Green bin charge was good value

Published 5 Aug 2011 09:30 2 Comments

Share this

Following Labour's decision to cancel the green waste bin charges I would like to make the following comments following the article on July 13.

Reading Council is in debt to the tune of £200m. As everyone knows all households are having to make cuts to manage their budgets. This charge equates to just under 44p per week.

Taking into account the time and energy to take garden waste to the tip this is excellent value for money. When letters were sent out asking that people only reply if they did not want to pay the charge only 9% said no. This shows a majority, 91%, in favour of paying for this service and recycling at the same time.

Based on the council's figures of 17,000 users of this service this would have given the council £382,500.

This revenue could have gone towards the cost of essential services but Labour's cancellation will mean cuts elsewhere or an increase in council taxes.

Residents who have a small garden or no garden at all are paying for Labour's cancellation.

Cllr Sandra Vickers

Tilehurst Ward

This letter appeared in Reading Chronicle 05 Aug 11

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

C Sharman
Unregistered User
Aug 5, 17:42
Report comment

I was intrigued by Cllr Vickers' logic on this matter for a number of reasons.

First, she states that because only 9% of people objected to the charge, it follows that the remaining 91% were in favour. That is simply not true. I seriously considered objecting, as did many of my friends and neighbours, but the letter informing us of the charge arrived with virtually no turn around time before the deadline imposed by the Council. In the end I decided to let the matter drop. That does not mean that I was in favour - I was, and remain, against paying an additional tax on a service which should already be accounted for in my Council Tax.

The letter was also crowing about the Council's ability to maintain the Council Tax without increase for residents, while at the same time, imposing an additional tax on those of us who wish to help the Council meet its green targets. I fail to understand the argument that the £382,500 additional income could have gone towards the cost of essential services. Surely it was to cover the cost of the service for which we were now being asked to pay. Perhaps she means that the part of the budget that might have been freed up by this stealth tax could have been re-allocated, but that is not what she said.

And I laughed out loud at her spurious assertion that "residents who have a small garden or no garden at all are paying for Labour's cancellation". If you follow that train of thought to its logical conclusion, then those of us without children should not have to contribute towards our education services. Or those who live a healthy lifestyle should not have to contribute towards provision of health and social care for others.....

I think not.

Recommend? Yes 1 No 1
The Commentator
Unregistered User
Aug 30, 13:52
Report comment

Cllr Vickers - We pay Council Tax to cover the cost of waste disposal - What part of the legislation do you not understand?

If you are looking to make savings with your waste budget then stop traders from tipping their waste for free at the Island Road Waste Transfer Facility. I'm not talking about the legitimate companies that have signwritten vehicles who pay on a proper account etc, I'm talking the about the huge amount of unsignwritten tipper trucks that use the site. What independent checks are in place to ensure that the Council is only paying to get rid of domestic waste only?

Talking about savings; maybe the Council should also look into how efficient its own refuse collection department is. high wages, low productivity, part -time shifts etc. No need to lecture us Cllr Vickers on savings, I'd suggest you put your own house in order first!

Recommend? Yes 2 No 0

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our Opinion archives.

Follow @rdgchronicle