Community consultation event Summary – Simpler Recycling
Across the 8 consultation events. There are 122 people recorded as having been spoken to in the separate totals sheet, while the Results sheet contains 118 individual response records. Of those, 107 recorded a clear bin-size preference
Across the 107 records where a preference was recorded:
There are a few records where more than one size appears to have been selected, so these percentages should be treated as indicative rather than a strictly mutually exclusive vote.
The overall picture is therefore balanced, with no single bin size dominating across all events. Preferences appear to be strongly influenced by household size, recycling volume and available storage space.
1. Storage space
is the biggest concern.
This came through repeatedly, particularly among residents in
terraced and closely packed properties. Comments included concerns
about having nowhere to store bins, existing bin stores needing
alteration, bins affecting garden space, and bins being stored in
communal/back lanes.
2. Household size
and recycling volume matter.
Residents who live alone or in small households tended to favour
140L, with concerns that larger bins would not be filled.
Larger households and people who recycle heavily, particularly
those producing lots of cardboard/paper, tended towards 180L or
240L.
3. There is
genuine support for replacing boxes with
bins.
A significant number of comments were explicitly positive,
including residents saying bins were “much better” or
that they were happy/supportive of the change. The strongest
support was evident at the 4 August Gateway event.
4. Some residents
want to retain boxes.
There were explicit objections at several events, generally because
of lack of space rather than opposition to recycling itself. This
was particularly noticeable at the 28 July, 30 July and 7 August
events. (Clifton/ Hull Road & Foxwood)
5. More capacity
is wanted by high recyclers.
Residents who recycle heavily generally viewed the move to bins
positively but wanted sufficient capacity. There were several
references to cardboard, paper and existing boxes/bins being too
small or overflowing.
6. The number of
bins is a concern.
Some residents felt that adding another wheelie bin would create
too many bins, particularly where storage is already
difficult.
7. Collection
arrangements need to be considered.
There were questions/concerns about collection frequency and the
practicalities of bins becoming heavy over a longer collection
interval
8. There are
wider operational questions.
A small number of comments raised issues beyond bin size, including
contaminated recycling, misuse of communal bins, overflowing
communal bins, cardboard being left on the floor after collection,
and requests about surplus black-bag waste.
The consultation feedback suggests broad acceptance of moving from recycling boxes to wheelie bins, but with significant practical concerns about space and getting the bin size right.
The strongest overall message is that a “one size fits all” approach may not suit residents. The preference varies considerably by location and appears closely linked to property type, household size, recycling output and storage arrangements.
Residents generally seem open to the change, but the consultation indicates that bin capacity and property/storage constraints need to be considered carefully, with household size and recycling levels potentially useful factors in determining the most appropriate bin size.
Summary per event
|
Date / event |
Responses |
140L |
180L |
240L |
Main feedback |
|
27 July Gateway Centre, Front Street |
19 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
180L was most popular. Several residents raised concerns about limited storage space, particularly terraced/semi-detached properties. Some felt the existing recycling boxes were too small. A few were reluctant to change because of space. One flat resident with communal bins wanted additional recycling capacity because the existing bins overflow. |
|
28 July Clifton / Burton Stone Lane / MWC |
16 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
140L was most popular. Strong emphasis on space and storage constraints, including residents saying they had no room for bins and preferred larger boxes instead. Smaller bins were preferred by people producing little recycling/single-person households. Other issues included misuse of communal recycling bins and problems with presentation/collection of cardboard. |
|
30 July Hull Road shops |
9 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
180L was clearly preferred. Mixed views on the change: some residents were happy to move to bins, while others explicitly preferred to retain boxes or did not want bins. A shop-related respondent noted that an existing wheelie bin was already overflowing and suggested additional capacity. |
|
31 July Hull Road Park café |
9 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
180L was preferred. Residents who recycle a lot, particularly households using significant amounts of paper, wanted greater capacity. There were also questions about why recycling is separated and concerns about how contaminated recycling is handled if materials ultimately go to the same place. One household strongly preferred bins over boxes. |
|
4 August Gateway Centre, Front Street |
16 |
4 |
1 |
9 |
240L was overwhelmingly preferred. This was the most supportive event overall. Most comments were positive about replacing boxes with bins, particularly because residents wanted more recycling capacity. Some concerns remained around having too many bins, collection frequency, storage, and the weight of bins for elderly residents. A few preferred smaller bins or one bin rather than two. |
|
5 August Door 84, The Groves |
22 |
8 |
9 |
4 |
180L was marginally preferred, with 140L also popular. Space was the dominant issue. Residents described existing storage arrangements for boxes and concerns that larger bins would not fit. Some would need to alter bin stores. Conversely, larger households and high recyclers wanted greater capacity. There was also a suggestion that 240L bins should be collected fortnightly and that bins should be returned to the correct property. |
|
6 August Sanderson House, Chapelfields |
14 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
240L was preferred. Several residents said they recycle a lot or generate significant amounts of cardboard and therefore need more capacity. There were repeated suggestions that bin size should be allocated according to household size. Smaller capacity was acceptable for people who recycle less. |
|
7 August Foxwood Community Centre |
13 |
8 |
1 |
4 |
140L was clearly preferred. This reflects several smaller households, including single- and two-person households, who were concerned they would not fill a larger bin. Space was again a concern, particularly where bins are stored at the front of properties. Some residents explicitly preferred boxes, while others were supportive of the proposed change. |
*Some residents did not express preference for a specific bin for number to tally