Jump to content
Dizzy

WBC to close Sandy Lane Tip, Stockton Heath - 1 August !!

Recommended Posts

These aren't lame accusations and I'm saying this as a Labour voter. The council is no longer working in the best interests of the people of Warrington and has an entrenched culture of secrecy and obfuscation, not to mention skewed attitudes towards different parts of Warrington when it comes to decision making. Steve Parish makes the point for me here: 'I work on the scrutiny committee but I don't care what the people of Warrington think generally, and those of South Warrington in particular, which is why we didn't ask; although we were worried enough about public opinion to keep it hushed up until after the elections'.

 

Well, so much for scrutiny, Steve. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 

 

The current administration needs to be booted out sooner rather than later but my fear is that it will be replaced with one that is no better and, certainly, the last time the Lib Dems and Tories controlled the Town Hall, it lurched from one disaster to another. 

Don't "quote" things I haven't said. What on earth do you want? Scrutiny committee (with a Labour majority) refers it back (though as the chairman pointed out, it doesn't alter the decision) and you ask (in Latin) who's scrutinising the scrutineers. Very odd.

Let's be generous and say that whoever mentioned the situation in Liverpool is being economical with the truth. There are four quoted on the Liverpool City Council website, the main one of which is open from 8 till 8 over the Summer months along with 31 bring bank sites. 

There's only one in Liverpool; the others are in neighbouring boroughs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting last post Inky re the costs etc.   I wonder if anybody has asked for a breakdown of actual costs and if they have been given.  When I say 'anybody' I guess even under a FOI request they might not give them to the likes of you and me but I'd imagine a councilor could get them... or the Lib Dems who called it in.

Does anyone know WHO has been running/managing the 3 tips until now ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scrutiny committee (with a Labour majority) refers it back (though as the chairman pointed out, it doesn't alter the decision) and you ask (in Latin) who's scrutinising the scrutineers. Very odd.

For some reason I thought the scrutiny committee were and independent group of people and not party minded.  Well seeing as though they are a majority of Labour then no wonder they agreed to refer it back to the exec.  Can you imagine the absolute public uproar if they hadn't done that.  Infact the more I think about it the more I agree with what grey_man said ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting last post Inky re the costs etc.   I wonder if anybody has asked for a breakdown of actual costs and if they have been given.  When I say 'anybody' I guess even under a FOI request they might not give them to the likes of you and me but I'd imagine a councilor could get them... or the Lib Dems who called it in.

 

Does anyone know WHO has been running/managing the 3 tips until now ?

I would hope a breakdown of costs has been undertaken but it has not been made public.  The centres are run by a private company and I'm trying to remember the name!  Is it EWR?  The name is on the sign at the tip.

 

Just on the subject of green bins.  I think that was me Steve.  I wasn't asking for anything.  I read out comments received from residents, one of which said there was an 8-10 week for a new green bin, and another who noted that the policy of offering a second green bin had been suspended.

Prior to the meeting I requested a list from WBC of the streets in SH that do not have green bins.  Essentially its all of the terraces.  I wasn't sure what to make of the comparison with B&W.  Of course properties with no gardens aren't allocated a green bin, wherever they are in the town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would hope a breakdown of costs has been undertaken but it has not been made public.  The centres are run by a private company and I'm trying to remember the name!  Is it EWR?  The name is on the sign at the tip.

Ah of course and I remember seeing the logo on the signs there now but it never occurred to me that was the company.  It's EWC.

 

There must be a breakdown of costs somewhere otherwise they council and officers wouldn't know how much they will be saving by closing Stockton Heath. I'm sure the council's accountants must have to account for every penny spent too and where it all goes.

 

Have your party (Lib Dem) not asked for a breakdown yet Ann or are you classed as being 'public' too ?

 

I posted a link to the one available page of a document on the Scrutiny Committee meeting page which showed the total tonnages for each of the 3 tips for the individual years from 2008 to 2014. Do you know what that document was or what other information it contains ?

 

Why are the council not issuing 2nd green bins anymore and yet people can still get a 2nd blue one. Is it because they make money out of the blue bin recyclables but not the greens ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Warrington Councillors.

 

Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservative and or others, please sort out your differences and put our interests at heart instead of pointing fingers at each other. The easiest thing in the world is to blame shift, it gets the finger pointing at someone else. I respect the views of all of you and would like the utopian situation of love for one another rather than the tearing down of humanity through lame accusations.

If it is really in the best financial interest to keep Sandy Lane CRC open then let it be, if not let it close.

 

It's in no-one's political interest to close facilities. But local council finances are in crisis (with northern councils bearing the brunt - why do millioniares in big houses in London pay less council tax than a band D house in Warrington?) so THERE WILL BE CUTS. In this case it was awkward to consult early as the Council only had one firm left interested in the contract (they didn't know they were the only one) - I actually voted against the referral for lack of "due consultation" simply as there was no legal guidance on how much consultation was "due".

 

It's interesting to know nearby residents would like it closed (and it would not get planning consent there now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....seeing as though they are a majority of Labour then no wonder they agreed to refer it back to the exec....

 

Is that a non sequitur? (No doubt Grey_man can translate.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't "quote" things I haven't said. What on earth do you want? Scrutiny committee (with a Labour majority) refers it back (though as the chairman pointed out, it doesn't alter the decision) and you ask (in Latin) who's scrutinising the scrutineers. Very odd.

There's only one in Liverpool; the others are in neighbouring boroughs.

 

That's why I put it in Italics Steve. I'm paraphrasing. 

 

The point is that you are on the scrutiny committee yet you admit that it doesn't matter what people think. So the point stands. Who's scrutinising you when you come out and say you're not interested in what the people affected by the council's decisions think. So the political make-up of the scrutiny committee is the same as the council, is it? Well, guess what happens next? This referral sits in a drawer for a short while then we are told the council is free to do what it likes and we have to shut up, cough up and suck it up. Shame you didn't make all this clear ahead of the local elections so we could make an informed decision.   

 

And who decided that the decision was so toxic it needed to be hidden until the elections were out of the way? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's in no-one's political interest to close facilities. But local council finances are in crisis (with northern councils bearing the brunt - why do millioniares in big houses in London pay less council tax than a band D house in Warrington?) so THERE WILL BE CUTS. In this case it was awkward to consult early as the Council only had one firm left interested in the contract (they didn't know they were the only one) - I actually voted against the referral for lack of "due consultation" simply as there was no legal guidance on how much consultation was "due".

 

It's interesting to know nearby residents would like it closed (and it would not get planning consent there now).

  1. Your party had the chance over more than a decade to narrow inequalities in the UK. And chose to do the opposite.  
  2. And this one firm is....? One we know from the Arpley landfill situation doesn't know how to stick to a contract in the first place.
  3. Forget legal guidance. Salus populi suprema lex esto.
  4. It's not interesting to know that people next to any facility would like to see it closed. It's to be expected. 
  5. It's irrelevant to raise the idea of mythical planning consents for historic buildings. Or are we to close all buildings in Warrington that wouldn't get planning consent if it were to be applied for now? The Town Hall? Crosfields? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....seeing as though they are a majority of Labour then no wonder they agreed to refer it back to the exec....

Is that a non sequitur? (No doubt Grey_man can translate.)

I'm sure he probably could but why quote something I said in a reply to me then say someone else could translate. Why only pick up on that little bit too rather than the rest I put with it or are you just ignoring/don't understand the other and what I meant ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't "quote" things I haven't said. What on earth do you want? Scrutiny committee (with a Labour majority) refers it back (though as the chairman pointed out, it doesn't alter the decision) and you ask (in Latin) who's scrutinising the scrutineers. Very odd.

There's only one in Liverpool; the others are in neighbouring boroughs.

 

Yet they still serve the people of Liverpool and the sites are open at hours that mean people can actually use them. Unlike your proposals for Warrington. And, as Dizzy points out, Liverpool also offers people other ways of dealing with waste. 

 

You're clutching at straws anyway because we could all point to councils that offer facilities based on local needs and geography that make the opposite point. By withdrawing the facilities in Stockton Heath and reducing the services in the other two centres, you are making it impossible for working people who live in South Warrington (or Culcheth or Birchwood etc) to have access to a recycling centre except at weekends.

 

Even then, it evidently goes against your other objectives of dealing with the gridlock in the town centre. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this case it was awkward to consult early as the Council only had one firm left interested in the contract (they didn't know they were the only one) 

If there had been 5 companies still in the running for the contract would there have been a consultation then ?

I actually voted against the referral for lack of "due consultation" simply as there was no legal guidance on how much consultation was "due".

So that's ok then is it? Since when do you have to have legal guidance to be able to ask people's views on something ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to have been cross posting, sorry... probably because I kept having to sit on my hands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve

 

Here's a comparison for you. Stockport is one of the UK's top ten performing councils for recycling according to letsrecycle.com. It has a population significantly smaller than Warrington, but has 3 CRCs, 60 recycling sites, weekly collections for food and garden waste, fortnightly collections for recyclables and has cut disposal costs by £12 million since it introduced its current methodology in 2007.

 

That's a £12 million cost saving and an effective recycling programme with facilities that everybody can access in a Borough with a population two thirds that of Warrington. I suspect on past record that WBC lacks the imagination to think like that but a short trip down the M56 and you can nick ideas off other people. 

 

In comparison, you are looking to save a few hundred thousand pounds with measures that will cause lots of knock on problems and may even be counter-productive, both practically and financially, and all because you don't have the wit as a council to look beyond simply cutting front line services. 

 

Incidentally, I understand that recent increases in the pay of senior managers in the council is linked to the fact they've been asked to take on additional tasks. Now that those tasks are being stripped back as you cut facilities and services, I assume that their pay will be reduced in line? *

 

* No need to answer this (as if you would). Just being facetious highlighting the fact that we are smart enough to see when the council wants to have it both ways.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trafford has a similar population to Warrington, is geographically smaller, is not split by a river or ship canal with restricted crossing points, and has two very large and well run tips which are both far bigger than either Woolston or Stockton Heath and have long opening hours, plus about a dozen bring sites.

 

Wigan is also a similar size, has no river splitting it in two, and also has two large tips with long opening hours plus bring sites and a bulky waste collection service at half the price of Warringtons.

 

As has been pointed out Stockport has three tips, so does Salford, and so does Manchester (the borough, not the city).

 

In fact, if you look at the map of the Recycle for Greater Manchester website you'll see that the GMWDA has a contract with Viridor to run about 20 tips across the county of Greater Manchester for the 9 local authorities which make up the county. All of those tips have been clean, tidy and well run whenever I've been to any of them. http://www.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/recycle/recycling-centres

 

Why can Warrington not look into partnering with other local authorities in this way and taking advantage of the obvious economies of scale?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to planning permission and allowing potentially harmful sites to be sited in residential areas; just who sanctioned the building of the Rock Oil plant right next to St Barnabas Primary School?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We would like to reply to the selfish people who made remarks that we, who live overlooking the tip, should not have bought there in the first place. Well, we bought back in 1999 and were told by our solicitors that we must not worry about the tip next door as it was going to move to somewhere in the Stretton area and that the developer had an option to purchase and build Brindley Court Phase two on the site with a walk-way in between. Unfortunately for us due to objections to it being moved and our developer losing out, we have had to put up with the noise of bins being dropped.............

 

 

Hi grey-man,

It's not a case of NIMBY, it is a case of idle promises made in the past. If the tip remains open we will take on the chin as we have in the past. We just want to voice our minority opinion as well.

Hiya Dessy

 

Maybe I was slightly rude too by saying people should not have bought those flats and I do feel a little sorry for you living there with a very busy main road on one side and a tip on the other side.  Saying that I also feel sorry for people who live next to schools, shops, pubs etc etc.

 

Re the false promises you say you were all given about the tip closing/being moved prior to you buying your homes where did your solicitor get that info from?  Also you mention 'objections' to the tip being moved but I never remember anything being mentioned about a move in the past unless of course that was just talked about behind closed doors and it was the councilors/officers  themselves who 'objected' to their own idea before it went any further or out to consultation.

 

Maybe it was the developer who conned you all as it seems the council did make them do sound monitoring surveys of the noise levels from the tip and also level from the main road PRIOR to the application being approved.  Planning conditions were also attached to the approval to ensure the developers to used suitable soundproofing measures (I forgot to write down what they were though)

 

These are quite interesting snippets of info ......... CLICK EACH PAGE TO ENLARGE

 

flatsplanningapplicaton1.jpg

 

flatsplanningapplicaton2.jpg

 

flatsplanningapplicaton3.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavens Dizzy. where did you get those emails and letters from?  You should rename yourself Sherlock!   I'm told there is some financial information in the confidential papers (which for obvious reasons was not in the document provided to the public at the Call In.) Lib Dem borough councillors should have access to those papers but I haven't seen them.  Its great that so many people are doing their own research and are able to report on the approach taken by other local authorities. 

Steve said: It's interesting to know nearby residents would like it closed  Of course some residents would like it closed.  That is entirely understandable and predictable.  But surely not a valid reason to close a facility that serves tens of thousands of residents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks,

 

We are not really looking for sympathy for noise levels or that the things we were promised by the liars (developers and or others), as we also have a pub across the canal, drunk folks until 3 - 4am, school children going past to school, traffic noise and sirens. We are not complaining, we were just happy after 14 years of having the tip next door we got the news that it was closing down. Once again IF is found that it will not be cost effective to close it then we will take the consequences. We just don't want to get into the politics of this situation. All we can ask is that the best solution for all will come out of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey folks,

 

We are not really looking for sympathy for noise levels or that the things we were promised by the liars (developers and or others), as we also have a pub across the canal, drunk folks until 3 - 4am, school children going past to school, traffic noise and sirens. We are not complaining, we were just happy after 14 years of having the tip next door we got the news that it was closing down. Once again IF is found that it will not be cost effective to close it then we will take the consequences. We just don't want to get into the politics of this situation. All we can ask is that the best solution for all will come out of this. 

I agree party politics etc should not come into it but then it's hard not to sort of be dragged in that direction a little when that is the way things seem to pan out these days at local level with everything that goes on.  I can understand why you were all pleased when you heard it was finally closing after being duped into believing that it would all those years ago.  They do say 'never trust a solicitor' though ('allegedly' of course in case any are reading and it's only a joke  :wink: )

 

You seem to have a good attitude about it either way though and that's very commendable all things considered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to get through life is to remain light hearted and positive. Bitter attitudes only brings bitterness out in us. Love life and carry on. Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's why I put it in Italics Steve. I'm paraphrasing. 

(Paraphrasing = distorting)

The point is that you are on the scrutiny committee yet you admit that it doesn't matter what people think.  

I don't admit that. I did say the scrutiny committee decision does not necessarily change the decision to close Sandy Lane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×