Issue - items at meetings - Communal Refuse Collection in Hanover, Elm Grove

Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached).

That the Committee notes the outcome of the consultation in relation to the proposed communal refuse bins in Hannover and Elm Grove and agrees not to proceed with extending the scheme in this area.

63.1         The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that set out the results of the public meeting on communal refuse collection in the Hanover and Elm Grove areas held on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee at their meeting on 6 February 2013.

63.2         The Head of City Infrastructure provided a brief introduction to the report. She explained that the public meeting had been held on the 5 March 2013 and was attended by approximately 100 residents as well as ward councillors for the area and relevant officers. The majority of people at the meeting decided against proceeding with communal refuse collection in the area and this was a viewpoint now shared by the ward councillors for the area.

63.3         Councillor Cox asked how many residents had been consulted and how many had responded to the consultation.

63.4         The Head of City Infrastructure clarified that approximately1500 households had been consulted with a response rate of 44%.

63.5         Councillor Cox noted his concern that 100 residents at a public meeting had overturned the views of the consultation which had a marginal result.

63.6         The Chair clarified that the Committee had received a report on the outcome of the consultation and had agreed to listen to the views of a public meeting on possible ways forward. The public meeting was clear in its view that residents did not support the communal recycling scheme and ward councillors also no longer supported the proposals. The Chair added that the trial scheme in Washington Street and Coleman Street had been well received and could continue.

63.7         Councillor Cox queried why there was no reference in the report to the equalities implications upon visually impaired and disabled people in continuing the current scenario of refuse obstacles and rubbish build-up on the pavement.

63.8         The Head of City Infrastructure stated that the report was an assessment of the service currently undertaken. She added that a risk assessment had been conducted as part of the evaluation for the need for communal refuse in the Hanover and Elm Grove area that had identified potential improvements for access and safety for visually impaired and disabled people linked to the introduction of communal refuse.

63.9         Councillor Theobald noted that if 44% of residents had completed the consultation, it might be expected that the 56% that had not would be in favour of the introduction of communal refuse collection.

63.10     The Head of City Infrastructure replied that the response rate was high for a consultation and assumptions should not be made on the opinion of those that had not replied.

63.11     The Acting Assistant Head of Law clarified that as per the report presented to the Committee at its meeting in February 2013, the consultation documents had been sent to 1,367 households with 605 responses. The results indicated 48% of households in support and 46% against. Due to the closeness of the results, the Committee agreed at its February meeting to hold a public meeting to further discuss the issue with residents.

63.12     Councillor Hawtree noted his disappointment that the Labour & Co-operative Party had campaigned against communal refuse collection in the Hanover and Elm Grove wards. Councillor Hawtree suggested encouragement of composting as an alternative to communal refuse collection.

63.13     Councillor Cox stated that the previous Conservative administration had demonstrated leadership qualities in going ahead with communal refuse collection despite strong oppoistion. He believed that many people in those areas were now in favour of communal refuse collection. Councillor Cox indicated that he believed the current administration were also required to make tough decisions and that they may come to regret not proceeding with communal refuse collection in Hanover and Elm Grove which he believed would do a disservice to the majority of people in those wards.

63.14     Councillor Mitchell clarified that the Labour & Co-perative Party had not campaigned against the scheme but had referred residents to the number of car parking spaces that would be lost as this had not been highlighted in the consultation documents. Councillor Mitchell noted that she was pleased this issue had been included in the current city centre communal recycling consultation documents.

63.15     The Chair stated that the consultation and public meeting had demonstrated that there was a insufficient mandate to introduce communal refuse collection in the Hanover and Elm Grove areas. He believed in would be unwise to ignore the views of residents and ward councillors and to do so would foster negativity and resentment of the authority.

63.16     The Chair then put the recommendations to the vote with the following result:

For: 6

Against: 4

63.17     RESOLVED- That the Committee notes the outcome of the consultation in relation to the proposed communal refuse bins in Hannover and Elm Grove and agrees not to proceed with extending the scheme in this area.