Petitions

Directorate response on 6 October 2021: thank you for your petition and time you have taken to highlight this to the Council.
The Council currently collects glass for recycling by means of a network of almost 50 glass recycling banks located across the district which collect the glass colour separated to ensure that high quality recycling is achieved. Glass is a unique material which I am sure you will know which can be recycled indefinitely with no loss of quality and without requiring the addition of extra raw material. As the Councils glass is collected in separate streams per colour it is currently able to be sent for remelt and made into new glass bottles and jars. It is harder to recycle glass collected as a single mixed colour stream and often such glass is sent to be reused as road surfacing instead of being recycled.

The tonnage of glass collected via the Council’s network of banks has increased steadily each year, 3,465 tonnes of glass was collected via the banks in 2020/21. A significant increase in tonnage was seen as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic driven by the closure of pubs and restaurants during lockdowns.

The last few years have seen a major update of Central Government waste policy. The Government’s aims and commitments have been outlined in the Resources and Waste Strategy 2018 and the forthcoming Environment Bill. However, there remains a considerable amount of uncertainty over exactly how those aims will be delivered by local authorities in practice. At the time of writing the government has recently ended three consultation exercises which may have a direct and considerable impact on the types and quantities of waste the Council is required to manage in the future, as well as how all that activity is funded.

The Government is committed to introduce packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) following a further consultation. This consultation focused on specific policy proposals for its introduction, including the scope of full net costs, producer obligations, scheme governance, regulation of the scheme, and packaging waste recycling targets. The proposals set out in the consultation document aim to ensure that the producers pay the full net cost of managing this packaging once it becomes waste. This is in line with the polluter-pays principle. The mechanism for how revenue generated from EPR levies gets back to local authorities, who incur the cost of collecting and treating such waste, has yet to be decided.

Moving towards a more circular economy, where resources are kept in use for as long as possible and waste is minimised, and ensuring the UK is a world leader in resource efficiency and resource productivity is a priority for Government. Across the UK, consumers go through an estimated 14 billion plastic drinks bottles, 9 billion drinks cans and 5 billion glass bottles a year. The UK Government made commitments to develop policy which works towards achieving these aims, not least through the development of producer responsibility proposals. Introducing a deposit return scheme forms a key part of these proposals, and has recently been consulted upon. Issues also consulted upon included which material streams will be targeted; how and who collects returned waste and methods for funding the scheme and collection costs.

Increasing consistency in recycling will reduce confusion in the materials that can be collected for recycling at the kerbside. The recent UK Government consultation detailed specific policy proposals for increasing consistency in recycling collected from households, businesses and other organisations. Issues consulted upon included the materials included in each recyclable waste stream, exemptions, statutory guidance and transition timelines for local authorities and businesses. Significantly, there has been limited information as to how such changes will be funded to enable recycling consistency to be implemented successfully.

Collection of glass should ideally be undertaken in vehicles with compartments to keep the glass separated by colour. Glass is an abrasive material once broken and vehicles often have shorter operational lives due to the higher wear and tear as well as requiring more frequent servicing requirements. Due to the weight of the material and payloads of vehicles, the number of properties that may be served by a glass collection vehicle is smaller than for other waste types which may be compacted leading to a higher number of vehicles being required to service all eligible properties. The type of collection container also required careful consideration, manual handling guidelines preclude certain types of containers and collection methods being used to reduce musculoskeletal injuries to collection operatives.

At this moment in time, there is significant uncertainty regarding government waste policy on packaging EPR, deposit return schemes and kerbside recycling. Given the high additional cost of operating such schemes, and the associated increase in carbon emissions for Council operations inherent in the introduction of such a service, it would be most unwise to introduce such a service at this very time.

The Council, however notes the support for a kerbside glass collections scheme, and will continue to explore and investigate any opportunities that may arise for the introduction of such a scheme as government policy develops.

• Development of specific Task and Finish groups to deliver on the outcomes set out against Day Activities / Respite, Supported Living and Education. 
• The multi agency partnership meeting to meet again in 6  weeks to review the options papers created 
• Wide stakeholder engagement activity and continued coproduction to take place with service users (young adults with complex needs and the parents and carers who support them) to continue to develop service specifications and local services to meet local needs 
• Commitment to include parents and carers and young adults where appropriate in the awarding of contracts / interviewing of providers to deliver the services agreed through the options paper 
• Detailed market analysis and research (linking in with BLMK workstream) to establish provider capacity and work with the market to develop the specification(s). 

• The stated intent of the owners of Great Denham Golf course (which acts as an Urban Gap between Biddenham and Great Denham) to repurpose the site
• Paragraph 97 of the NPPF which states that "Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:

1. An assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
2. The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
3. The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use"

1. Up to date evidence has been provided that demonstrates the facility is surplus to existing and future needs; or
2. The facility is to be relocated and is similar scale to the current facility (i.e. no net loss in floor area), is of an equivalent standard and able to serve the same community. In the case of sports facilities, alternative sports facilities may be considered as a replacement if this can be justified with appropriate evidence of need. 

• • To prevent the coalescence of settlements.
  • To maintain the predominantly open and undeveloped character of the gap.
  • To protect the separate character and identity of settlements including their setting.

1. Buffers between different land uses.
2. Green breaks in an otherwise built up area.
3. Visual breaks to safeguard local distinctiveness including views

• That in the case of Great Denham Golf Course site, none of the above conditions will have been met if the course is closed. The landowner and their agent have made a unilateral decision to close the course and have failed to engage with the community. They took these decisions in 2018 but only informed the community on 2nd July 2020. The membership of 504 and 30,000 rounds of golf per annum prior to threat of closure, confirms that the facility is not surplus.
• That to date nearly 3,000 people have signed a petition to save Great Denham Golf Course from being repurposed for development and put the Urban Gap and Open Green Space at risk

• To uphold the policies and planning conditions outlined in Paragraph 97 of the NPPF and Policy 99 of the Bedford Local Plan 2030. Policy AD41 Urban Area Boundary. Policy AD43 Urban Open Spaces and Gaps. Condition 8 relating to the golf clubhouse and condition 7 relating to the Greenkeepers maintenance building.
• To do all in its power to ensure that the Great Denham Golf Course site is maintained as an urban open space and protected urban gap.  

Petition in response to consultation on Traffic Regulation Order - so does not go for debate at Full Council.
25/11/19 Engineers wrote to petitioners:
As you will know Thistley Bridge is a cause for concern with Bedford Borough Council’s engineers, as a structural assessment has revealed that it needs replacement. Therefore, we have consulted on implementing a weight restriction to prolong the life of the bridge until a complete replacement can be funded. 

As a weight limit would prevent use by large heavy goods vehicles and buses, residents have requested that this be reconsidered due to the hardship this would cause, in particular, to elderly residents, due to the impact on public transport. It has therefore been agreed that Council engineers will implement a rigorous monitoring policy and conduct any necessary repairs to enable the bridge to remain open. This will continue for as long as it is safe to do so or until a new bridge can be funded. We have also received requests to improve the lighting and footway between Brookside Mobile Home Park and Northampton Road. Consequently, we have followed our lighting policy and assessed a request for additional lighting, for which an annual budget has been made available. This area has been scored and prioritised accordingly and it will remain on the priority list for additional lighting in the future.

We have also considered the footway, currently there are already suitable footways on both sides of the road for most of this route, and as the weight limit is not to be implemented at this stage there would seem to be no improvements necessary. The footways will however remain on the Council’s overall programme for routine inspections and maintenance.

Full Council Resolved 17 July 2019: That this Council recognises the concerns of the petitioners regarding the relocation of the two satellite GP practices in Bromham and will write to Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group to request that all efforts are made to retain at least a part-time GP presence within the village, that they ensure that they take all necessary steps to mitigate the concerns raised in the petition, together with those identified during the CCG’s engagement process, before they take any proposals to the Planning Committee, including ensuring sustainable transport links are created, such as cycleways and paths and public transport links, and to ask that once mitigation steps have been identified, that a meaningful public engagement process is once more carried out to seek the views of the most affected service users.

1. That the petition regarding post-16 school transport be noted.
2. That the Government’s actions in cutting the Council’s Revenue Support Grant from over £30 million in 2015 to just £5.8 million in 2019 has made this unwanted change in policy unavoidable.
3. That it be noted that the Council was continuing to provide a bus service for all eligible post-16 students to attend school, in contrast to nearby Councils which provided no standard post-16 transport and thereby forced students into making their own travel arrangements.
4. That the Mayor be requested to write, with any local MPs who wished to add their name, to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government seeking the reversal of devastating cuts which were impacting on families right now and that the responses be shared with petition respondents.

1. That a further speed survey be carried out along Cambridge Road within 12 months of the installation of the 30mph extension.
2. That the re-designation of Wallis Way as the A5134 and downgrade the status of Cambridge Road be investigated which will reduce the number of ‘sat-nav’ related journeys being directed onto Cambridge Road.
3. That the signing on the approach to Cambridge Road be reviewed to discourage through traffic.
4. That once the above actions have been completed the Council will re-evaluate their effect and determine whether there is a need for further consideration.

11016. Council notes the ongoing communication between the Council and the community on this matter, and thanks the Parish Council and local residents for their engagement with the Council. Council expresses its disappointment that many residents were unaware of their liability for this charge, which is included in the Title Deeds for each property and which should have been explained to them at the time they purchased their property. Council further notes that over 75% of residents have paid, or are paying the charge, and thanks those who have done so. Council undertakes to provide maximum possible transparency to residents in respect of the use of the funds raised via the charge, including accounts displaying income and expenditure. Council undertakes to continue to engage with the Town and Parish Councils and Residents' Groups, with Ward Councillors and with residents directly on this matter.