2 May - Council plans to impose yet more charges on Bexley residents
Last week’s Places Scrutiny meeting was a special one called to look at the
proposal to raise more money from refuse collection by charging for excessive
visits to the two borough rubbish dumps. Maybe I should declare an interest. In
36 years residency I have been to Thames Road and Footscray only once each.
Cabinet Member Craske had decided to introduce the charges and Conservative Councillors
Bacon, Smith, Slaughter and Brooks formally questioned the wisdom of such a move. (In democratic Bexley, Labour Councillors are
not allowed to challenge Cabinet decisions.)
Existing dump permits will no longer be accepted and alternative address ID will
be required. The proposals include free visits by car restricted to 20 per year
and enforced by new ANPR cameras and software. Vans, 4x4s etc., to be further
restricted (ten visits) and allowed to dump only half of what is permitted now.
(500kg down to 250.) Construction materials charged at £2 per 15kg bag.
Pedestrian access to be restricted 30 minutes.
People with access to more than one vehicle will not benefit, the registered
addresses will be monitored. if the two vehicles are both cars the visiting limit
will remain at 20 but if it is a van/large vehicle and a car 30 visits may be
permitted. Councillors appeared to be as incredulous as I am and the responsible
Council Officer appeared to backtrack to a maximum of 20 visits.
Councillor Cameron Smith (Conservative, St. Mary’s & St. James) thought that in the absence of any data on dump visits it might
be more sensible to install the cameras and use them to collect the data needed
to introduce a fair system. Cabinet Member Craske floundered but seemed to be not unsympathetic to the idea.
Councillor Slaughter (Conservative, Sidcup) took a further step backwards and wondered why the policy
was needed at all. How big is the construction waste problem? She pointed out
that it has to go somewhere, if not the Council dump, somewhere else. She was
told that construction waste forms about 17% of Bexley’s waste against the London average of 10%.
Councillor Hinkley (Labour, Belvedere) said she uses her car to deliver her neighbour’s rubbish.
Cabinet Member Craske said she could register that situation as an exception. It
was also pointed out that some 4x4s are smaller than family cars, e.g. the Suzuki Jimny.
Councillor Lucia-Hennis (Crayford) said her experience is that every change in
the rules, like the alternate day rule during Covid, results in more fly tipping. Lots more, like 100%.
Councillor Ball (Labour, Erith) said that what data we have suggests that about 3% of
people “play the system” with an excessive number of visits and he felt that
that 3% will be not be the sort of people who will in future pay. They will fly
tip it and the Council is encouraging them through a massively bureaucratic system of
registered addresses, counting, exception lists and ANPR. Will there be a net
gain? The answer was at best not much. The scheme is not seen as a big revenue
earner but other boroughs have seen an overall benefit.
Councillor Ball said the experience of other boroughs may not apply to Bexley
which is known to be an outlier on construction waste.
Councillor Dourmoush (Longlands) whilst generally supportive of a fair use policy thought there was insufficient data to be sure of the
consequences but one would inevitably be longer queues of traffic having their
credentials checked. “What is commercial waste? Is my old garden gate commercial
waster? What about people who take their garden waste to the dump to save the bin subscription fee?”
He was told that people who cut their grass once a week and deliver it to the
dump are being subsidised by those who do not go often. (I would say that such
people should balance the cost of petrol against the garden bin tax.)
Councillor Betts (Conservative, Falconwood) was another Councillor who thought that the net result of
imposing “hurdles” on waste disposal would inevitably cause fly tipping. He
asked if different families sharing one address would fall foul of the new rules.
He was told that they will despite bigger houses paying more Council Tax.
Is the 20 limit arbitrary asked Councillor Brooks? (Conservative, Falconwood.)
He too thought it might be more sensible to collect data before imposing new
rules. Cabinet Member Craske said people would be warned when they exceeded 50%
of their visiting quota so that they could modify their behaviour.
Chairman Cheryl Bacon (Sidcup) asked it the ANPR cameras filmed events in real time or
merely registered a visit. Will there be a DVLA check? Answer: Registering only and no DVLA check.
Councillor Smith thought any revenue would come from commercial waste and not
excessive visits. Wouldn’t savings be made without imposing limits? Answer:
Probably yes but it is part of the package and one could start without the
other. Cabinet Member Craske once again sounded like a man who had not thought everything through.
Councillor Borella (Labour, North End) raised the question of false number
plates but the Council Officer said that if one is linked to an address it will
become a police matter. However with no DVLA check how will anyone know?
Councillor Slaughter asked how much the new ANPR software would cost. £37,000.
Councillor Lucia-Hennis said that fly tipping is “a boil ready to burst in Crayford”
and much of it is on private land and it takes “ages” for site owners to clear
it. Does it get included in the fly tipping data? Answer: No. Only Council collected fly tipping is recorded.
The Chairman summed up by saying that she was “a tad concerned about the
arbitrary 20 visits and reviews should be carried out once data became available but in principle supported fair use”.
(Seems OK to me but then my usage is closer to one visit every 20 years than 20 visits in one year.)
The decision to charge has already been taken because Bexley is ruled in this regard by just one man.