Rubbish plans binned for now

Householders will be expected to co-operate with a four-week refuse collection scheme while council chiefs try to work out a more cost-effective way to deal with rubbish.

By The Newsroom
Sunday, 12th June 2016, 8:00 pm
Updated Monday, 13th June 2016, 12:00 pm
There are concerns the wheely bin system is already too complicated
There are concerns the wheely bin system is already too complicated

A cross-party group of councillors had the responsibility of finding the best way to deliver the Charter for Recycling in Scotland.

But meetings and public consultation has failed to find a way forward.

As a result, the decision taken in February to re-schedule the collection of green bin non-recyclable waste to four weekly from October will proceed while officers work on alternatives.

The council has to change its collection strategy to comply with the Recycling Charter - and potentially save money - because at the moment it does not provide one bin for paper and card and another for plastics, metals and cartons. Instead, the blue bin is used to collect all this material.

When it met on Tuesday the council’s executive committee was told by director of development services, Rhona Geisler, that non-compliance could cost the council government cash.

The panel had four options to consider, but said it could not recommend any of them.

Officers were pushing for the number of wheely bins on doorsteps to be increased from three to four and emptied every four weeks.

A new grey bin for non-recyclable waste would free up space in the green bin for plastic, metal and cartons.

Households would also be expected to put out their kerbside box for glass every fortnight and their food caddy every week.

Officers argued the scheme had the potential to save the council “significant” cash in running costs and allow it to bid for funding for the new bins which could cost over £1 million.

The SNP claimed the system was already too complicated, but leader of the administration Councillor Craig Martin said it was “imperative” there is cross-party agreement on future arrangements.