Wrong bins in the wrong way

September 19, 2008 8:31 am in notes from JK

I believe the proposal for communal bins that Brighton & Hove's Tory Administration waved through at their Cabinet Meeting last night is the wrong proposal being put forward in the wrong way. I'm not against communal bins on principle - but these ones in this way are not what our city needs.

Their introduction follows a flawed consultation process which did not meet the Cabinet Office's code of practice for consultations -- which applies to local authorities as much as it does to ministers. The consultation was run for barely a month when the minimum time set down by the code is 12 weeks. The code requires consultations to be provided online but this one wasn't. A number of my constituents never received the consultation or saw only one for a building with multiple households. Allowing online responses could have helped remedy this.

More fundamentally however the Conservative communal bins do not deal with the key challenges waste and street tidyness pose for our city. Of course I want to see cleaner streets - who doesn't? But I keep seeing and keep receiving photos of existing communal bins attracting mess, fly tipping, dumping and graffiti.

Binvelopes (the foldable containers to protect bin bags from attack by foxes and seagulls) were ruled out as being only a short term measure yet just a few weeks ago the use of binvelopes was expanded in the Hanover part of our city. How can they make sense there but not in Regency ward?

The nub of the matter lies with recycling however. There is already a problem with the existing communal bins -- whenever I pass and look in I see lots of recyclables amidst the bin bags: cardboard, paper, glass, plastics. Surely it's human nature to go for the path of least resistance. If people don't have space to store rubbish in their flats then the same applies for recyclables. Yet the council expects residents to sit on recyclables for a week but chuck rubbish whenever they like into the big communal bins which are emptied six days a week.

A 2004 University of Brighton study commissioned by the council examined the waste in the communal bins trial. The study found that 43% of the waste in the bins was recyclable (under the current, quite limited recycling scheme available) and a further 21% was food based waste. This was in an areas where weekly kerbside recycling was already in operation.

So we know that 63% of the waste in the bins could be dealt with in alternative ways. We are told a new waste strategy is being developed to bolster our weak recycling levels. We have expanded recycling facilities coming online shortly that will be able to process a wider range of materials than ever before. So why rush the bins in before all this and risk taxpayer money on increasing landfill charges as recyclables are chucked out?

I also feel that the administration have not been sensitive in locating these bins. I have had correspondence from some residents extremely distressed by the thought of having smelly, noisy bins outside their homes possibly blocking their natural light. We have many streets in beautiful conservation areas that house a low density population which are clearly opposed to having these bins. The council's conservation policy and local plan both clearly put a duty on the council to 'preserve or enhance the character or appearance' of our conservation areas and so we should allow opt-outs for the sake of our most beautiful streets and when residents clearly won't support the scheme.

In summary, we have a proposal that is based on:

• A flawed consultation,
• doesn't deal with mess but attracts it,
• isn't sensitive to conservation areas and won't allow opt-outs,
• and rips the heart out of our recycling programme -- 63% of the waste in the communal bins could have been dealt with by recycling and composting.

I would like to see a new plan which isn't rushed ahead of the waste strategy -- who heard of implementation before the strategy is written? Show me a plan which properly considers the human, conservation and environmental impacts of its proposals and I'll happily support it.

Cllr Theobald claimed that his plans would have 'No negative impact on recycling' and so there would be no additional landfill tax liability. This flies in the face of the council's own studies.

Yes, we need cleaner streets. But we urgently need to recycle far more than we do today - this was the wrong proposal in the wrong way.

#

Free at the point of access?

September 12, 2008 11:06 pm in current affairs

At first glance, there's a sense of justice in the Scottish Government's decision to eliminate parking charges at NHS Hospitals in Scotland. Yes, there are exceptions for privately financed car parks, once again PFI narrowing government choices in favour of private profit.

But does removing parking charges really make health care free at the point of access? No, of course not. Cars have running costs: fuel, insurance, maintenance and so on -- parking is just the most obvious cost drivers encounter. Bus users have tickets to pay for, as do those on the train. Cycling is close to free as bike maintenance costs are extremely low - but if you're ill you probably don't feel like biking in to hospital. Walking is truly cost-free but again not likely to be an option for many patients.

So eliminating parking costs has a number of consequences that I can see: It reduces but doesn't eliminate the cost of car travel to hospitals, it reduces the annual costs for employees that drive to work, plus free parking for visitors and local residents has now been provided.

Opening up parking facilities in this way could have significant and unintended negative consequences to local traffic and parking. I know it would in Brighton & Hove.

If you are rushing to hospital paying for parking is the last thing you need to worry about. But why shouldn't others in non urgent situations, visitors and staff, pay for the cost of parking if they choose to take a car when other options are available to them?

#

The Kingsnorth Trial

September 12, 2008 10:06 am in current affairs

I am astounded and delighted by the result of the Kingsnorth Trial as reported in The Guardian. Six Greenpeace activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage by successfully arguing that they were trying to protect us from the greater damage that climate change will cause.

Among the arguments fielded by Greenpeace:

The jury was told that Kingsnorth emits the same amount of CO2 as the 30 least polluting countries in the world combined...

This is astonishing and embarassing. We have the technology and skills to eliminate the need for this carbon monster, yet the government want to build another coal-fired station next door. It's a completely unjustified and frankly reckless proposal that not only jeopardises our emissions targets but also undermines our ability to argue for strong action on the global stage.

Greenpeace have pulled off a real coup with this successful protest and court action - I'm sure a huge amount of hard work went into this so congratulations!

#