|
Refuse - Correspondence
Below are just a number of the
correspondence that has been generated by this change
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Letter from Stephen Little to Cllr Andy Furse 29th July 2006
Dear Andy
You are no doubt aware of
the strong feelings generated throughout B&NES against the recent
changes to waste collection arrangements.
The main problems caused
for the Royal Crescent, and indeed the whole of the Georgian City
centre, are:
-
damage to the
heritage and tourist attraction – even the Waste Dept’s own
literature explains why rubbish bags should not be left on
pavements (unsightly, obstruction, health hazard, attracting
extra litter, arsonists, snoopers, scavengers - human or
otherwise, etc.)
-
people being absent
at the time rubbish should be put out
-
clearance of common
waste storage areas in multi-occupied buildings. Cllr ‘Beau
Trash’ Curran’s contention that few RC residents were using
common storage areas was wide of the mark and typical of the
lack of research and thought put into the whole issue. In fact
over 100 of the 120-odd RC households had been using such areas.
As for the alleged health
& safety problems, we are not aware of any accident associated with
accessing basement storage areas, and we consider that any perceived
risk should not magnified by being transferred from professional
waste collectors working in daylight to people of various able-bodiedness
in the dark. In order to reduce the weight of bags, consideration
should be given to issuing householders with bags of limited size
and carrying a weight limit, as some other councils do.
In order to overcome
these problems we believe the Council should investigate the
feasibility and cost of deploying a small team whose sole task is to
go round in advance of the main collection team in the Georgian city
centre, and possibly other areas where narrow pavements cause
problems, and take rubbish up from basement areas ready for
collection. The cost is likely to be only a small fraction of of the
mooted £124,000 saving. It would also be a small price to pay on
behalf of the mainstay of Bath’s economy to preserve the World
Heritage Site in accordance with policy 6 of the Bath Manifesto,
which is appendix 7 of the World Heritage Site Management Plan and
which seems to have been completely ignored by the Council in
approving edge-of-property collection.
Due to Cllr Paradise’s
mayoralty, I have to ask you to press these points twice as hard!
Regards
Stephen Little
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Letter from Rachel Clarkson-Short to Waste Service Department (Plus
photos of second gull attack) 28th July 2006
Dear Carol,
I am a resident in the
Royal Crescent and wanted to provide you with some of my recent
observations regarding our Rubbish Collection and to ask you to let
me know what arrangements will be put in place to prevent them
happening again?
I am fully aware of the
recent change in policy around the collection of Rubbish in the
BANES area, and fully appreciate that this is as much a hot topic
for yourselves as all the residents
In the first few weeks
following the introduction of the new scheme I had noticed that a
'man with van' followed the lorry around to inspect the collection
and clear up what had been left behind. On one occasion, the man
brought the bin men back to clear up quite a big mess. Great I
thought, but what a waste of money.
On Thursday 20th July
around 8:00 a.m. I looked out of my window to see the Seagulls had
yet again pecked away at the rubbish which had been put out the
evening before collection, spreading lots of waste across the
pavements. It was also then I noticed a large gathering of tourists
and many hotel guests who regularly gather early in the morning to
take photographs whilst the crescent and lawn are peaceful. Soon
after this the bin men arrived in the crescent to collect the weekly
rubbish, and on this occasion sadly leaving behind all the mess that
had been made by the gulls. I was amazed to see how much rubbish
they had left, (see the photographs attached). I waited a short time
to see if they came back to clear up - but they did not - the lorry
drove off down Brock Street.
Throughout the sad events
of this collection the tourists would have witnessed a beautiful
Crescent strewed with rubbish, our bin men not clearing the rubbish
away and leaving so much mess behind them. A number of messages were
clearly taken away by the people in a very short period of time.
Following these
observations a call was placed to your offices and a van came out
and cleared the mess away. Again this should not have been needed,
very much a waste of a lot of peoples time and money.
I wanted to observe again
today to be able to provide a two week collection comparison. The
rubbish was intact today due to the storm that occurred last evening
stopping the gulls from pecking the bags. However, this morning on
my way out to work I overheard one of your bin men say, "we have to
make sure there is no mess left this week".............. my question
is why just this week, this is extremely disappointing - and why is
it necessary to make this instruction? what will happen next week?
Summing this up I feel
very sad that such a beautiful place such as Bath, having such
fantastic tourist opportunities one of them being the Royal
Crescent, is having to be affected by this is such a dramatic way.
I look forward to hearing
from you.
Regards,
Rachel Clarkson-Short
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Email to CLLR O'Flaherty from Bath resident Jacqui Buffton
Dear Cllr O'Flaherty,
I am writing to you because I am extremely concerned at the impact
the decision to move to front of house collection throughout B&NES
is having on our environment and the way we take care of our world
heritage city.
The gateways into the city are now littered with black bags and
the key sites as well.
I note that you recently secured the good offices of Bill Bryson
to promote the Roman Baths and I know that he is concerned that
heritage sites are not tackling the issue of rubbish collection as
well as they might.
I therefore wonder if you could enlist his help to persuade your
colleague Gerry Curran that:
1. We have a duty to look after our heritage status and should be
considering ways in which rubbish can be stored and collected in
ways which do not have an adverse effect on our environment.
2. We are not in the same position as other local authorities,
because of our world heritage status, and therefore should not be
locked into waste collection agreements which are not appropriate
for Bath
3. Bath is fortunate to have a variety of ways in which rubbish can
be stored and collected which is out of sight e.g. bin stores in
Royal Crescent, back lanes in Bear Flat and driveways in other parts
of the city. We should be glad we have such facilities and use them.
4. Linking the policy of front of house collection to re-cycling is
a spurious link. Re-cycling rates increased steadily before this
policy was introduced and will continue to do so.
Finally, I have been in touch with the Royal Institute of British
Architects' Sustainability Committee which is chaired by one of the
architects from the Bath practice of Feilden Clegg and he has made a
number of suggestions about the ways in which rubbish could be
stored and collected in Georgian Bath.
Unfortunately none of the officers or the elected member for
Waste are interested in examining this issue in creative ways.
Perhaps Bill Bryson could help?
Yours sincerely,
Jacqui Buffton
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Letter from Mike Hare of Coronation Avenue to Cllr Dixon
David Dixon,
Chairman of the Planning,
Transportation and Sustainability
Overview and Scrutiny Panel
3rd July 2006
Dear David,
We, along with thousands of Bath Residents wish to complain
strongly about the way the “new” rubbish collection has been
handled.
We have for many years, at least 61, placed our bags at the rear
threshold to our properties, where it was convenient for the
‘dust-cart’, both large and small to collect them. There is a wide
lane to the rear, which is an adopted highway, and this didn’t cause
traffic chaos, or look unsightly, as the new rules will. We on this
side were, mostly, not notified, so we assumed we still had our same
pick up point to the rear! To this date; 3rd July 2006, we have
still not had an official notification put through our letter box!
Matthew Smith, Assistant Director Environmental Services, has now
told us there is “possibly” a Health and Safety problem regarding
collection of waste over the real lane! This is new to us! If this
is the case we ask why the Council has not rectified this possible
problem, as it is a Council adopted highway? Health and Safety is a
serious issue for the general public as a whole.
We have many elderly residents living in these terraced houses,
who will be unable to carry their rubbish through to the front
threshold. Assisted pick up is going to be a joke, as refuse
collectors will not be allowed, for Health and Safety reasons, to
set foot on their property. The remainder of us will now have to
carry possibly leaking sacks through our homes with all the health
and safety risks involved. Some throughout Bath will just pile-up
rubbish in their gardens or fly-tip such is the nature of some
people.
Regarding “Insufficient consideration to resident’s views.” We
have written to Cllr Curran several times over the last month, but
to date have had no reply from him…So much for his consideration of
our views.
I am sure refuse collections in Bath will go on to make
achievable targets in the future, but this blanket step we feel is
one too far, and unnecessary in many cases.
We therefore ask you bring reason to bear at the meeting on
Wednesday 5th July 2006, and if it is not possible to throw out this
very unpleasant decision, then at least to allow rear pick-ups where
possible.
Thanking you for your time and consideration.
For and on behalf of residents between numbers 7 to 127
Coronation Avenue, Bath
Mike Hare,
43 Coronation Avenue
Oldfield Park
Bath, BA2 2JU
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
M Daniels presentation to Public scrutiny meeting 5th July 2006
Presentation to the Council panel 5th July, Keynsham Town Hall
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
The question of improving the environment and re-cycling within
the city is not in dispute and is widely supported by all. We are a
World Heritage City and one of only a handful within the UK along
with Edinburgh, Liverpool Mercantile Maritime and Greenwich
Maritime. This is something we should be proud of and brings vital
tourism and commerce to the city. The city has a 177 page management
plan to support it. Why therefore is there no reference to the
management plan within any of the waste department’s papers and
submissions? We may be one of a few councils to have not implemented
kerbside change but we are one of a very few councils that have
World Heritage responsibilities.
The question of saving cost is not in question as we are all
aware of the pressure on budgets and public spending. But I would
ask whether action on new vehicles and spending has been taken truly
independently of this decision?
However it is on the question of health and safety that the case
is clearly and unequivocally not proven nor supported. This is the
overriding reason for the change to kerbside collections and is
independent of the others. I Quote Cllr Curran, "We are saying
categorically that binmen will no longer go down those steps and
into those bin rooms for health and safety reasons.” He is also on
record as stating “Residents are responsible for their own health &
safety and are best placed to know their own physical capabilities
and present their refuse accordingly.”
So what is the Health and Safety risk? John Patrick of Fairfield
Park and I have requested the facts under the Freedom of Information
Act. To-date, no response has been forthcoming.
If there have been a significant number of incidents and there is
a clear safety risk, is the council right to pass these known risks
to residents without education, warning and some mitigation of the
risk? No literature warning residents of risks or preventative
actions has been published. Who is liable if an accident occurs?
There are mothers with pushchairs, old and partially sighted
people using the city’s pavements, what about their health and
Safety. Who is liable when there is accident? What literature has
been published or steps taken to minimise this risk?
Cllr Curran states “"It will, perhaps, cause some people more
inconvenience than they previously had." We wish to know the legal
status of the health and safety issue with respect to the
responsibilities and liabilities he has transferred to the public
through this change?
I personally requested assistance from Carol Turrard. The basis
was that I am never in Bath on a Wednesday night so physically can’t
present my refuse. She suggested I should ask a neighbour or friend.
However, if they had an accident who is liable? Personally I would
not pass on any risk so easily. Instead I have been taking my
rubbish back to Tower Hamlets. She has also offered the Royal
Crescent twice weekly collections. How many others have been offered
this benefit?
If however the incidents are few and the risk is not so great,
then why is the change being done?
One issue not raised to-date is the risk of increased crime from
personal documents being left on the public highway. This may seem
alarmist to some but not to the artful dodgers who are increasingly
targeting refuse to steal identity. Again an increased risk not
communicated to residents in the change.
Throughout the whole so called process anecdotal evidence has
been used to justify the change. There is little fact or substance
from the original report to today. Instead we have lots of spin from
Cllr Curran. We clearly have spin dictating policy and arrogance
overriding fact. There is little or no innovation, or original
thought and no recognition for anyone or anything, but the change
Consultation is a word which litters all the council papers but
is one ignored in this change and its implementation. I quote Carol
Tunnard, "The consultation is about how we make the change, not
whether or no the change should be made."
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Request for Facts under Freedom of Information Act 30th June 2006
(see response under council correspondence)
Carol,
I would like to request
the following information under the Freedom of Information.
Health and Safety
-
How many accidents
have occurred to rubbish collectors in the Bath area in the past
five years?
-
How many of these
accidents happened on domestic premises (ie within the cartilage
of a house or flats building where we can no longer leave
rubbish for collection)?
-
How many of these
accidents happened on the public roadway?
-
How many of these
accidents happened on public footpaths?
-
How many of these
accidents happened on access roads to the rear of premises?
-
Of the accidents that
happened on domestic premises, how many were found, on formal
investigation, to have been avoidable simply by changing the
place where the rubbish was left to the footpath outside the
premises. (This would not include injuries such as strained
backs that could just as easily have occurred wherever the
rubbish was picked up.)
-
Can we please have a
copy of any formal Risk Assessment?
-
What is the impact of
the change on the council’s public liability insurance?
-
Can we have a copy of
the H&S review report resulting from the review of the 13th and
14th December 2005
Communication
-
What official
communication has been communicated to households notifying them
of the transfer of H&S risk and the liability implications of
such change
-
What official
communication has been communicated to households to inform them
of the additional security and crime risk resulting in personal
documents being disposed of by kerbside collections
-
What exceptions were
identified re kerbside collections and when and how were these
communicated to the impacted residents
Monitoring
The call in meeting
clearly identified a 6 month monitoring process
-
Who is performing
this role and when are their findings to be produced?
-
How many streets,
post implementation, have been offered twice weekly collections
as offered to the Royal Crescent?
-
How many requests for
assisted collections have been received and how many have been
sanctioned?
-
How many complaints
have been received (phone, fax, post, email)
-
How many queries have
been received from households post implementation (phone, fax,
post, email)
Thanks
Martyn Daniels
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Email correspondence between Martyn Daniels and Andy Furse
12/07/2006
Martyn,
I spoke to the chairman and sent an email. I attach the email I sent
to Cllr David Dixon on Monday 3rd July 2006. (Click here to read
submission ) I would appreciate it if this or a follow up email
could be communicated to all those that received your original email
on he 7th July. Can you confirm this back to me please.
On the concerns you
raise;
Although not familiar with all the detail, specifically health and
safety issues - Cllr Dixon may be better informed in this area.
I agree with the concern
over introducing such a change at the same time as task and finish
or any change in conditions of service. I am informed that some of
the missed collections around the district are due to minor
industrial action on this issue and not necessarily the edge of
property change, hence why changes like this have to be thought
through.
I have also said to
officers and Cllr Curran that mitigations should have been in place
prior to introduction and in my view if an introduction was to take
place there should have been a phased introduction -say on a per
crew basis. I believe that some of my colleagues on the Overview and
Scrutiny panel expressed the similar views when first presented to
them.
The edge of property
issue has been discussed at O&S (cross party) decided as a whole
executive decision (cross party) and the call-in upheld by O&S
(cross party). You saw for yourselves that the decision was not
going to be over turned last Wednesday.
Therefore, in my view the
new regime will remain, hence why my effort is now making sure that
streets are swept after collections, collection days and times are
adhered to and that residents are informed of the correct days for
collection, litter bins that attract household waste are regularly
cleared. I also feel that having one collection day for refuse,
green box recycling and garden waste would considerably reduce the
impact and improve the tidiness of our streets.
Regards
Andy
Councillor Andrew Furse
11/07/2006
Just so you are aware - I did send my apologies to the meeting
I did submit a written statement that I asked to be read out at the
meeting - this clearly did not take place.
I had already agreed some months back to chair a residents meeting
for the community safety action group covering the Royal Crescent /
St James Square / Marlborough Buildings and Phoenix house areas. I
cannot be in two places at once.
In addition I was late to
that meeting because first Great western let me down as I had to be
in London with my work for an important Safety Review meeting
earlier the same day.
I am sorry if you were
expecting me to the meeting but i had previously stated that I would
be sending in a written statement.
Councillor Andrew Furse
22/06/2006
Martyn,
I disagree - the wheelie bin attracting additional dumping of refuse
causing many of the complaints was in black bin bags - users of the
park do not turn up with a black bin bags - they are likely to use a
carrier bag very likely but not black bags.
I spoke to the park collector this morning on the way to work he
said that other than recently when a number of black bags were all
around the telephone box the situation in Gravel Walk is much better
with much less fly tipping. I can only go on what he tells me.
In addition I have asked the Councils Overview and Scrutiny Panel
cover waste collections to review the implementation of the new
policy. This has now been agreed .........review the implementation
of the edge of property refuse collection. I have had a number of
complaints from Kingsmead residents. I will forward to you their
emails in due course, however they range from multi-occupied houses
with and without basement collection areas in the city centre, to
those with vehicular access at the rear.
It seems to me that the policy change has not been supported and
thought through as it should. It is also clear that the council did
not communicate with residents well enough. This I have discussed
with council officers. Also, the executive members of the council
agreed to bring this new regime into operation I am told for reasons
of health and Safety, and to improve the speed of collection. I am
also told that B&NES is one of the last authorities in the country
to bring this system into operation.
The planned Council O&S meeting is being planned for early July I
am told and I hope to be able to attend to give my view.
Regards
Andy
Subject: RE: Refuse Collection - Royal Crescent
19/06/2006
Andy
Can we have some co-ordinated effort and policy on refuse and
change. The wheelie bin was an issue more due to the park than
residents and you only need to ask the park collector how much he
has to collect and the state of the small bins especially adjacent
to the gravel path to see that one problem is far from solved.
You have remained very quiet of the current debate and chaos of
the refuse change. Do you support the case raised or not? Our other
ward councillor Carol is mayor and can’t get involved so what is our
position?
Do you believe that the H&S issue is proven?
What are your views on the residents H&S issues?
Given the cost case does not account for communications costs or
assisted collection do you believe the case stands?
Can you define what you believe qualifies for assisted collection as
I was told today to get another resident to help – sorry not
physically here and don’t think others should take the risk.
There appears to be little thinking about bin store identification
and collection and stubbornness to entering property at any cost.
Your thoughts welcomed.
The environmental case can’t be proven until a trial is completed
and the sceptic would predict the answer today. However, CT
suggested today to me that if excess refuse was coming from a house
this would be investigated. Can you establish how this would be
undertaken, who would perform it and how the collectors would
substantiate ownership?
Why was no representation or consultation made to FBRA ?
Has any communication be made to residents re confidential
information and refuse now it is left on the public highway?
Andy I know that you listen to residents but what I am asking is
where you stand and what you are doing to address clear concerns
Martyn Daniels
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Letter to FBRA from Stephen Little
19th June, 2006
The Royal Crescent Society, along with many residents from all
parts of Bath, is very concerned about the effect the changes to
refuse collections will have on the image of Bath. These concerns
are not confined to the Royal Crescent, but apply throughout the
City, especially the Georgian centre which is so important to Bath’s
tourist economy.
None of the three reasons given to justify the changes to refuse
collections, namely the need for consistency, health & safety
concerns, and cost-cutting, stand up to reasoned scrutiny.
If Cllr Gerry Curran (aka ‘Beau Trash’) has failed to notice the
glorious inconsistency in the nature of properties in Bath, not to
mention the rural areas, he should not be involved in managing the
City’s affairs. It was noticeable that the leaflet explaining the
requirement to leave rubbish on the pavement overnight contained no
photos of properties in the Georgian centre of Bath, where
architects wisely designed areas to keep rubbish out of sight. For
the sake of Bath’s tourist economy, basement collections should
continue at least in this World Heritage Site area. Cllr Curran’s
contention that the majority of Royal Crescent homes have no access
to bin stores is inaccurate, and as badly researched and thought out
as the rest of the new proposals for refuse collection.
Health & safety concerns surely require that refuse should be
brought from basements by well-equipped, fit and experienced
collectors in daylight rather than by people of assorted abilities,
and also that rubbish bags should not be left vulnerable to
scavengers of all types.
As for any financial saving, this is likely to be dissipated by
second weekly collections and the clear-up vans currently following
the main collectors. And if not, it is still a false economy, as the
detrimental effect on Bath’s reputation would have hidden costs
which appear not to have been taken into consideration.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Little
Chairman, Royal Crescent Society
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Letter
to Waste Department from Mike Daw 19th June
Dear Ms Alder,
The proposals in your general letter of "June" 2006 again fail to
address the essential issues.
Firstly the problems caused by the changes are not restricted to
the Royal Crescent; they affect the whole of the Central
Conservation Area, especially where there are multiple occupancy
houses and businesses which close before the 8pm deadline for
putting out rubbish. So the intention to restrict the monitoring of
the impact of the changes to only this street is inadequate.
Secondly, the cost of a second collection - again apparently
restricted to only this street - will obviously reduce the estimated
savings. I also notice that the collection vehicles are now followed
by a new and separate "clear-up" vehicle and team, which must mean a
further reduction (besides being in contradiction of your earlier
statement that clearing-up would be done by the collection vehicle
teams themselves). A second collection will also double even the
legitimate period when streets will be littered with rubbish. It
would therefore, overall, not be beneficial.
Thirdly, the official report which lead to the changes provided
neither a definition of the alleged Health and Safety risks to
Council employees nor reference to any official, statutory,
Accident-at-Work Reports having been rendered - even over the
decades during which collections have been made from basements.
Therefore the report's assessment that there are risks to Council
employees is not valid. However the more realistic risks to
residents having to move rubbish on dark winter nights are not
assessed at all.
Fourthly, your letter maintains your stance of ignoring the
visual impact of the changes on the overall image of this World
Heritage City. Besides the concerns expressed by residents on this
aspect, you will have seen the similar views of Bath Tourism Plus (CEO's
e-mail of 2nd June) and I understand that the Council's Historic
Buildings Officer is also looking at the matter. Neither of these
bodies was consulted before the changes were proposed or
implemented. That one department of local government should pursue
its own aims without paying any attention to the potentially
damaging wider impacts on the aims of other departments of the same
Council is unprofessional and irresponsible.
Therefore the changes should be withdrawn for the Central
Conservation Area of the City and collection from basement
bin-stores re-instituted. Such withdrawal should happen very soon,
before the main tourism season gets under way, so that the City's
visitors who are so vital to its economy and status carry away the
impression that the City is appropriately cared for and managed, an
impression which would be seriously flawed by the sight of its
historic streets littered with rubbish bags.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Daw,
10 Royal Crescent,
Bath, BA1 2LR.
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Letter sent to Waste Services Department by Bath Tourism Plus in
response to letters raised by Mike Daw on 25th May and 1st June
Dear Mr Daw,
In response to your emails dated 25th May and 1st June addressed
to Robin Bischert, Chief Executive of Bath Tourism Plus, please find
below a copy of the email sent to the Council's Waste Services
Department today.
Dear Mr Robinson,
As the official marketing organisation for Bath and the
surrounding area, Bath Tourism Plus has been contacted by a Mr
Michael Daws of First Floor Flat, 10 Royal Crescent, expressing his
concerns regarding the cessation of waste collection from basements
in the Royal Crescent. Mr Daws has also copied us into his
correspondence with yourselves.
The issue of on-street collections has also been brought to our
attention in other areas of the city amidst concerns that rubbish
left awaiting collection could potentially tarnish the image of our
World Heritage Site in the eyes of its 4 million+ visitors each
year.
Such iconic locations as the Royal Crescent are captured on film
by almost every overseas visitor and first time domestic visitor to
Bath. Our heritage is the subject of scrutiny throughout the day by
many who simply wish to admire our buildings, gracious crescents and
boulevards. Overflowing bins, and black bin bags left on pavements
will obviously detract from the image of our World Heritage Site
which we wish to portray around the world.
Operating efficiencies on the part of the Council are both
necessary and permanently evolving, but Bath Tourism Plus must add
its voice to the concerns raised by many that refuse is often seen
to be left on our major highways and byways, sometimes for extended
periods.
Whilst we are certain that every care is taken to ensure that
collections are prompt and reliable, Bath Tourism Plus would welcome
any initiative which would ensure that our iconic city centre
locations are given the necessary considerations they deserve.
Indeed, in the annual Visitors Surveys undertaken on behalf of Bath
Tourism Plus, we would wish to see the high rankings for street
cleanliness which Bath has attracted in previous years being
maintained in any future surveys.
With best regards
Fiona Humphreys
on behalf of: Robin Bischert, Chief Executive, Bath Tourism Plus
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Email to RCS Committee and Members from Martyn Daniels
7th June,2006
EFor information and many thanks to Andrew Dean for pointing me
in the
right direction, there is much more but this gives the right
flavour.
Below is the council extract from "Waste Collection Study,
Evaluation of Current System (Draft Report) April 2005" re;
collections from cellars, bin stores and other confined spaces. It
fails to note that operatives often throw the bags out of the yard
and do not carry them as they obviously think which can obviously
raises its own H&S issues.
Because some stairs are in bad repair or bin areas are not
cleared all stairs and bin areas are condemned throughout the city.
Street access is poor, well it is a Georgian city but again many
generalisations form the rules. But don't take my views read the
report for yourselves (click here to read)
1.3 Collections from cellars, bin stores and other confined
spaces the safety issues are similar to those relating to back
lanes. The hazards to collectors are those of back and limb injury
from poor posture. The job and finish culture also compounds the
risk of injury through the temptation to handle excessive weights. I
have visited many locations where the stairs to basements and bin
stores are in a poor state of repair or where collectors have to
bend double to access bin storage areas. Many of the storage
areas seem to be cleaned rarely by their owners or occupiers.
Vehicle access is also often difficult. It is not only the older
properties where this occurs as bin store rooms are often poorly
located in newly built houses and blocks of flats. I believe that we
should have an input to the planning process whereby consideration
is given to better refuse collection points.
The vote to implement was narrow- click to read the official minutes
of the call-in meeting (click here to read minutes).
note the comments of C.Cray - Uphold. I have not had pressure
put on me. I request a recorded vote. I did a review on this
and met officers. This decision has been made for budget reasons.
£124k is a small amount. This will affect a lot of people. I am
voting on the way this has been done, the lack of consultation, not
the issue of `kerbside'. We are doing residents a great disservice,
they are being treated with contempt.
I would concur with the views express by Councillor Cray
Martyn Daniels
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Letter to
the Mayor's Office from Martyn Daniels
6th June, 2006
Dear Mayor
I would like to bring to your attention the current change in
waste disposal that is being implemented in Bath. As of now no
refuse will be collected from basement flats and all refuse must be
“left at the boundary” after 2000 hours the night before collection.
This apparently is to both save money and reduce heath and safety
risks.
No exception has been granted to Grade 1 listed buildings, or
tourist attractions and all are treated equal. However this now
leads to the potential second “Sacking of Bath” and threat to the
beauty and environment that many have fought hard to preserve and
promote around the world. You only need to ask the Film office how
many film crews come to Bath to capture our famous streets.
Alternatively, witness the faces of those on your walking tours or
on tourist buses or merely walking the streets to realise Bath is
different and an image, a special something we should try hard to
maintain.
We now face rubbish bags on the Circus and our Crescents. Granted
the refuse is only there one day, well maybe. Granted, it will be
all piled neatly, well maybe. Obviously no gulls will dare to open
these, nor will any get cat vandalised. Of course houses which are
divided into flats, of which are the vast majority, will all be able
to distinguish their own individual bags and carry these to their
boundaries. Those whose premises are used as offices will wait until
the following morning and place their bags at their boundary. Those
who are not around will make alternative arrangements and like
ourselves take our rubbish back to other places. Of course this will
not promote fly tipping. It is not a case of monitoring the
situation but acting proactively to stop it from sliding into a fly
tip. Imagine tourists showing their friends and relative around the
world them stood proudly on the Royal Crescent out side Number 1
with a backdrop of black bags dotted around the Crescent.
If you wish to see what the historic sites of Bath may look like
take a walk around the streets where this policy is already in play
or some of the shopping areas. Only last weekend mountains of refuse
were to be found littering Norfolk Crescent and New King Street. The
stacks were far from tidy and not all were sealed and some had been
torn open. Is this what we call progress, is this what you want to
see?
Will it save the council money – it may well cost the council
dear. Ask the Film Office, Bath Preservation Trust, FBRA, the
people, the tourists.
The Waste Department are trying to do their job and one which is
often thankless and difficult. However, in looking after the
environment they need to understand the environment in the bigger
picture and act to make it work for all.
I hope that you are able to help and save us from our seconded
“sacking” and look forward to your response.
Martyn Daniels
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Letters
to Bath Heritage and Tourism and Waste Service Department from Mike
Daw
25th May
Dear Ms Wilkinson and Mr Bischart,
As the senior officers responsible respectively for Bath's
Heritage and Tourism, I draw to your attention the likely impacts on
the Royal Crescent and the City's visitors of a decision by the Head
of Waste Services to end the collection of rubbish from basements
and to insist that it be left exposed on pavements.
My assessment of these impacts is in my e-mail to Ms Tunnard,
reproduced below, now with her staff for action.
I would be grateful to hear whether your departments were aware
of this intention and whether you support it.
22nd May
Dear Ms. Tunnard,
As a resident of the Royal Crescent, I object strongly to the
cessation of rubbish collection from basements here and request your
personal urgent action to exempt this Crescent from this change on
the following grounds:
1. This entire Crescent, its houses, pavement, road, railings and
lawn are Grade 1 listed and at the centre of the Conservation area.
For the local authority to deliberately turn it into an open rubbish
dump every week - even for only one evening, one night and one
morning (but see 8 below) - is inappropriate and in conflict with
the authority's responsibilities for its heritage.
2. The consequent image presented to tourists will be damaging to
both the city's reputation and to that of the Council as a whole.
3. Application of the changes city-wide is an example of the
application of a "one size fits all" policy, illustrated by the
photographs on your website which fail to show the consequences for
the many terraced and historic streets which make up so much of the
city. Such a policy is seldom - and in this case is certainly not -
right here.
4. The imposition of the change at such short notice - 11 working
days between receipt of the leafletted announcement (19/5) and
implementation (5/6) - is undemocratic and inconsiderate. Time
should have been allowed for consultation with representative
residents' groups, Councillors, conservation groups and others.
5. The majority (66%) of houses in this Crescent are in multiple
occupancy. As a flat dweller in one of these houses and in common
with most others similarly placed, I have no outside storage for my
rubbish except under the steps leading to the basement area. Since
there can be no question of keeping a week's rubbish inside my flat
I will have to continue using that space. At the end of the week the
space will also contain the bags, etc., of other flat-dwellers here
and identification of my bags from such an anonymous collection to
bring them to the pavement level will be impossible. Even if it were
possible, retrieval from such a heap would not be practical or
sensible; bags could split or fall, etc. This problem will obviously
be exacerbated the more flats there are per house ( and some houses
have up to twelve flats). I and others cannot be held responsible
for our neighbours' bags.
6. Your Department's intention to leave bags not presented on the
pavement until the next week's collection, when they will be buried
under a further week's rubbish seems ill-advised. Spillage into
courtyard areas themselves, the increased attraction to vermin and
their eventual removal (to avert a health hazard) will be a double
burden for your operators. The consequent unpleasantness for those
in basement flats does not appear to have been considered.
7. Bags on the pavement for the intended period (from 8pm the day
before collection) will also be prey to vermin but, in addition, to
birds, vandals and snoopers.
8. But that intended period will be extended by those unable to
meet your timing because of absence or other reasons. They will have
to put their bags out early - sometimes days early. The threat of
legal action against such offenders is empty, since they will not be
identifiable from the anonymous bags. Thus the changes are likely to
cause the street to be almost permanently strewn with bags, with the
obviously consequent increase to the risks and penalties I have
already described.
9. I note that your leaflet fails to quantify or even estimate
the savings envisaged from the changes, other than to claim that
they would be "significant". This lack of precision undermines the
alleged need for the changes when set against the disbenefits I have
listed above.
I therefore believe that this unique street qualifies, under the
provision in your leaflet, to be declared as not being appropriate
for the changes and I request that you authorise this and urgently
issue the necessary Notice to that effect.
Yours sincerely,
Michael G. Daw,
First Floor Flat,
10 Royal Crescent,
Bath, BA1 2LR.
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Letter to
Waste Department from Stephen Little
Head Of Waste Services,
Riverside
Temple Street
Keynsham
Bristol BS31 1LA
May, 2006.
Changes to Collection of Rubbish from Royal Crescent, Bath
Dear Mrs Tunnard,
This Society urgently requests that the Royal Crescent, Bath, be
designated an area not appropriate for the changes announced in the
Council’s leaflet distributed to residences on 18th and 19th May,
ceasing rubbish collection from basement areas from June 5th 2006.
The reasons for this request centre on both the particular
difficulties which the changes would present to residents living in
flats here and, for tourists, visitors and all residents, the impact
of rubbish on the historic setting. That impact is important and is
addressed secondly in this letter only because residents’
difficulties set the scene.
Firstly, then, flat-dwellers will not wish to retain a week’s
rubbish indoors. This would pose not only a degradation of their
living standards, but pose a potential health hazard, be visually
unacceptable and in smaller flats not be possible for lack of room.
The only outdoor storage space for houses here is in the basement
areas beneath the access steps. These are, under existing
arrangements, piled high with bags, besides those inside residents’
dustbins.
Under the changes, residents who remember on the pre-collection day
the need to retrieve their bags from these areas will have no means
of identifying their own amongst the pile of anonymous bags, of
mixed ownership. Some can be expected to abandon or not be able make
the attempt. Residents who are away the day before or the day of
collection, will not be able to meet the “after 8pm” requirement.
That such bags and dustbins would remain until the following week,
with a second week’s accumulation on top or overflowing into the
basement areas, would be chaotic, a health hazard, a potential cause
of friction between neighbours living in the same house and
especially unpleasant for those living in the basement flats.
Some may hazard a guess that the threat of legal action by the
Council against those who do not present bags at the right time or
place would be unenforceable for properties in multi-occupancy,
because of the difficulty of identifying bags and hence offenders.
Turning to the impact of the changes on the Crescent itself, for all
residents and tourists, this Grade I Listed setting has long been
recognised as not only the jewel in the crown of Bath’s World
Heritage status but as a very “special place” in National and local
government decisions affecting its ambience and nature. The
Government’s Planning Inspector, agreeing to prevent heavy traffic
passing through the street, used that precise description to justify
his decision. Recent B&NES proposals to allow 24hr parking on the
Lawn side of the street were withdrawn because of the “deleterious
impact on the whole vista” which such a change would have had.
Similarly the rubbish
collection changes would also seriously impact on the appearance and
ambience of this important setting. The changes suggest that, as
described in the first part of this letter, for at least an evening,
a night and a morning each week the street should take on the
appearance and ambience of a rubbish dump. The potentials for vermin
and bird damage will be increased and the risk of vandalism by
disaffected members of the passing public should also not be
overlooked. There may also be a security issue, given the
international status and fame of the buildings.
The reaction of tourists to such a scene can only be imagined, but
is hardly likely to be favourable. Our judgement, from long
experience of meeting our many visitors, is that they would find
such a deliberate lowering of environmental and heritage standards,
in such a place by those responsible for its care and protection, at
least bewildering. It would difficult for already unhappy residents
to explain or justify and would detract from the image which the
City wishes to project.
In view of the very short
notice of these major changes, I would be grateful if you would
consider and respond to this Society’s request urgently and before
the planned implementation date. Yours sincerely,
Stephen Little,
Chairman.
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
|
