Agenda item

Attendance By Councillor McNally in respect of Boston HWRC.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor McNally and thanked him for accepting her invitation to attend the meeting to address a number of ongoing issues at the Boston Household Waste Recycling Centre.

Prior to Councillor McNally addressing the meeting, the Portfolio Holder provided an overview on the recent issues.  Members were advised that the number of complaints had reduced significantly and that during a recent visit she had undertaken with the Local Member of Parliament they had both been delighted to see that so many of the problem areas including waste being turned away, had been fixed and that a new container for light bulbs had been installed. One area that they had both agreed needed consideration was the identical opening hours of all sites within the County, with a view to changing the individual site opening times to enable an alternative site for residents on the days their local site was closed.  It was hoped when discussion came forward in respect of the new contracts, the suggestion would be taken into consideration as such a move could potentially impact on Fly Tipping.

A further suggestion had been made for a tyre skip at the site (in line with the one at East Lindsey) to again alleviate the fly tipping of tyres which would be at no cost to the Council as Enviro-tyre would collect for disposal. The Portfolio Holder advised East Lindsey District Council did not have such a skip at their site, but the Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods advised it did, but it was only for the Council’s fly tipped tyres that were collected, it was not available for public disposal of tyres.

Councillor McNally advised that there was no intention whatsoever to install a tyre skip at the Boston site, stating it was commercial waste and as such the responsibility of residents to dispose of their own tyres and it was not for tax payers, to fund other peoples’ tyre removal.  

Further comments arose in respect of the disposal of tyres including charging for dropping them off at the centre and concerns at the location of the Enviro-tyre at Sutterton in the South of the Borough,both for the public to go to and also how unfair it was on the litter pickers who too had to take any tyres they collected to Sutterton.  A further suggestion by a member questioned the possibility of setting up a facility to produce Red Diesel from the tyres along with other by-products which could in turn be used for the Council’s own fleet, reducing existingcosts.  Councillor McNally stated he felt if it was an economically viable business then Enviro-tyre would have already introduced it, and that the centre was only for household waste and not vehicle waste.  It was agreed the member would forward the information onto Councillor McNally after the meeting.  Referencing the reason the site did not accept commercial waste, a member questioned why it accepted car batteries which were clearly commercial waste, but not tyres, as both came from vehicles which were classed as commercial at the site.  Councillor McNally stated that batteries were allowed next to the black bin for waste collection, but when the Chairman questioned actual collection of side waste no answer was tabled.

On questioning the possibility of seeing the criteria for the new operations contract at the site, the Chairman was advised by Councillor McNally that the Council was within its rights to tender for the contract should it wish.

A Member suggested that the current provision of the centers’ appeared to be a ‘one fits all’ system not taking intoconsideration the variation in demographics across the various areas.  Boston was very different to Louth with much more depravation, lower wages and poor public transport.  As such most people had cars and by default, some had the means to fly tip.   Why not fit the centre around the needs of the local population, which in Boston’s case was continually underestimated in size.  A different thought process was needed and each site should have its needs assessed to make it work for the residents.

Councillor McNally questioned against what criteria the suggestion would be based, but the Portfolio Holder stressed it had been very clear within the members suggestion.

Noting concern about the layout of the site and the time delays in waiting whilst within to get to the appropriate bin, a member suggested it was not up to standard for the size of the population, with long delays experienced at times.  Consideration of easing the queueing with laybys or re use of the current grassed area would free up vehicles from sitting burning fuel.

A member questioned the refusal of the site to accept vans albeit many members of the public used them as domestic transport.  He noted that there was also discrimination against residents who pulled up in such a vehicle with a single bag of domestic waste, parked outside the site and attempted to access on foot only to be turned away.   Councillor McNally cited health and safety issues in respect of pedestrians on the site itself and commented that permitting vans would encourage sub contracted waste.  Committee comments noted that common sense of the operators was required as a van with only one or two bags of rubbish was clearly not commercial.  A further suggested note number plate recognition to identify repeat users with large loads. 

A number of members voiced their disappointment at the responses provided by Councillor McNally, noting they felt he was negative and discourteous in his consideration of both Boston and their own suggestions and concerns and had taken a very dogmatic approach to the meeting.

Councillor McNally stated that he had agreed to attend and had been very cooperative.  He had not been awkward with members, and it was clear things had improved at the site but all members wanted to discuss was the provision on a skip for tyre disposal.

The Chairman thanked Councillor McNally for his attendance.