Review of Lancashire's tips as £300m cuts to come

Blackburn Citizen: Tips could close if a cheaper option could be found Tips could close if a cheaper option could be found

A REVIEW has been ordered for Lancashire’s household waste recycling centres – amid ongoing pressure to reverse unpopular closures.

Senior county councillors have begun examining the future of local tips, as the authority looks to save around £300million over the next four years.

But County Hall chiefs have insisted there are no immediate plans to axe fresh locations – despite setting up a working group which has so far only met behind closed doors.

Just four years ago four sites were axed in East Lancashire alone – at Langho, Padiham, Great Harwood and Colne.

The move saved the county council £540,000 a year and £1.3million was anticipated from the sell-off of redundant land.

Four larger replacements were scheduled – one per borough, in Burnley, Hyndburn, Rossendale and Pendle.

County councillor Dorothy Lord, who represents Pendle Central for the Lib Dems, has lobbied for Colne’s Corporation Street depot to re- open.

Labour’s Coun Gareth Molineux, for Great Harwood, has made similar representations for his local site.

Steve Scott, the county council’s head of waste management, said: “We are currently in the process of reviewing our provision of household waste recycling centres and a cabinet working group is considering a range of options.

“One of the things the group is looking at is where there may be gaps in our current provision and how these could be met within a reduced budget given the council's need to save around £300m over the next four years.”

The working group has so far decided to review current provisions, consider the costs of the operation and ‘explore alternative service delivery methods’.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:38pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Pendlesider says...

where does the supposed saving of £540,000 a year come from?
.
the so-called 'replacement' site for Pendle does not serve Pendle's major towns, namely Brierfield, Barrowford, Nelson & Colne, its miles away in Barnoldswick! useless twonks who thought that 1 up? county council.
.
let me save these numpties hiding behind doors at county hall some precious review time. the 'gap' in service provision is the one left when the site at Colne (and the other sites) were closed. .
The land near us has become one BIG FLY TIP and I'm forever ringing the council to come and clear it away. This is the real cost of closing popular household waste sites such as that in Colne. Any savings possibly being offset by an increase in having to collect fly-tipped waste.
.
well done county cllr Dorothy Lord, keep up the lobbying to re-open Colne’s Corporation Street depot and if ya need a pair of hob-nail boots to knock some sense into the county hall wasters just shout.
where does the supposed saving of £540,000 a year come from? . the so-called 'replacement' site for Pendle does not serve Pendle's major towns, namely Brierfield, Barrowford, Nelson & Colne, its miles away in Barnoldswick! useless twonks who thought that 1 up? county council. . let me save these numpties hiding behind doors at county hall some precious review time. the 'gap' in service provision is the one left when the site at Colne (and the other sites) were closed. . The land near us has become one BIG FLY TIP and I'm forever ringing the council to come and clear it away. This is the real cost of closing popular household waste sites such as that in Colne. Any savings possibly being offset by an increase in having to collect fly-tipped waste. . well done county cllr Dorothy Lord, keep up the lobbying to re-open Colne’s Corporation Street depot and if ya need a pair of hob-nail boots to knock some sense into the county hall wasters just shout. Pendlesider

8:16pm Thu 30 Jan 14

M Foster says...

It was absolute madness to close the recycling centre at Colne. The people who make such decisions are incompetents who could not run a bring and buy stall. It seemed perfectly fit for purpose to the very many that used it but, no, it was closed against the wishes of the locals. Now we see an increase in fly-tipping (at what cost to clear up?) as many forecast.
To have left the one open in outlying Barlic, with a population of around 5000, when the combined population of towns surrounding the Colne one (Nelson. Colne, Barrowford, Trawden, Wycollar, Brierfield, etc.) must be over 10 times that is an act of madness. What about the effect on the environment and local traffic levels having all those inhabitants driving up and down to Burnley/Barlic, never mind the cost to us all?
Just for once Pendle Council, do the right thing and get it reinstated.
Oh, and whilst I'm at it, if you are intent on saving money by closing nearly all of the local public conveniences (turning us into an uncivilised 3rd World country), which is a great INCONVENIENCE, especially for we of a certain age, at least turn all the lights off at the Albert Road, Colne one to properly save some cash instead of illuminating signs to a non-existant facility.
It was absolute madness to close the recycling centre at Colne. The people who make such decisions are incompetents who could not run a bring and buy stall. It seemed perfectly fit for purpose to the very many that used it but, no, it was closed against the wishes of the locals. Now we see an increase in fly-tipping (at what cost to clear up?) as many forecast. To have left the one open in outlying Barlic, with a population of around 5000, when the combined population of towns surrounding the Colne one (Nelson. Colne, Barrowford, Trawden, Wycollar, Brierfield, etc.) must be over 10 times that is an act of madness. What about the effect on the environment and local traffic levels having all those inhabitants driving up and down to Burnley/Barlic, never mind the cost to us all? Just for once Pendle Council, do the right thing and get it reinstated. Oh, and whilst I'm at it, if you are intent on saving money by closing nearly all of the local public conveniences (turning us into an uncivilised 3rd World country), which is a great INCONVENIENCE, especially for we of a certain age, at least turn all the lights off at the Albert Road, Colne one to properly save some cash instead of illuminating signs to a non-existant facility. M Foster

8:20pm Thu 30 Jan 14

rilistic says...

Well said Pendlesider. The County Councillor for Garstang has reported today that she has succeeded in getting the Garstang tip reopened. That was closed at the same time as the Colne site. Come on Dorothy, if she can do it for Garstang why can't you do it for Colne?
Well said Pendlesider. The County Councillor for Garstang has reported today that she has succeeded in getting the Garstang tip reopened. That was closed at the same time as the Colne site. Come on Dorothy, if she can do it for Garstang why can't you do it for Colne? rilistic

8:21pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Kevin, Colne says...

We can be absolutely certain of one thing: Lancashire County Council will continue to ride rough-shod over the wishes of local people.

In recent times I have participated in two consultation exercises held by the County Council and on both occasions the over-whelming views of local people were acknowledged politely then simply brushed aside.

The first related to moving Pendle schools onto a standard school year. The arguments against this were very strong. The staging of the long-summer break into a 5 week block running from the beginning of July to mid-August and a 2 week block in September worked extremely well and I never heard of any educational drawbacks from this arrangement.

The largest block was not long enough for children to get ‘bored’, part of the period fell during high season rather than peak season so the cost of holidays was substantially lower – an important factor in a low-wage area like Pendle - and the September break allowed enjoyment of a late burst of summer.

Despite these arguments the Labour Cabinet Member for Education decreed that Pendle schools should conform to a standard Lancashire pattern, which I guess made everything look neat on a piece of paper. Needless to say the person making this decision was not affected by the decision that he or she made, but it was the wrong move.

The second consultation related to the proposed closure of the Colne recycling facility. Here again opposition was long and loud but this time it was the Conservative Party that rode rough-shod over local wishes. They did, however, offer a consolation prize of the County libraries opening half an hour earlier each day. Funnily enough I never came across a petition asking for this, but obviously the County Cabinet knew best.

After all this I came to the view that the County Council’s consultations were bogus. They are false and an utter charade. This is my honest opinion based on my experience.

I must add a rider here. About 20 years ago the County Council was under threat of abolition. At that time the Council engaged in what can only be described as a ‘consultation frenzy’, and more to the point it was genuine.

Needless to say once the threat of abolition had receded the Council reverted to type.
We can be absolutely certain of one thing: Lancashire County Council will continue to ride rough-shod over the wishes of local people. In recent times I have participated in two consultation exercises held by the County Council and on both occasions the over-whelming views of local people were acknowledged politely then simply brushed aside. The first related to moving Pendle schools onto a standard school year. The arguments against this were very strong. The staging of the long-summer break into a 5 week block running from the beginning of July to mid-August and a 2 week block in September worked extremely well and I never heard of any educational drawbacks from this arrangement. The largest block was not long enough for children to get ‘bored’, part of the period fell during high season rather than peak season so the cost of holidays was substantially lower – an important factor in a low-wage area like Pendle - and the September break allowed enjoyment of a late burst of summer. Despite these arguments the Labour Cabinet Member for Education decreed that Pendle schools should conform to a standard Lancashire pattern, which I guess made everything look neat on a piece of paper. Needless to say the person making this decision was not affected by the decision that he or she made, but it was the wrong move. The second consultation related to the proposed closure of the Colne recycling facility. Here again opposition was long and loud but this time it was the Conservative Party that rode rough-shod over local wishes. They did, however, offer a consolation prize of the County libraries opening half an hour earlier each day. Funnily enough I never came across a petition asking for this, but obviously the County Cabinet knew best. After all this I came to the view that the County Council’s consultations were bogus. They are false and an utter charade. This is my honest opinion based on my experience. I must add a rider here. About 20 years ago the County Council was under threat of abolition. At that time the Council engaged in what can only be described as a ‘consultation frenzy’, and more to the point it was genuine. Needless to say once the threat of abolition had receded the Council reverted to type. Kevin, Colne

9:24pm Thu 30 Jan 14

mayor07 says...

I live in barnoldswick and feel that one recycling centre per district is ample when you consider lancashire county council needs to save £300m and people should only need to go to these facilities every now and again. Hardly a massive inconvenience in the grand scheme of things. People need to get used to the fact that services will be cut deeply and and the ones that will be done in future will be more severe and significant.
I live in barnoldswick and feel that one recycling centre per district is ample when you consider lancashire county council needs to save £300m and people should only need to go to these facilities every now and again. Hardly a massive inconvenience in the grand scheme of things. People need to get used to the fact that services will be cut deeply and and the ones that will be done in future will be more severe and significant. mayor07

11:51pm Thu 30 Jan 14

shirtbox2003 says...

charge a nominal fee of say £2 per visit,this should cover wages,or privatise them.
charge a nominal fee of say £2 per visit,this should cover wages,or privatise them. shirtbox2003

11:53pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Biggy12 says...

Try reviewing hyndburn,it's a right shithole....sorry I meant tip
Try reviewing hyndburn,it's a right shithole....sorry I meant tip Biggy12

12:18am Fri 31 Jan 14

Pan-cake says...

Kevin,Colne said:
"Here again opposition was long and loud but this time it was the Conservative Party that rode rough-shod over local wishes."

Not being picky,Kevin, but the Padiham and Langho sites were shut by Labour when they held power at LCC. The Conservatives, showing a great lack of political intelligence ( a failing repeated throughout their term of office) , carried on the policy and closed Garstang, Great Harwood and Colne. Now we have Labour back at the helm, with local County Councillors lobbying feverishly to get the sites reopened, having made promises at the last election which are being found extremely difficult to bring to fruition.
Mr Scotts comments don't fill me with great hope.
Must agree with all the previous posts except the one from the Mayor of Barnoldswick. Really?
Kevin,Colne said: "Here again opposition was long and loud but this time it was the Conservative Party that rode rough-shod over local wishes." Not being picky,Kevin, but the Padiham and Langho sites were shut by Labour when they held power at LCC. The Conservatives, showing a great lack of political intelligence ( a failing repeated throughout their term of office) , carried on the policy and closed Garstang, Great Harwood and Colne. Now we have Labour back at the helm, with local County Councillors lobbying feverishly to get the sites reopened, having made promises at the last election which are being found extremely difficult to bring to fruition. Mr Scotts comments don't fill me with great hope. Must agree with all the previous posts except the one from the Mayor of Barnoldswick. Really? Pan-cake

7:01am Fri 31 Jan 14

mayor07 says...

Genuine question. How often to people use these services - once every few months? If so what is the problem having to drive several miles if it's on such an infrequent basis? If you use them more regularly, why?
Genuine question. How often to people use these services - once every few months? If so what is the problem having to drive several miles if it's on such an infrequent basis? If you use them more regularly, why? mayor07

8:19am Fri 31 Jan 14

greenscreener says...

mayor07 wrote:
Genuine question. How often to people use these services - once every few months? If so what is the problem having to drive several miles if it's on such an infrequent basis? If you use them more regularly, why?
Well it's not a problem for you is it, you have the service on your doorstep.

What's clear is that this is not a simple and convenient process anymore, the remaining sites, that we drive further to, are obviously taking more traffic, with more crowding, much longer queues and more frequent changeovers. Sadly Fly tipping is now a more frequent sight.

I would gladly pay £2 per visit if this meant I got back my local facility and the infrequent queuing I had before. More time to enjoy a countryside not disfigured by mounds of rubbish would be very welcome.
[quote][p][bold]mayor07[/bold] wrote: Genuine question. How often to people use these services - once every few months? If so what is the problem having to drive several miles if it's on such an infrequent basis? If you use them more regularly, why?[/p][/quote]Well it's not a problem for you is it, you have the service on your doorstep. What's clear is that this is not a simple and convenient process anymore, the remaining sites, that we drive further to, are obviously taking more traffic, with more crowding, much longer queues and more frequent changeovers. Sadly Fly tipping is now a more frequent sight. I would gladly pay £2 per visit if this meant I got back my local facility and the infrequent queuing I had before. More time to enjoy a countryside not disfigured by mounds of rubbish would be very welcome. greenscreener

8:33am Fri 31 Jan 14

Kevin, Colne says...

Pan-Cake, thank you for clarifying the position. I’d forgotten that the policy was set in train by one administration and carried-over by another. Thank you for correcting my memory!

Mayor07 raises a valid point, I feel; but here in the East it’s rather strange.

Folks in Colne put material to be tipped into their cars and drive the 5 or 6 miles to the council tip in Barnoldswick, where it’s placed into various skips. Then the Council sends tipper trucks either from or through Colne to collect the skips and bring the material all the way back through the town to wherever they take them.

It seems to me that a considerable amount of material is under-going 12 miles of transportation in a circle.

I mean it’s like something from a Will Hay film, or a story-line that would fit wonderfully in the television series ‘The Brittas Empire’.

For an individual the journey to the tip may be infrequent but collectively over a period of time this revised configuration adds up to a great deal of different and extra vehicular movement. Some of the monetary cost is born privately, the rest falls upon the Council. The cost of dealing with any increase in fly-tipping, of course, falls on the District Council.

I have heard many local people say that the tip at Colne was convenient because they often tied a trip to the tip together with other purposes.

I realise that there are competing objectives at play and councillors are doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances, but sometimes I fear that in solving one problem we often create a multitude of new ones.
Pan-Cake, thank you for clarifying the position. I’d forgotten that the policy was set in train by one administration and carried-over by another. Thank you for correcting my memory! Mayor07 raises a valid point, I feel; but here in the East it’s rather strange. Folks in Colne put material to be tipped into their cars and drive the 5 or 6 miles to the council tip in Barnoldswick, where it’s placed into various skips. Then the Council sends tipper trucks either from or through Colne to collect the skips and bring the material all the way back through the town to wherever they take them. It seems to me that a considerable amount of material is under-going 12 miles of transportation in a circle. I mean it’s like something from a Will Hay film, or a story-line that would fit wonderfully in the television series ‘The Brittas Empire’. For an individual the journey to the tip may be infrequent but collectively over a period of time this revised configuration adds up to a great deal of different and extra vehicular movement. Some of the monetary cost is born privately, the rest falls upon the Council. The cost of dealing with any increase in fly-tipping, of course, falls on the District Council. I have heard many local people say that the tip at Colne was convenient because they often tied a trip to the tip together with other purposes. I realise that there are competing objectives at play and councillors are doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances, but sometimes I fear that in solving one problem we often create a multitude of new ones. Kevin, Colne

12:24am Sat 1 Feb 14

Pan-cake says...

"Steve Scott, the county council’s head of waste management, said: “We are currently in the process of reviewing our provision of household waste recycling centres and a cabinet working group is considering a range of options."

I guess this is the same Steve Scott that wrote the report of 2011 which selected the four HWRC to be closed.
http://council.lanca
shire.gov.uk/documen
ts/s7106/Report.pdf

I’m sure he will produce a fair and unbiased report for the current review. Even if it contradicts his 2011 report….
A few words of advice come to mind - don’t rely on Google maps to work out travel times and distances as the 2011 review did. The data doesn’t necessarily represent the real world.
"Steve Scott, the county council’s head of waste management, said: “We are currently in the process of reviewing our provision of household waste recycling centres and a cabinet working group is considering a range of options." I guess this is the same Steve Scott that wrote the report of 2011 which selected the four HWRC to be closed. http://council.lanca shire.gov.uk/documen ts/s7106/Report.pdf I’m sure he will produce a fair and unbiased report for the current review. Even if it contradicts his 2011 report…. A few words of advice come to mind - don’t rely on Google maps to work out travel times and distances as the 2011 review did. The data doesn’t necessarily represent the real world. Pan-cake

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree