News, comment and features

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.

Posted on Facebook by Enfield Council on Wednesday:

Our recycling team will be out and about over the summer with lots of information on the forthcoming service changes as well as answering questions about recycling and all things bin related.

The first two events are at:
John Jackson Library tomorrow between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm Agricola Place, Enfield EN1 1DW

or ASDA in Southgate on Friday 2nd August from 11.00 am - 3.00 pm

To register your interest in applying for the new Garden Waste Service visit new.enfield.gov.uk/…/garden-waste-expression-of-in…/

You can also sign up to receive regular updates via the Waste and Recycling e newsletter www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters

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!

Some interesting points.

At my last flat on Conway Road, I had the garden flat and upstairs did not. We paid the same council tax. Please explain how my neighbour upstairs wasn't subsidising my green waste collection? At my previous flat to that on Sidney Avenue, all 4 in the (converted house) were the same band but only the ground floor had gardens..... Your council tax is higher than a flat because the property is 50-100% bigger and is expected to house a much larger number of people, especially kids, with the associated increased strain of local public services.

This isn't a "stealth tax". It is an openly disclosed additional charged levied purely on those who benefit from the charged for service.

3% is a mere £60 on an average Band E (majority of houses) Enfield property. That's paltry and is totally absorbed by the green bin cost if that's what you consider it should be paying for.

I thought the consultation was pretty well publicised (Twitter, forums, leaflet drops) but some may have missed it I suppose. However I'm not sure about "the issues associated with changes". The predominant issue behind the changes is Council under-funding, which nobody has an excuse not to know about as it has been constantly in the press for years. Things will only get worse when Business Rates de-centralise too.

[This comment has been moderated to remove gratuitous personal remarks.

To answer some of the points that Helen made in her contribution to the debate :


Helen's petition read as follows:

There's no request for clarification, just a demand to leave things as they are. Which, as I said, was simply not possible because of the need to make big savings.

I did not "speak highly" of the council. I began by criticising them and called their behaviour "outrageous":

Helen describes the shockingly bad attitude of the council towards the petitioners and I have to agree that it is unacceptable when so many people signed the petition. The "complete anonymity" of the cabinet member for the environment is, from what I hear, par for the course, and this is simply not good enough. He didn't even turn up for the environmental crisis debate.

To the extent that I was defending the council and councillors, it was because I'm fed up with reading constant carping about them on all possible subjects. People expect them to be able to perform miracles like stopping flytipping, putting cameras everywhere, scrutinising planning applications thoroughly, stopping shops closing and so on when they simply haven't got the resources, through no fault of their own. No doubt some individual councillors are a waste of time, but so many people direct their anger against all councillors, including the good ones.

The announcement of the decision and the report on the consultation did in fact contain the justification for the decision - which boils down to lack of money, for which the government is to blame, not the council. That said, the council should have had the decency to talk to the leaders of the petition and repeat the explanation - and apologise for being so stupid as to include the status quo among the options when it was never a real option.

As for "autocratic regime", certainly some very serious allegations have been made about the council leadership's style, which the national Labour Party doesn't seem in a hurry to get to the bottom of, but I suspect that Helen is saying that the council has to go along with what the majority of respondees asked for. But that isn't the case - consultations aren't referendums.

I sympathise with Helen's points about the downsides of fortnightly collections, but from the fuss that's being made anyone would think that Enfield was being particularly wicked, when fornightly collections are already the norm across the country - have another look at the BBC map and you'll see how rare weekly collections now are.

To move away from pure finance to one of the other background drivers for change to the status quo: North London, the sub region of the London Region into which Enfield falls for waste purposes, had a recycling level of 29% in 2016. (Waste figures are often deep in time arrears.) However, the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy, long in place (2009) and signed off by boroughs including Enfield plus the Waste Authority, targeted to achieve 50% recycling by 2020. The draft North London Waste Plan (NLWP) , due to be evidenced in public later this year, targets 50% recycling by 2025, while the draft London Plan, now deep into its public examination, targets 65% recycling by 2030. NB Figures relate to household waste; the 65% figure has been included in the NLWP but as a composite to also include Commercial and Industrial waste recycling, ie no expectation on present plans to meet it as presented for household waste alone. These are a huge uplift from where we currently stand.
Much of the early, significant, increase in recycling rates occurred when garden waste was collected separately and counted as recyclate. That easy win has now pretty much been absorbed and we’re left with changing – significantly – our blue / black / green bin relationships to stand any chance of reaching these targets. Less black, more blue fits that direction, and we would seem to need nudges as well as harder changes to be successful. Some large world cities have achieved 70+%, while estimates suggest perhaps 80% of household rubbish could be recycled. We clearly all have a lot to do.
Note these targets refer only to the ratios within waste; the imperative to reduce waste levels absolutely remains, as does following the waste hierarchy, where reusing and repairing are preferable to recycling.

I have always wondered whether the garden recycling (green bins) are a good thing or not. How green is the whole enterprise? The bins are made of plastic and the plant contents are collected by diesel-powered trucks. The imposition of a charge for this service has led me to go back to composting. That's probably an environmentally good result.

As for fortnightly collections of the black bins, this one is hard to judge and there may be unintended consequences such as more litter, that cost us more. The optimal result would be if we could consume less, but that's not going to be instant. We do need to think differently about all this. Petitioning in block capitals is not necessarily the only answer.

I share Helen's views
Our 'larger' houses usually have gardens which add to the value of the property and ultimately are charged higher taxes . So as higher tax payers we have more than covered the cost of a regular waste collection.
The Council does not really care about savings - if it did it would not have overspent on the farcical cycle lane highway along two routes and possible a third complete with totally unnecessary furniture like the excessive use of orcas, metal posts near junctions, and the raised tarmac tables at every opportunity. Should I also mention the horrid and extremely dangerous planter boxes that were installed and now removed? If the Council managed its affairs properly and controlled its spending more wisely it would not be pleading under funding - despite what Central Governments (any party) do (which is another matter). It can also consider cutting the salaries paid to its executives - these do not have to be as high as they are - if they don't want the job as a proper salary level then I will be happy to step in!
When this Council run its consultation it suggested 9 one sided options ignoring the obvious one NONE OF THE ABOVE. Despite the 5500 responses it opted for the least favourable which is the scheme pushed forward.
The Council suggests this will encourage recycling - it should have offered more bins then not reduce the collection rate - this unfortunately is not always an attractive option as not many people have the space for another bin. Most of have have the smallest bins which normally fill up during the week so where does the Council expect us to store the waste during the second week? If the present scheme does go ahead without any concessions we will encourage more waste on our streets, illegal dumping and fly tipping, and possibly even more bonfires as we burn uncollected 'green' waste in our incinerator bins. The Council still proposes to drive round weekly to collect food waste - how much of a saving will this generate really? An extra £500,000 will be spent on street cleaners - well we know how efficient this is! One last point that I am struggling to grasp. If only a few pay the £65 annual charge for green wast collection how will the Council identify who has paid for the service and who has not - missing those who paid but collect those who did not? A badge on the bins? A logistical nightmare?

S Leonidas

You may share Helen's views, but you also share the misconceptions. I have already set out how it is fallacious to suggest a garden is an exclusive explanatory factor in determining council tax levels. It simply is not. It, as an approach, also fails to acknowledge that large houses tend to contain large families with large strains on public services - little 1 and 2 bed flats do not.

Sad to see the same old trope about the cycle lanes. It was almost entirely funded by TfL.

How are orcas and wands excessive when they are there to stop drivers abusing the lanes and parking and driving in them dangerously?

The planters were a bit of a waste, I agree. Tricky for them to just bowl straight in with much more expensive modal filtering schemes though. Hopefully we'll see that in the future.

I also agree the consultation was a farce. But that doesn't mean the petition(s) have any value or credence.

I believe the council is providing larger recycling bins to family households. So, if you recycle diligently, that covers off that issue.

Bonfires over £1.25 per week....wow.

You have to apply to have your green waste collected. Notices have already started to be placed on green bins. Those that apply will have to pay the charge and then only their bins will be collected. Unless you are presuming bin men/women are illiterate, it shouldn't be too complicated a system.

Just because you saw the consultation doesn’t mean that it was well publicised. Less residents were consulted than responded to the first petition. 73% of those consulted rejected the plans. The consultation was merely a hoop jumping exercise. The council had already decided which option it was taking. Their refusal to even discuss the issue merely citing a rather tedious party line about finances has compounded an issue that could have been properly discussed and resolved.

I think we can all agree the consultation was a bit of a farce.

But that doesn't mean the same can be said of the plans just because people don't like change and won't accept reality - less money = less service.

My concerns have never been about fear of change and anyone who interprets the first petition in this way is completely misguided.
When you introduce change you have to be clear about what the benefits of that change are going to be. The council have confused their need to balance their books with a half hearted explanation of how these changes are genuinely going to lower consumer refuse and increase rates of recycling. If you want to improve something you don’t just stop it and remove parts of it that were working without offering something different ( even better)That is not how the new plans have been introduced.
Seeking genuine clarification is quite reasonable in a democracy. This council has refused that clarification I believe on the grounds that they haven’t got a clue. This is not going to improve recycling rates.

I wasn't referring to the petition as much as the responses to the initial consultation itself. And not such much "fear" of change, just a refusal to accept it.

Yes, the consultation was farcical and maybe some of the rationale (beyond cost) was lip service. But the reality is the Council needs to balance its budget and refuse collection needed to be amended to reflect this, as has happened all over the country, as the existing service simply isn't cost effective.

Two things were 100% obvious and predictable from the get-go: 1) "no change" would always be the most common response; and 2) the Council would just pick the best option for their P&L.

Shouting about clarity about an issue which, frankly, is 100% clear has nothing to do with "democracy". You are as certain in your views, without substantiating evidence, as the Council are in theirs. Hence: impasse.

The petition won't change anything and, if anything, will just end up squandering Council resources further dealing with it...

“The announcement of the decision and the report on the consultation did in fact contain the justification for the decision - which boils down to lack of money, for which the government is to blame, not the council”
Bin collections is one of the few things that is not ring fenced. That is why it is a cheap cut. It will save a maximum of £2million. Basil speaks about this cut to basic services as if it is some kind of luxury. It is not! It is a basic service
and pretty much all residents are getting now for the 3% increase they saw on their tax bills in April. Meeting a 20% recycling target by 2020 will never be achieved if the recycling infrastructure including effective civic provision and more importantly education is merely removed. I fear that if black bins are full then blue bins will become contaminated. By the way no one is suggesting least of all me that all councillors are useless. I have made it absolutely clear throughout the campaign that the cabinet member with responsibility for the environment has refused to engage in a conversation. The petition may have initially asked for a reversal of the decision Basil but there was always the option to negotiate a clearer understanding. You may not have signed the petition but nearly 10000 residents have signed one or both petitions. Their views should not be dismissed by inaccurate or irrelevant assumptions.

What would you prefer they cut £2m from then? Social care? Street cleaning? Bins are an easy cut because, for all the hyperbole, people can live fine with a reduced service. As has been demonstrated elsewhere in the country. This simply takes the slack out of the system.

I am not sure what you mean by "civic provision" and "education". Education is literally everywhere right now. And "civic provision" includes the very good Barrowell Green centre which is well used and the encouragement of people to recycle more pro-actively by disincentivising them to just dump everything into the black/grey bin willy nilly. My wife & I take 2 weeks to fill out black bin and the same for our blue. Ditto the green but only for 6 months a year.

10,000 peeople saying they don't like change is hardly a valid reason for the Council to dump a policy that'll cost it £2m pa. Especially given that's less than 5% of the population they serve....

We’ve moved to the small brown food bins this week, a result of the Mayor’s Environmental Strategy (part of the London Plan suite of reports) which required councils to have separate food waste collection by 2020. So what else is in store?
There’s a target of zero biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2026, so expect an increasing focus on having your black bin waste being only true black stuff (residual waste, in the jargon); a 65% recycling target by 2030, although some tricky maths makes this instead 50% for north London residents by 2020; and a 50% reduction in food waste and associated packaging by 2030. Basically a much greater emphasis on recycling (also think reuse and repair as even better options) than has been the case to date. (Analysis suggests 85% of household waste, including composting, is capable of being recycled. North London is currently at only 30% and going backwards, so there’s a lot to do.)
The waste produced by each London household, on average, has reduced hugely since 2000 but still accounts for about 15% of total council tax bills. It's expensive stuff to manage.
So there’s much incentive for us all to do more. There are 220 litre food composting bins available free via the Council web site. We’ve used one for over a year now at the bottom of the garden, very successfully, for the vast majority of our food waste. The red worms which found their way in clearly love it if numbers are anything to go by.

This is the link Enfield Council website directs you to for the composting bins: getcomposting.com/profile/login

Presumably you can compost whatever you want, not just food?? I.e. I was looking to build my own compost heap/bin out of old wooden pallets to cover food AND garden waste. If I can get one of these for free then I might just do that....

General recommendation is not to compost meat and bones ivo the vermin risk so they go in the small brown bins. The same might apply to cooked food but ive ignored that with no problem - cooked veg, pasta and the like.
I have a separate pallet set up for garden waste which produces cracking soil. Bigger twigs take forever to rot down so they end up in the green bin. Peelings are OK on an open compost bin but i wouldn't lay other food there,again ivo vermin risk, hence that's secured in the plastic one.
Using one or both is perhaps a function of levels of food waste and garden size. Certainly the soil output is quality and the worms and other bugs seem to be very happy with it all. one consequence has been a greater awareness of food waste so we now have noticeably less of it.

Thanks Karl. My composter is awaiting delivery. Will stick to keep veg and plant material in there for now.

Do you use bran too to supercharge the process??

David, I'm not an expert so have no idea if bran helps but i never used it. I may have put some soil in at the very start but cant recall. Worms look like the thing and many of my large ones seem to seek to climb up and out, presumably to find pastures new, so happy to share some if you wish. (I'm told you can buy them on line.)