Forum topic: Wheelie bins petition relaunched

I won't be signing this petition.

That doesn't mean that I think that the consultation was satisfactory - it wasn't, it was flawed because it included options that the council knew all along that it simply couldn't afford. And the council also knew that the government has ruled that councils will have to introduce weekly separate collections of food waste, so that should have been included in all the options, but wasn't.

I also think that it was outrageous that the council refused to accept and discuss the original petition, supported by 6,500 people, on a technicality. Even though I didn't agree with that petition myself, the council should have respected the fact that it had so much support and it should be have discussed in cabinet and full council and an adequate response sent.

If there was a petition about the council ignoring the first petition, I would sign that.

So why won't I sign this one?

For one thing, it's completely unrealistic and pointless to call for a continuation of the present arrangements when the council, like most local authorities across the country, is desperately short of money. That isn't the fault of the council, it's the result of a deliberate policy by governments since 2010 to sharply reduce the money that they provide to local government. It's very convenient for 10 and 11 Downing Street that people blame the consequent reductions in local services on their local councils, when they are actually the fault of central government and councils have little or no choice. Councils are in a very difficult situation - they are legally obliged to balance their budget and in the past councillors have been sent to prison for not doing so.

Secondly, and this relates only to the new petition , not to the much shorter original , I dislike the antagonistic tone and the capital letters, which are the written equivalent of shouting. I don't like everything about the way the council is run, but I respect the fact that cabinet members and other councillors are having to make difficult choices that risk unpopularity. If we respond in such a rude way every time we're unhappy with their decisions, we'll drive away the best people. Councillors have feelings too.

The consultation wasn't "surreptitiously buried in the recess of the Christmas season". It lasted ten weeks, was well publicised and there was good supporting information.

As regards the option that the council have chosen, it's not very different from the arrangements now operated by other councils across England. Enfield is actually one of the last councils to still provide weekly collections of general waste - see this BBC report for the figures.



Keeping the small black bin will force the people that just chuck everyone into it without sorting out recyclables to mend their ways - we all have to play our part in solving the multiple environmental crises that have been caused by our slapdash attitudes. And the council have said that households where there is a genuine need for bigger black bins will get them - for instance, if there are babies still in nappies in the family.

I'm sorry to see the continued run-down of council services across the country - I'd like to see weekly collections, more street cleaning, roads and pavements without potholes, more police, big teams of gardeners in the parks, libraries run by professionals etc etc. But the fact is that in 2010 our unfair electoral system landed us with a government that believes that only wealthy people deserve decent services. They might not have said that in so many words, but actions speak louder. So don't blame Enfield Council.

Totally agree with you, Baz.

Whilst I thought the consultation was a complete joke, I'm so certain the answer was pre-determined that I was tempted to FOI the cost wasted running it, but the reality is people always vote to maintain the status quo because they hate change or the reality that the services they currently benefit from come at a cost. A cost that needs funding.

I'm probably one of the few that went for one of the paid green waste options... why should people living in flats have to subsidised those with the benefit of gardens (like me)?

The petitions are antagonistic and detached from an acceptance of reality. Unless everyone starts paying £10 a week more council tax, I can't imagine the status quo will ever be affordable again.

Just to confirm that I also support the line taken by our Webmaster; Council's just don't have the money. Many Council's made the change years ago for just that reason.

It will be difficult for our household because we only have room for the smaller sized bins, and there are three steep steps in the passage from rear garden to the road.

Me too. Having seen the original options list and knowing of the financial constraints and waste industry requirements due in the short term I cut it down to only two feasible options and then took the view that of those two that the biggest money saver would be hard to beat. I could see little to argue against it and so in the event didn’t even think it worth responding. Turns out I was on the money.
Waste is an expensive, impactful, complex as well as emotive subject as the current bins scenario highlights. What actually happens when we – and organisations – dispose of stuff and the many implications thereof gets much less attention and has a reflective level of understanding. As it turns out the North London Waste Plan, which addresses exactly those points, will be formally submitted next week as the first stage of its public examination.
It constitutes goodness knows how many thousands of pages of text, diagrams, numbers and the like. All of which can be found here www.nlwp.net/document-centre/ . Making the case against Enfield’s plans realistically means having a reasonable handle on what these disposal plans and implications are.

One linked point to bear in mind re the £2m bins challenge is the £1m pa Enfield ratepayers are paying to reduce the debt taken on by the Waste Authority (NLWA) as our share of an earlier Pinkham Way debacle, and will be repaying for many years to come.
In documents made pubic this week, in their submission commenting on the latest waste plan (NLWP) which forms part of their submission to the independent inspector, we see that the NLWA again state that they have no plans for Pinkham Way but curiously go on to add that they consider it “essential” that the site, a Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, is included in the NLWP to provide waste functions in the “medium term”. (The NLWP is a 15 year document, taking us into the longer term on any sensible viewpoint of timelines). Indeed, without its inclusion they claim that the NLWP, over a decade in the making, constituting thousands of pages and costing ratepayers a small fortune to date, would be “unsound”, ie effectively waste.
So, that’s no plans at all for it after all this time and work to fit into the NLWP but it’s so important that the whole show tumbles without it.
And as a cherry on this cake, the NLWP Policy which seeks to assist the climate challenge –“ make the fullest possible contribution to climate change adaption and mitigation”, is seen by the NLWA as an “unrealistic expectation” and as such should be deleted.
Waste does appear to operate in a parallel world, albeit we are expected to pay for it.

Am surprised at the completely binary response to the bin collection petition. Basil your opinion on this matter is not wholly accurate as the concerns surrounding the consultation were that many were not aware of its existence or the issues associated with the changes. The original petition started by me was designed to ask the council for clarification on its changes. That cannot be deemed unreasonable. Having worked within recycling for many years I am aware that the main way people will follow recycling protocols is to educate them clearly on what can or cannot be placed in a blue bin. Stopping the service will go no way towards ensuring effective recycling. As the black bins are much smaller there is a real possibility that blue bins will become contaminated and will subsequently not be emptied at all. That is already happening so denying it as a possibility is merely sticking your head in a bin.
The council which you speak so highly of has consistently refused all requests for any kind of meeting or discussion on the matter. The cabinet member for the environment has been completely anonymous. He has at no time said anything. At the council meeting on the 10/7 the Bin petitioners were treated like pariahs by the leader and her whip who were both caught filming us on their phones despite a no photos rules throughout the chamber. This was clearly designed to intimidate us.
I did not compose the second petition but understand its sentiments completely. Had the council shown the 6722 petitioners of the original petition the courtesy and respect of a meeting to discuss concerns highlighted by the changes, instead of hiding behind an outdated policy then perhaps the need for capital letters and anger might have been avoided.
Many responses on this forum are misguided or inaccurate. I do not expect flat dwellers to subsidise my garden rubbish. I pay for the so called privilege of a garden with proportionately higher council tax. A stealth tax on garden waste serves no purpose as the amount of revenue raised is extremely small. I am nevertheless extremely concerned that the bin collections have been interfered with because they are one of the few things in the council’s budget that aren’t ring fenced. Nevertheless as a resident who has just paid 3% increase on council tax I believe I am entitled to question the rationale of the bin collection changes. As it stands this autocratic regime will simply get its way without justifying its decision to the thousands of residents who have asked them to do just that!