application came up for debate, it was obvious the committee was flagging and keen to reach a vote, doing an absolute injustice to the significance of this application for our town. Why on earth was this not 1st on the agenda?
Furthermore, despite valiant efforts by Councillor Richard Cleaver (St John’s ward) Barry Devereux (Stamford Town Council) and Carl Kilgren (member of the public) to warn against such an unwise move, the unyielding pressure to deliver housing targets meant the writing was already on the wall. Far too little scrutiny was given to the developer as to why they had been unsuccessful attracting commercial interest despite almost direct access onto the A1. Why did Aldi (or another supplier) not consider this site for a store rather than the commercially crowded Eastern side of the town? Was it because the land price was intentionally inflated to discourage commercial interest? These are all questions we are left wondering especially as successful businesses nearby have thrived (Casterton Road industrial units for example). Sadly too much of the Grantham-centric bias (or Stamford ignorance) was on display by the majority of councillors preventing this much needed cross-examination.
Having spent nearly three years jumping through all the planning hoops in an attempt to argue for fairly modest goals in the face of a big population increase (green space protection, infrastructure and service upgrades and real employment opportunities) the planning system has delivered its verdict: growth at almost any cost.
Carys Vaughan
Protect Quarry Farm
Benches are uncomfortable
I was interested to see that new seating with floral displays has recently been provided in the middle of Grantham’s Isaac Newton shopping centre. It may look “trendy” but why are the slatted benches so uncomfortable to sit on? They are far more uncomfortable than any average park bench. Also, why have mini tables been included in the design rather than extra seating as shoppers are not allowed to eat or drink there?
Please can someone also explain why the original, more comfortable seats have been removed from the side wall, where you could sit quietly for a while without worrying about others passing too close to you? Surely the new benches should have provided additional seating rather than a total replacement?
I wonder if the new installation means we will no longer have a large central Christmas tree or similar later in the year? That would be really disappointing!
Lynda North
Grantham
MPs should listen to majority
The hypocrisy of our ruling elite never ceases to amaze me. The Assisted Dying Bill that again just squeezed through parliament illustrates this with some MPs actually voting to support their constituent's fears on dying. Many of the opposing MPs however openly support local hospices so they can tick the 'charity support' box.
Hospices actually help you to die with some dignity just like the new bill tries to do. Don't forget the House of Lords can still block or revise this bill, their elderly members closer to any actual life/death issues than most. Then of course there's the pathetic 150 MPs who didn't vote or tick any boxes who must really impress their constituents with their gutless convictions.
Will all MPs now please start listening to us, the majority?
Rod Hatherill
Lodge Way, Grantham
Precise terms weren’t on ballot
I think Paul Hodges has misunderstood the EU Referendum. It simply asked us if we wanted to Leave or Remain in the EU. The precise terms of how we could have left were not on the ballot paper, and different people had different ideas. Should we be like Norway (inside the European Economic Area)? Or North Korea (totally cut off from the rest of the world)? Or something in between? Different Brexiteers (sincerely) held different views on this. No one form of Brexit has a greater democratic mandate than any other.
Immigration was not on the ballot paper. You could plausibly argue that, whatever effect Brexit was likely to have, it would lead to less migration to Britain from the EU. But, as the rest of the power dynamics of our economy were largely unchanged, this would lead to more immigration from outside the EU, to make up the shortfall. This is what happened. And there is no reason for this to have any effect on people seeking asylum here, as the vast majority of people fleeing war and persecution come from outside the EU, anyway.
John Morgan
Grantham
Following a story online about a disabled man from Bourne being let down by the East Midlands Ambulance Service, we received the following letters
Two disabled gentlemen, Grantham, were recently let down by ambulance transport services. The transport was booked a week ahead so shouldn’t be a problem.
One of the guys has had his cataract surgery replanned twice, because transport did not turn up, no warning, just failed to appear.
In the last three years ambulance transport service had failed to arrive 10 times.
When they are contacted their excuse us they haven’t got a two man crew available, even though it was booked in advance
Bernice Cullimore
Grantham
My husband ordered one to take him from Lincoln to Boston, it didn’t show, and he missed his operation. He has had the op now though, but orders one regularly as goes to Lincoln and Nottingham hospitals on quite a regular basis, and a no show has happened a few times.
Name supplied
Via email
Send your letters to news@lincsonline.co.uk
