Axing recycling centres ‘defies logic’ says critic
MOST WANTED SITES KEPT IN CONSULTATION
COUNCILLORS went against the public when voting to close all of South Derbyshire’s recycling centres, and only a proportion of the borough’s households were asked, new figures show.
Earlier this month, South Derbyshire District Council chose to scrap all seven of the council’s recycling centres.
The authority carried out a consultation exercise but did not say how many people said they would like to keep them or how many would like them closed for good.
The sites will shut from October 1 after officials said “only 1.67% of residents consulted raised any objection to the removal of the recycling centres”.
What can now be revealed is that while very few people responded to the consultation, most of those who did were in favour of keeping the recycling centres.
A total of 13,185 residents in South Derbyshire were asked about the potential closure of the sites, in a district which is home to more than 100,000 people.
These 13,185, it is claimed, were residents who lived in the immediate vicinity of the seven sites, though some living close to the sites did not receive any notice.
The council also did not issue a media release or alert residents on social media. However, of the 401 residents who responded to the council, 220 said they were in favour of keeping the centres and 172 were for their closure.
Looking at each site individually, residents living near five of the sites (Station Road, Hatton; Main Street, Hilton; High Street, Melbourne; Ingleby Lane, Ticknall; and Twyford Road, Willington) were in favour of keeping their local recycling centre.
Only residents living close to the Bass’ Crescent site in Church Gresley (by seven votes to six) and Limetree Avenue in Midway (by 50 votes to 10) wanted them closed.
A council spokesperson said the consultation “was not a public vote on whether the centres should be closed”.
But Councillor Grahame Andrew, of Hilton Parish Council, said he is “irritated, annoyed and frustrated” at the decision to close the sites – which he feels was contrary to public opinion.
He said the report detailed that “only 1.67% of residents consulted raised any objection” was “deceitful” and a “half-truth”, claiming councillors had been “hoodwinked”.
Cllr Andrew said: “What was the point in a consultation in which they have gone with the opposite of what the public has said. It is a waste of money on a consultation they haven’t listened to.
“One of the reasons they want to close them is because of the mess that is left behind by so many people using them, and residents wanted them cleaned up more often. That isn’t solving the problem. They are well used and they are being closed down, it defies logic. If no one was using them, then fair enough, but the major
complaint is about the mess. Well, they should be looking at ways to solve that problem instead.”
Council officers had said the closure followed “constant” high levels of contamination and antisocial behaviour experienced at the sites, with complaints raised by neighbouring residents.
Officers wrote they hoped closing the sites would encourage residents to use their own recycling bins and the household waste and recycling centre in Newhall, run by Derbyshire County Council.
A council spokesperson said: “The consultation exercise, concerning the possible closure of the recycling sites, was undertaken following an extensive review of the recycling service by the council’s overview and scrutiny committee assisted by a nationally recognised external consultant, who advised the council that, due to misuse of the sites, they added little or no value to the council’s recycling performance.
“Over 13,000 postcards, with freepost return, were delivered to properties in the vicinity of the recycling centres.
“Of those consulted, only 1.67% raised any objection to the sites being closed.
“This was not a public vote on whether the centres should be closed, but to gauge the strength of public feeling towards the closure, by those most likely to be affected.
“Given that over 12,500 households didn’t respond and only 220 households objected, it was reasonable for the committee to approve the recommendation to close the sites.”