Derby City Council is proposing to end recycling collections in four areas of the city in a bid to save the council money and ‘enable residents in [the affected areas] to manage their waste more effectively’.

According to a council briefing paper seen by Resource, the four wards that would be affected under the proposals are Abbey, Arboretum, Mackworth and Normanton, as these are areas ‘identified as not best suited to the council’s current refuse recycling services’. This will comprise a total of 147 streets.

Not every street in each area will see a change in its current collection scheme, however; a full list of affected streets is given in the briefing.

The proposals will be discussed in full at the council’s cabinet meeting later this month.

Removal of recycling collections

If the plans are approved, residents in specific streets in the four neighbourhoods will see their recycling collections cease on 28 October 2013. The blue and brown bins – used to collect mixed recycling and food and garden waste respectively – will then be replaced with a weekly co-mingled residual waste service, collected in black bins.

However, there are currently no plans to expand the scheme to other areas of the city, with the report stating: ‘There will be no free capacity… to add more properties or areas onto this schedule.’

According to the council, each round of collections costs the authority £120,000 per year, so it is hoped that by switching to weekly black bin collection in these four areas, the service would save the council £500,000.

Further, the council argues that the black bin service will also reduce problems caused by fly-tipping, contaminated recycling collections and side waste – excess waste bags left next to collection bins. It also stated that the new service would enable residents to manage their waste ‘more effectively’.

The briefing paper states: ‘It is recognised that some areas within the inner city are not suited to the full recycling collection scheme’. As an example, it argues that properties rented by students have a high tenant turnover and limited access to the rear of the property, making it difficult for residents to effectively manage their waste and remove the bins from the street.

‘With the introduction of the new fully co-mingled collection service and the withdrawal of the blue and brown collection services in these four designated areas, the collection costs will be reduced’, it adds.

Message of recycling ‘isn’t getting through’

Speaking to the Derby Telegraph, Councillor Ranjit Banwait, cabinet member for neighbourhoods and Streetpride, said that the council had tried educating residents about recycling but that in some areas the message “simply isn’t getting through”.

“We are talking about communities where there are pockets of deprivation and poverty”, he continued.

“These are people who are concerned about how they will put food on the table, how they will afford school uniforms. The last thing on their minds is separating cardboard from their plastics. It is not sending out the wrong message. I'm asking the whole of Derby to be sympathetic to people who are clearly less able to cope in the current tough times.”

Derby recycling is “making money”

However, in an interview with Resource Simon Bacon, chairman of Sinfin and Spondon Against Incineration (SSAIN), said that “nothing stacks up” about the city council’s proposals.

He explained: “I’m a resident of one of the communities that will be affected, and recycling operates perfectly well in my street. There’s no issue with it. So there’s no reason for the council to be cutting it back.

“Derby is quite successful currently at recycling but [the city council is] pushing so many proposals now that will restrict our recycling – for example charging us £40 to have our green waste collected when it’s currently free – and now to basically take away recycling from 140 streets… Derby’s recycling rate is going to go drastically in reverse, which quite clearly isn’t the way forward when applying the waste hierarchy to refuse disposal.”

Bacon added that city council claims that withdrawing recycling services would save money are not logical, stating: “we know that they make money out of recycling because we look at the council’s accounts.

“To me, there is no reason to not recycle as much of something as you can when you’ve got a financial incentive to do so – by diverting it from landfill, so you’ve got the savings of landfill tax… So common sense would suggest that you should be sending it to recycling to make some money!”

However, he stated his belief that the true reason for the city council’s decision to cut back recycling schemes was linked to its 27-year, £400-million contract with Resource Recovery Solutions (RRS), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shanks, to build an incinerator in the local area: “The contract to have this waste incinerated in Sinfin, in Derby, requires the council to procure waste, and since that contract started, waste arisings have fallen. It seems like they’re trying to procure as much waste as possible to justify their proposal of forcing an incinerator on the community of Derby.”

He further added that the city council had not consulted with SSAIN or any other environmental groups regarding the proposals.

“There will be a waste plant in Sinfin”

In April, the High Court rejected a challenge by SSAIN against an earlier decision to uphold planning permission for the incinerator. The decision allows the development of the facility to go ahead, although SSAIN are said to be considering whether to appeal.

The proposed site would process 190,000 tonnes of residual waste a year, diverting up to 96.5 per cent of resident’s waste from landfill.

However, despite the legal challenges, Councillor Paul Bayliss of Derby City Council told the Derby Telegraph that “There will be a waste plant in Sinfin, I have no choice.

“I have sought a second legal opinion and, basically, I’m in a position that, if we don’t go ahead, I will be bankrupting the council because of the legal damages… If we break this contract and walk away the consequence is we would have to pay the legal fees of around £1.2 million and have to pay for RRS’s costs so far, which are about £10 million. There could be other consequential costs and RRS could sue and force us to lease them the site anyway.”

Read the council briefing paper on removing recycling collections.