A MOTION to introduce dual recycling and waste bins in public places across the borough was voted down by Conservative councillors last night.
They felt that the suggestion couldn’t be approved without scrutiny or a business plan – despite earlier approving a £20 million solar farm in Barkham without scrutiny or a business plan.
At a meeting of Wokingham Borough Council held on Thursday, September 23, Labour councillor Shirley Boyt (Bulmershe and Whitegates) pointed out that as the council wants to have a 70% recycling rate by 2030, the dual bins in town centres, shopping parades and parks, as well as on walking routes to schools, would help meet this target.
“When I’m out and about in the borough, I see overflowing litter bins which, on closer inspection, are almost always (full of) drink cans and plastic bottles,” she said, adding that in places where there were dual-purpose bins this was not the case.
“The majority of our residents are sensible people, they put litter in bins and they want to recycle.”
Seconding the motion, Cllr Rachel Burgess (Lab, Norreys) said it would be a very straightforward change that she believed most residents would want “and would actually expect us to already have done. If we want more recycling, we need to make it easier for residents, this is an obvious example of how we can do that.”
During the debate on the proposal, independent councillor Carl Doran (Bulmershe and Whitegates) said the plan seemed an obvious and an easy step to take and he supported the issue.
Cllr Imogen Shepherd-Dubey (Lib Dem, Emmbrook) was also supportive, and told the chamber: “I would very much like to see additional bins for recycling added, where possible, particularly in the busy areas – which in Wokingham should be around Broad Street and the Train Station.”
She added that during lockdown, the bins overflowed with takeaway cups and similar waste, as very few people took recycling home.
And Cllr Shepherd-Dubey pointed out that earlier in the meeting the council had approved spending £20 million on a solar farm at Barkham. This has not been supported by opposition parties as they were concerned no business case had been brought to the council chamber or to the council’s overview and scrutiny committee, instead being approved for planning reasons by the planning committee and given the green light at a meeting of the ruling executive in July.
Next to speak was deputy leader Cllr John Kaiser (Con, Barkham), who wanted to know if the bins were intended to be installed immediately. Cllr Boyt said it would be a commitment to starting the process.
Cllr Gregor Murray (Con, Norreys), the executive member for emissions, said while he would “deeply love” to support the motion, he couldn’t.
“This motion is clearly going to cost a significant amount of money,” he said. “My understanding is that due to fire and health and safety regulations, and because the bins have to be made out of anti-micro bacterial materials, these bins cost about £1,000. Across our borough, we’re going to need hundreds, if not thousands, of them.”
He also had concerns that the motion didn’t tell the council chamber the cost, nor how the old bins would be recycled, given that earlier in the meeting “various groups called for increased scrutiny and wanting to be able to go into finite detail about the solar farm and then being prepared to accept this motion without it being costed”.
“I think (this) is frankly ridiculous,” he said.
“If I put this into the carbon emergency action plan, I would have to put in a budget, I would have to be able to say how much carbon it was going to save us. This does neither of those things, blindly committing our council to an unknown amount of cost… I think it would be absolutely irresponsible.
“This motion is completely uncosted,” he said.
Cllr Parry Batth (Con, Shinfield North), the executive member for environment and leisure, said the motion would not be cost effective as there were around 1,000 bins across the borough, and the quality of recycling from these bins meant that just a small amount of waste would actually be recycled.
He wanted a focus on increasing recycling from the doorstep waste collection in the blue bags: “It makes sense that we concentrate on getting this diverted to recycling”.
Next to speak was Cllr Stephen Conway (Lib Dem, Twyford), who pointed out the discrepancy of Cllr Murray’s position: “He belatedly decided to accept the arguments we were putting about the need for detailed financial scrutiny (over the solar farm) but it seems that only applies when opposition motions are put forward.
“The kind of detailed scrutiny he’s asking for in this case about costing seems to be totally inappropriate … As I understand it, it is putting forward a proposal for a commencement of a process.
“I really don’t think this will be as costly as you make it. If you are serious about wanting to deal with the environmental crisis you should be supporting this motion, not trying to find reasons not to.”
Cllr Lindsay Ferris (Con, Twyford) reminded the chamber that two years ago, the council were asked to approve new green recycling sacks to replace the black boxes, without a full business case being made. This made Conservative opposition to the new recycling bins “the biggest load of hypocrisy I’ve heard in my life in this council chamber”, and called for the motion to amended to make it clear that the bins would be upgraded on a case-by-case basis.
“This is very sensible to replace our litter bins as they wear out,” he added.
He called the Conservative position “absolutely disgraceful”.
The final speaker was Cllr Pauline Jorgensen (Con, Hillside) who said that the debate reminded her that she had witnessed litter collectors at Frankfurt airport placing both recycling and waste in the same bins, and warned that the cost wouldn’t just be the bins, but also collecting segregated rubbish and recycling.
Summing up, Cllr Boyt said that a lot of residents want to recycle, the dual bin installation policy was a sensible motion and she was sorry that it was not being considered on this occasion.
The motion was voted against by Conservative councillors, and was rejected.
