Memorandum by The National Organisation
of Residents Associations (RC 2)
INTRODUCTION
This document summarises the views expressed
by member organisations of the National Organisation (previously
The Network) of Residents Associations (NORA) following a circular
seeking their experience. NORA's membership covers most of England
from Canterbury to Newcastle-on-Tyne and from Cornwall, Southampton
to Bristol and Leeds. This widespread membership led to the recent
change of NORA's title, which recognises it represents a wide
range of residents.
The Inquiry Announcement highlights four key
areas in Refuse Collection. The views expressed here are those
detailing the experience of residents but they are mostly anecdotal,
since members do not have access to hard data collected by local
authorities. Nevertheless they do encompass the problems of Refuse
Collection and some of the adverse results of recent legislation
and the economic pressures placed upon local authorities both
by budget restraints and penalties imposed upon them by EC regulation.
Residents still regard the collection and disposal
of refuse of all types as a responsibility of local authorities,
primarily because they consider it a key element in their duty
to ensure that the environment is clean, healthy, hygienic and
safe and so protecting the community from diseases associated
with dirt and vermin. The need to ensure that the environment
is attractive and safe by removing litter from the streets is
also seen as a duty of the local authority.
Residents see Refuse Collection and Disposal
as a vital service for the whole community. Ensuring the health
and safety of its citizens has always been considered a prime
responsibility of local authorities. Accordingly its funding has
always been understood to be guaranteed by the taxes paid to local
authorities currently in the form of the Council Tax. To impose
extra taxes for the collection of domestic waste will be seen
as punitive and a retrograde step, and is unlikely to foster co-operation.
It is hoped that this written evidence offered
to the Select Committee is helpful in providing the picture as
seen by those subject to the Refuse Collection process in contrast
to the picture as seen by those responsible for its collection
and disposal. NORA would be prepared to offer oral evidence should
the Select Committee decide that it would be helpful.
COLLECTION METHODS
Most areas provide three main systems of Refuse
Collection.
There is house-to-house collection everywhere,
large sites where residents can take their refuse and smaller
sites for re-cycled refuse adjacent to residential areas.
In the recent past house-to-house collection
was mostly at least weekly, and there was no separation of the
types of refuse, which was all deposited in large vehicles by
refuse collectors. Dustbins were initially just dustbins, then
refuse sacks were supplied to line them and in recent years Wheelie
bins were issued by local authorities to minimise the risks of
injury to refuse collectors, a positive consequence of the Health
& Safety legislation.
With re-cycling being promoted, the majority
of residents have been separating waste paper, metal, glass and
garden waste from kitchen waste. How and where they store it is
highly dependent on the nature of their dwelling and how convenient
is the access to the nearest re-cycling site.
The provision of several containers for re-cycled
materials, the introduction of selective collections of the different
types of waste, the frequency of such collections and the penalties
for non-compliance with the imposed regimes has caused serious
problems for many residents. The times of collection can present
problems for households where all members are out at work.
WASTE CONTROL
We are all concerned to reduce landfill and
incineration as a means of waste disposal, but in our view persuasion
rather than threatening penalties is the democratic way forward.
Make it easy and the public will respond. Penalise the public
and they will resort to fly-tipping and covert incineration, both
damaging to the environment. The problem of packaging and the
free provision of plastic bags is not in the interest of reducing
domestic waste. The Irish tax on plastic bags could be used with
benefit.
The provision of separate containers, easy access
to local re-cycling sites and reliable, frequent waste collection
from dwellings all persuade residents to reduce the quantity of
refuse needing disposal by landfill. Problems arise when dwellings
lack facilities to store the containers and when re-cycling sites
are not convenient. Also the minority of households with children
in nappies and the physically disabled have problems with storage
and access to re-cycling facilities. The elderly can have problems
managing heavy containers filled with bottles, paper and cans.
Using "technology" to measure the
quantity and quality of waste is in its infancy, but if it were
to become widespread it may be counter-productive because such
surveillance can cause offence as well as not being cost-effective.
In apartment blocks, that have communal refuse containers, it
would be impossible to identify those residents responsible for
undue quantities or inappropriate quality of waste, so the imposition
of fines or charges on the management would be improper and grossly
unfair.
WASTE SORTING
The financial constraints on local authorities
have persuaded many to reduce the frequency of kitchen waste to
fortnightly. This has led to problems with offensive smells and
vermin in many town centres especially where the density of population
is high.
The separation of waste into the types that
can be re-cycled is labour-intensive. Certainly separation of
green waste from kitchens and gardens for composting in dwellings
with gardens is effective, and the fortnightly collection by local
authorities for composting on fields is worth while and appreciated
by those with gardens.
The separation of paper, metal and bottles made
of glass and plastic can be organised, but since much of it is
exported in large containers to the Far East where separation
is also undertaken, it may be unnecessary to be so concerned to
sort the waste here.
The key to success is the ready access to sites
for disposal of bottles, paper and metal in residential areas,
and the reliable frequent collection of any waste that cannot
be re-cycled.
FUNDING
At present most local authorities only charge
for the collection and disposal of commercial waste, and the only
charge imposed on residents is for the separate collection of
large unwanted white goods. It has been taken for granted that
the collection of other waste from dwellings is funded entirely
by the Council tax.
The prospect of charges for the collection of
waste from households would be regarded as an extra tax. Most
Council taxpayers do not see the collection of refuse as a subject
for the imposition of another tax, rather they see it as an obligatory
component of their Council tax.
PROBLEMS
Several local authorities have instituted fortnightly
collections of domestic waste as a response to the need for the
separate collection of re-cycled materials without increasing
the cost of collection. This reduction in service causes serious
problems for a significant section of society, and is at the expense
of the community, its health and safety.
NORA members have reported that fortnightly
domestic waste collection results in offensive smells when Wheelie
bins are used, and also makes it more likely that bin bags are
torn open by various animals and birds attracted by rotting waste.
There is an increase in vermin in the form of foxes, rats and
flies, which are also attracted by rotting waste. Fly-tipping
continues to be a continuing nuisance especially in suburban areas
and adds an unreasonable expense for local authorities.
Those with small children in nappies living
in cramped conditions have serious problems with domestic waste
that cannot be re-cycled. As a minority group they are not vocal
and do not attract attention to their plight. Many of the physically
disabled and the elderly may be unable to cope with the several
containers.
There is a major problem in those university
towns where many properties in a street and even whole areas have
been converted into Houses of Multiple Occupancy for use by students,
whose concern to manage their refuse is limited. Such areas need
weekly collections of refuse otherwise the whole area becomes
a refuse dump and so altering the environment as to turn the area
into a slum. Education may help, but weekly collections are essential
to preserve a safe and healthy environment.
In recent years many town and city centres have
seen the development of under-used property and land by conversion
into flats. Many of these dwellings are small with little or no
facilities for the storage of refuse indoors, and, unless adequate
provision for outdoor storage is available, there is nowhere for
re-cycled material or re-cycling containers to be stored. If residents,
who live in this type of accommodation, are to contribute to the
reduction in waste for landfill, it is vital that they enjoy weekly
collections of refuse and have close at hand sites for the disposal
of re-cyclable waste.
Now that many householders are all out at work
when refuse collection takes place, the problem of the storage
of numerous refuse containers during their absence becomes a problem.
The imposition of penalties for this custom and the exacting of
charges in addition to the Council tax for the collection and
disposal of waste from residential dwellings is likely to be resented,
and may result in increased fly-tipping and covert incineration,
both highly undesirable methods of disposal and far more destructive
of the environment than disposal by landfill.
| 
