Cost Of Some Trade Waste Set To Soar In Scilly

moorwell dump with truckYour trade waste bill could triple if councillors accept new proposals at a meeting next week.

And members are also being asked to give up their role in setting fees and leave Council officers to set the charges.

A report written by the Senior Office for Infrastructure Helen Pearce, which is going to the Full Council on Tuesday, says the cost of disposing cardboard packing material and wooden waste, such as pallets, will have to rise from the current £100 to £300 per tonne.

The price for other rubbish, such as plastic farm material, insulation and mixed skip waste from house clearances is set to double.

Helen writes that this is necessary to cover the true cost of sending the material to landfill on the mainland and leaving it at the current rates would be a burden on Council taxpayers.

And charges are likely to rise again in the future.

Helen will ask councillors to allow the Senior Leadership Team and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Transport, Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee to set the fees in future, rather than having to go through elected members.

That’s so any changes can be made quickly as the Porthmellon site is developed.

Local builders could also be faced with a headache during the redevelopment work at the site.

The Council is proposing to stop accepting some types of construction and demolition waste. They say it’s to make firms explore reusing the material as aggregate and for other purposes instead.



18 Responses to Cost Of Some Trade Waste Set To Soar In Scilly

  1. Mark Prebble July 31, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    I have to agree with you John and again question the value of retaining the 2nd consultant whose expertise in contract management was touted as the reason for his sucking up more money from the original DEFRA funding designed to resolve the legacy waste issue.

  2. JOHN BANFIELD July 31, 2015 at 8:55 am

    I seem to remember a few months ago when the closing of the Incinerator was muted, one of the main reasons for doing so was cost based, as it was reported that it would be significantly cheaper to send rubbish to Plymouth than deal with it locally.Whoever did the original costings need to explain what has changed since then.

    • Linguine July 31, 2015 at 1:04 pm

      John, your query pre-supposes the existence of a properly evaluated long term strategy that would have required sums. The Linguist doesn’t do sums (why should she?) and nobody does medium term thinking let alone long term strategy!
      Never mind they will muddle on until all our money is spent.

  3. Adam Morton, St.Martins July 31, 2015 at 8:44 am

    Whilst I fear that the true cost of disposal may be much more than anyone realises, the lack of trade waste wouldn’t necessarily result in lower costs as facilities and services would still be needed for domestic. The trouble I suspect is that they can’t raise Council taxes by more than a couple of % whereas they can raise trade waste costs by whatever they like and who is to prove what proportion of it is trade! Since Scillies population is double for six months due to visitors- I would have thought a rough split would 1/3 trade 2/3 domestic.
    These problems are a foreseeable result of failure to act on cost effective transport !

    • Mustafa Wurd July 31, 2015 at 11:15 am

      Try it the other way round and then add a bit more for trade waste. That would be roughly more like it!!

      • Adam Morton, St.Martins July 31, 2015 at 12:37 pm

        Ah, You are in the know? You really should put your name up then we can know if you really know or are just B********ing. Seems odd that roughly 2000 even 3000 visitors here for five to six months are the cause of 75% of the waste! Or do you reckon that its down to the other 13% of the economy? Perhaps you could share your workings for our enlightenment? Or are you just trying to dodge a council tax rise by putting it onto people with small businesses?

  4. High Lanes Drifter July 30, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    More and more managers and less and less idea. Let the officers set the rates but the buck as ever stops with our elected members. The blind are leading those who will not see .
    Councillors you were elected to ensure the competent conduct of the authority, it is never too late to start.

  5. Mark Prebble July 30, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    Please correct me if i’m wrong, but as I understand it, the cost of commercial waste disposal is already being subsidised by the domestic tax payer, in that all accommodation providers not paying business rates (despite running a business) are allowed to use the domestic refuse collection service free of charge.
    I’m led to believe that the Council see a net benefit in this arrangement as they keep the local council tax whereas business rates is a national tax and not allocated locally.

    • Accountant July 30, 2015 at 2:26 pm

      I’d say you were half right.

      The net loss of trade waste collection and disposal is being met from the council tax payer.

      However, whether a B&B or holiday let is classed for council tax or for NNDR is not a choice, it is determined by very clear tests of activity, enshrined in the Act.

      All things being equal (!), we could reasonably assume that all properties have been accurately classified as either for council tax, or for NNDR.

      If the council then sets within their budget requirement for council tax, a budget for their trade refuse which does not break even, then they are in effect raising the income to cover those costs from the council tax payer, and doing it knowingly.

      Astonishingly, the report to the council meeting next week contains no information about the approved budget for the year, first quarter income and expenses, nor how the changes proposed to pricing is going to affect the anticipated outcome by the end of the financial year.

  6. John Stickland July 30, 2015 at 10:56 am

    Sadly, I feel the Council of the Isles of Scilly aren’t doing their best to help the situation. I emailed them 5 weeks ago to ask what the policy was on the public being able to buy from the tip – and cited, as an example, timber. Everytime I go to the tip there seems to be plenty of timber which could be reused or put on a woodburner. I received no reply.

    2 1/2 weeks ago I re-emailed them on the general enquiry email address and asked again what the policy is. I pointed out the environmental benefits, the reduction in expenditure in shipping the waste, as well the income to the Council. I also pointed out that some of the staff on site already deal with money from the public and trade due to the recent charges for some waste.

    Lo and behold, after 2 1/2 weeks, still no reply…..

  7. Accountant July 30, 2015 at 10:11 am

    Hilarious, this is the entire explanation of the ‘financial implications’ of these price changes in the report:

    ‘If the cost of processing or disposing of commercial waste is not met by the commercial customers, the extra expenditure will need to be met through the residential waste budget at a cost to the Council and rate payers.’

    Their most recent Accounts show that the trade refuse service made yet another loss in 2014/15 of circa £100,000. & every year this service has made a similar sized loss. That’s around £500,000 over the last 5 years from rate payers! Nowhere in the report does it mention this, nor is there any detail as to how these price changes along with the volumes for each charge are expected to make this service either break even or make a surplus.

    How can members vote for this when they are given no idea of the impact on the finances of their actions?

  8. Adam Morton, St.Martins July 29, 2015 at 11:20 am

    How about an incinerator to simply burn the non toxin producing cardboard & wood as before and ship out only the bin bag waste, or would that be too simple?! Or even sort the cardboard into recyclable compacted bales! Better still let people simply burn their packaging here rather than wasting fuel and money sending it to be burnt on the mainland! We must buy little grey bags for catering trade waste but what about all the skips full of holiday let mattresses and furniture ,how are they charged? It seems wrong wasting time flattening cardboard and taping a £3 bag to it if at the end of all that it simply goes to landfill! Surely a crate at a set price would make more sense! A lot of material if sorted well enough should actually have some value which should be used to lower the cost of disposal. Encourage people to sort it well with the incentive of cheaper disposal and penalise landfill & incineration. It shouldn’t really be much more than dog waste and disposable nappies in a properly run system.

    • Mustafa Wurd July 31, 2015 at 3:09 pm

      Adam,
      If I am reading this right you are saying that commercial bulky waste producers on the off Islands aren’t being billed for waste that is shipped to St. Mary’s in skips?
      If this is the case it cannot be equitable and therefore of questionable legality.
      Commercial waste users on St.Mary’s are charged by weight accross the weighbridge, the rule HAS to be for all, not just for some and businesses on St. Mary’s would be well within their rights to seek redress through the Local Government Ombudsman leading to full reimbursement of any charges paid thus far.
      It is also the case that off island commercial waste customers should pay separately for all shipping and transport costs to get their waste to Moorwell accross the weighbridge and then a handling charge for staff to put it in the right piles on the dump (after all who else should pay?) again if they are not the system is inequitable and the council are knowingly acting unfairly which is another absolute no no.

      • Adam Morton, St.Martins July 31, 2015 at 4:45 pm

        You didn’t answer the question about how you knew what proportion was trade waste! Firstly you have only just got the weighbridge working and haven’t been charged up until this year so don’t give me all that bull! Secondly who the hell do you think you are telling off islands they should be paying for ALL their extra costs but forgetting all the extra cost of shipping St.Mary’s waste to the mainland and letting the taxpayer or small businesses foot the bill? If its ok for you then it’s ok for us!You don’t seriously think your contributions cover it do you? To increase charges by threefold shows that finances are seriously adrift , you can’t seriously pass that all off as off islanders fault any more than the visitor trade question you didn’t answer. What would be nice is a little more readily accessible information regarding costs so that people could see that it was done on a fair basis. If all our contributions go on freight then so be it-(praps I will put in for the contract to shift it and earn me money back) :)! Still haven’t got the guts to put your real name to it eh?

        • Mustafa Wurd July 31, 2015 at 9:00 pm

          The waste shipped away from the Islands was all the Islands waste not by any means just St. Mary’s so don’t come that one, moreover you dig the hole over off island bulky commercial waste I only helped, you then chose to swan-dive right on in. Commercial waste (the secret is in the name).

          • Adam Morton, St.Martins August 1, 2015 at 2:25 pm

            I think you are clutching at straws now! you used the original comment to infer that most of the waste cost was generated by trade but couldn’t back it up, then you tried to change the subject onto skip waste but forgot that you hadn’t been paying for it either! I didn’t say that they weren’t being charged but asked how! The only hole is the one you dug yourself by making comments you can’t back up and you know full well are unfair, otherwise you wouldn’t be scared of putting your name to them !