Like everyone else’s, Lancashire County Council’s purse strings are being tightened evermore as the recession bites, but in a major blow to the recycling effort on the Fylde Coast they intend to close the tip in St. Annes despite opposition from 1500 residents.
According to county councillor Michael Devaney, £1m per year can be saved by shutting this facility down.
I was at the tip the other day and there is a big sign saying that it recycled and reused 75% of all waste that is deposited there. To me this seemed pretty good, and independent Fylde councillor Liz Oades backs this up by saying that Fylde has a ‘gold standard’ recycling service. This will obviously be affected, as people will have to travel further to deposit their waste, damaging the environment with poisonous fumes every step of the way.
What do the powers that be want? We are constantly nannied into recycling, and then they take away a tip that recycles the majority of junk that is deposited there.
loading…
I think it will be an absolute travesty if this tip closes. I went this morning actually to dump some old bricks and it is a useful, popular and well-used facility (like St Annes Baths) there is absolutely no logical reason for shutting it. It is also used by people from Blackpool and Fylde.
loading...
And there lies the problem TB – Blackpool people are using it. And Blackpool is a unitary authority and therefore none of their rates go to Lancashire. So would we perhaps ask people over a period which authority they live in and then recharge Blackpool a fair proportion of the costs of keeping the tip open? Apparently not. Would we even consider asking that only residents in Lancashire County Council use the facility – apparently also unthinkable though closing it is acceptable. And it’s just coincidence that 3 tips adjacent to unitary authorities or another county council are on the hit list of closures.
And Lancashire’s not just in a mess with the recession – remember LCC lost £10 million in the bust Icelandic bank fiasco.
loading...
Very good point Frustrated, to be honest I never really thought of it that way. I think life would be easier personally with one big council for Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde and ditch LCC altogether. LCC are a disaster area and I am not impressed by the way they are ganging up with Preston against Blackpool and Blackburn on that stupid Tithebarn project. I am aware we are outside the LCC area but they should not be taking sides like that.
loading...
Counterbalance was told quite openly by a Labour LCC that it was only fair that boroughs like Fylde pay for services in East Lancs where they are poorer. Most of Fylde’s LCC charge goes into that particular black-hole. If Fylde weren’t so incompetent financially I think it would have been far better being a unitary authority too.
Whilst I would very much be against Fylde joining up with Blackpool – simply because I can see a scenario where again council taxes are very high to pay to “improve” areas in need of regeneration in central Blackpool (rather than what should really be happening and central government funds and European funds going in) whilst Fylde pays more and their services are cut, for simple services like tips there is no good reason why authorities can’t do a deal on what they believe would be an equitable basis. LCC haven’t asked for LCC residents only to use their tips, nor have they asked for some money from adjoining areas where residents will find it easier to use a neighbouring area’s tip. What they have done in Fylde is say keep a tip in the countryside near Lytham (pop 7k), quite a distance from Kirkham (pop 8k) and close one in the heart of St Annes (pop 13k). The “improved” services for residents they are trying to sell this as is a load of (quite literally) rubbish.
loading...
Very good points Frustrated. That explains exactly why I am no fan of LCC, sounds like backdoor socialism to me. I see what you mean about Fylde having to pay for other areas which I don’t feel is fair. I agree Fylde would be better off as a UA if it was better managed.
loading...
Have to say I wish I had read Counterbalance’s splendid article before writing mine.
It’s an absolute scandal the way they have spun their report, trying to suggest that closing this tip is going to give a better service.
loading...
Some of the local authorities in London actually issue a smart card to residents which has to be presented on entry to the facility.. No card no entry and it is strictly enforced. AT the same time the card also doubles for libraries and swimming pools and such like.
Can understand the feeling though as I am in South Shore and use this recycling centre regularly.
loading...
But if we all got smart cards from our own Boroughs we could use them in any area and be recharged. If recycling is such a great thing to do (and we are told that it is) the system shouldn’t want us travelling further than we need to, to deposit our unwanted goods. I don’t think anyone in St Annes thinks Blackpool residents should be stopped from using it – and if it’s a matter of cost, then it’s simple to introduce a system across services to get a fair allocation of costs. Surely it’s cheaper to share costs of sites so that they are evenly spread for the populated areas rather than making people artificially go to certain sites in their boroughs/areas. This is what happens when areas let building go on each side of a border so that there’s no natural or real barrier between towns. The (former) government’s certainly given councils plenty of money for IT projects – it’s just that most have been spending this money on other things or wasting it on projects that don’t make financial sense.
loading...
Anyone remember the TV News stories about 18 Months ago where the price of recycled metal and plastics fell off a cliff due to the worldwide downturn? These reports explained it was costing councils money to get rid of the materials and they were all whinging due to the difficult Govt targets they were required to hit.
I don’ t think things are much better today and maybe this has more to do with the decision?
The less stuff people recycle the less thy have to dispose of other than through landfill.
End of the day Recycling is good for the environment but costs will still dictate what gets done and what not.
loading...
Yes – but it’s still cheaper to “recycle” these goods than put them in landfill. The prices are low because the whole of Europe seems to be having these recycling schemes, but the way to keep it cheaper is to impose artificial charges to landfill – via the landfill tax. I don’t understand why a public body that collects charges then pays taxes to government as it doesn’t really make a lot of sense – more internal market crap I suppose.
What’s stopping the residents of South Shore and St Annes flytipping though when this tip is closed? And it won’t necessarily be on their own council’s land.
loading...
The law will stop most of them along with the deterrent of the huge fines they risk. The unprecedented surveillance society we live in will ensure a good clean up rate which when publicised will reduce the problem further.
Why do we have a landfill tax in the first place? It is a relatively new phenomenon not more than 10 15 years old if I recall?
The population has been disposing of rubbish for centuries into landfill without the need to levy a tax upon it. I know of several very good housing estates in the South that are built upon landfill sites used in the early 20th century..
Seems a case was made for the ‘supposed’ need for a tax and people swallowed it hook line and sinker!
If you beleive that there is too much public waste then you must make the correlation in that new taxes were imposed under the socialist regime to pay for that ‘waste’.
Surely I can not be the only person to notice that the spin of the last 15 years means first a problem is created by media manipulation in so far as the general population begin to understand it is a problem then a solution is mooted. Introduce a new tax, everyone thinks it is needed and Bobs your uncle. The same is true at the moment with the increases to CGT and VAT being mooted in the press the same theme but a variation in so far as these increases are needed as a result of the overspending of the last 13 years.
If there was a real need to reduce waste it would be the simplest thing to legislate to enforce food or other goods manufacturers to do it at source, that would have solved the problem at a stroke but would not have brought in the additional taxation that could be spent on other things and would have upset big business which contributes to all shades of political influence.
loading...
Well the landfill tax came out of Europe with a Directive ” “to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects on the environment, in particular the pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air, and on the global environment, including the greenhouse effect, as well as any resulting risk to human health, from the landfilling of waste, during the whole life-cycle of the landfill”
In the UK it started in 1996 with John Gummer and was the first “green” tax. There are two rates – one for “active” waste such as plastics which have a harmful effect and “inactive” waste (builders’ rubble etc.). If it’s purely for environmental purposes not sure why the inactive rate isn’t zero unless that’s to reflect the transport of the waste to the site which is surely covered by fuel duty anyway.
The rates started at £2 a tonne for inactive waste and £7 a tonne for active waste. By 1999 good old Gordon decided an escalator was required and the current rates are now £48 a tonne for active waste which had planned rises to increase this to £72 a tonne in 2013 and £2.50 a tonne for inactive waste. (Which just goes to show how you should be up in arms about new taxes in principle because they always start low and then go mad).
Of course all these reductions in landfill mean the sites (which are commercially owned) aren’t generating enough cash – and sites like Sita’s on Freckleton marsh want to take more low-level radioactive waste from Springfields to keep the site financially viable (probably decided by now if they can, but not sure of the outcome). Europe’s tinkering isn’t really doing the environment (or our pockets) any good at all.
loading...
Ah but is not the EU by its very definition Socialist by nature?
As such they are all for such taxation, the effects good or bad for the environment are simply a by factor.
Maybe we should discuss the real need for ‘green taxation’ anyway?
Is not the whole Climate Change argument destroyed given the revelations of the last few Months?
loading...
I totally agree with you. I think “green” taxation has been one enormous con. Of course recycling and not putting so much rubbish in the ground does appeal, but the reality of transporting the stuff, using energy to convert it, water or chemicals to clean it up mean the process can never be really “green”. If you look at the Green Party’s manifesto it was very left wing – loonily so. Population growth has so much more to do with pollution issues and no government will ever discuss the subject of encouraging people not to have lots of children whether they can afford them or not.
And as for those wind farms and the cost of building turbines vs the tiny amount of energy they give. Nuclear has to be the way forward for now with new research into renewable energy for the future that is cost efficient and capable of producing enough energy for our needs.
loading...
Indeed a huge con which is why I view our leaders and potential leaders with much suspicion.
They are not stupid and have the ability to make a judgement just as we have, in fact they could demand a complete independent enquiry or Royal Commission into the subject to lay away the suspicions once and for all.
But they won’t.
Ask yourself why that is?
The ability for them to levy tax is to them what the next fix is to a junkie.
And yes all that said it is still a great idea to try and reuse consumer materials. It is a great thing for the environment.
I might believe that climate change is a load of old cods wallop but I don’t in so far as diesel emmisions harm our children’s health
loading...
Great news via counterbalance & since it’s short I’ve cut and paste it.
UPDATE 24 May 2010
We have two more bits of news. The first is from an insider connected with the tip who tells us that the cost of the survey to decide which tips to close was £345,000. That is a scandal.
The second is that Fylde is going to talk with Blackpool, who, like the County Council, are a waste disposal authority in their own right, to see if there is some room for collaboration – maybe Blackpool could take on the St Annes tip and have Fylde or LCC contribute to them, or some sort of cost sharing arrangement could be put in place. That’s sensible planning and a good effort on Fylde’s part.
loading...