Future Services Consultation 2024 - Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) Proposal

Insight summary

Background

From 8 January to 31 March 2024, Hampshire County Council invited residents, partners, and stakeholders to provide their views on options to change and reduce some local services to help the Authority address a £132 million budget shortfall faced by April 2025.

One of the options proposed was to reduce funding to Household Waste and Recycling Services (often referred to as HWRCs), by:

introducing charging for discretionary services at HWRC sites
implementing alternative delivery models of HWRC services
changing the types of waste accepted at HWRCs
reducing the opening days and/or hours of HWRCs
reducing the number of existing HWRC sites

Key messages

The HWRC proposal which saw the highest level of agreement amongst respondents was to reduce the opening days and/or hours of HWRCs, with 44% agreement and 41% disagreement amongst respondents who shared a view on the proposal.
This followed a common theme of many respondents preferring the idea of a reduced HWRC service operating from as many sites as possible over a smaller network of HWRC sites maintaining the service they currently provide.
Users of proposed Tier 3 and Tier 4 HWRC sites were particularly opposed to the closures of sites, but were somewhat more in favour of changing the types of waste accepted at HWRCs, and changing their opening days and hours, compared with users of proposed Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites, suggesting that users of sites proposed for closure are more agreeable to changes that could keep those sites open compared with users of sites not proposed for closure.
All other proposed changes saw higher levels of disagreement than agreement, with the highest level of disagreement for the proposed reduction of the number of HWRC sites (8% agreement compared with 87% disagreement).
Across the proposed changes, younger people and those on higher incomes were generally more likely to express agreement than older people or those from less affluent households.
The main impact anticipated from the proposed changes related to fly tipping, both from the perspective of the environmental impact it has on communities, as well as the financial burden could place on councils and land owners. Across all five proposed changes, there were comments from respondents that each could result in increased levels of fly tipping.
There was also frequent mention of views that costs would increase if changes were made to HWRC services, both dealing with waste disposed of illegally and additional demand upon the remaining HWRC network.
Most users of proposed Tier 3 or Tier 4 sites would use another site if their current one were to close. However, 79% of respondents who use Somerley HWRC, and 47% of respondents who use Marchwood HWRC, indicated that they would either not visit another HWRC site or did not know which they would visit instead.

Who responded to the proposal?

10,533 respondents gave their views on the proposed changes to the HWRC service using the Response Form (75% of all 13,988 responses via the Response Form), the highest number of responses of any of the service proposals covered by the Future Services Consultation, demonstrating the high level of interest around proposed changes to HWRCs.

7,012 responses were from users of proposed Tier 3 or Tier 4 HWRCs, while 2,762 responses were from users of proposed Tier 1 and Tier 2 HWRC sites, suggesting there has been particular interest in this consultation from users of sites proposed for closure.
72 organisations and 54 democratically Elected Representatives provided responses to this set of proposals using the Response Form.

Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on this proposal via an open-ended question. This allowed respondents to expand on impacts they felt the proposed changes would cause and suggest alternative courses of action. 4,885 respondents left an open text comment in relation to the proposal. 1,151 respondents also commented on the HWRC proposal in the any further comments open text box at the end of the consultation, designed to capture any further feedback to any of the proposals in the consultation.
In addition, 216 ‘unstructured’ responses (submissions which did not use the Response Form, such as letters or emails) were received that specifically mentioned the proposed changes to HWRCs. These responses are reflected in the findings below. Of these responses:

168 were submitted by members of the public
32 were submitted by organisations (including businesses and public bodies)
16 were submitted by, or on behalf of, elected representatives (MPs or councillors)

In order to help capture the views of young people about the consultation, members of the Hampshire County Council Youth Forum (aged between 11 and 18) were invited to consider the proposals and attend a discussion group to share their feedback. The feedback from this group is reflected in the summary below.

Please note as this was an open consultation the respondents were self-selecting so do not provide a representative sample of the total Hampshire population.

Levels of agreement with this proposal

The table below summarises the overall levels of agreement and disagreement with each of the proposed changes to HWRC services.

Proposed change	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	Don't know	Summarised, excluding 'Don't know' - Disagree overall	Summarised, excluding 'Don't know' - Agree overall
Introducing charging for discretionary services (base: 10,207)	29%	21%	15%	28%	6%	1%	50%	35%
Implementing alternative delivery models (base: 9,968)	23%	20%	31%	17%	3%	6%	46%	21%
Changing the types of waste accepted at HWRCs (base: 10,090)	36%	34%	15%	11%	3%	2%	71%	14%
Reducing the opening days and/or hours of HWRCs (base: 10,274)	23%	18%	14%	34%	11%	<1%>	41%	44%
Reducing the number of existing sites (base: 10,316)	69%	19%	4%	6%	2%	<1%>	87%	8%

As can be seen, four of the five proposals saw higher levels of disagreement than agreement. Only the proposal to reduce opening days and/or hours of HWRCs saw marginally higher levels of agreement (44%) than disagreement (41%).

More detail on the views of respondents on each of these proposed changes is set out below, with levels of agreement and disagreement calculated excluding those who responded ‘don’t know’.

Introducing charging for discretionary services

Summary of views

35% agreed, and 50% disagreed, with this proposal (15% neither agreed nor disagreed).

There was higher agreement amongst elected representatives (60%), respondents from households with incomes over £60,000 (43%), and respondents from rural areas (38%).
There was higher disagreement amongst respondents from ethnic minority groups (57%), residents of Fareham or Rushmoor (57%) and users of proposed Tier 1 HWRCs (54%).
Respondents from higher income households appeared to support this proposal more than respondents from lower income households, with 43% agreement from households earning over £60,000 per year compared with 33% amongst households earning up to £20,000 per year.

When asked about the types of services people would pay for, 56% of respondents would not pay for any of the services listed; 26% would consider paying for a convenient visiting slot, 25% would consider paying for assistance at the HWRC site, and 15% would consider paying for disposable items to make it easier to handle waste.

Charging for convenient time slots was more agreeable to residents of Hart, Havant, the New Forest and Test Valley (29%) compared with the average (26%), with lowest agreement amongst those living in Rushmoor (22%) and Gosport (21%).
Levels of agreement with the other proposed chargeable services saw similar geographical splits as mentioned above, but with smaller spreads between areas with higher and lower levels of agreement.

There was some suggestion in the open text comments that the Council should lobby central government for the ability to charge for HWRC services:

“Closing HWRCs is knee jerk reaction to government removing charges for certain types of waste. The government needs to be made aware that these sites must not be closed and allow some charges to be implemented.”

“The sooner legislation is passed enabling councils to charge for HWRCs the better. I suspect that most people would be willing to pay for the convenience of using a HWRC.”

In contrast, there were also comments mentioning that additional charges may be unaffordable to HWRC users, potentially resulting in more fly tipping:

“Many cannot afford to pay to get rid of waste.”

“Closing HWRCs or charging for their use in poorer or less affluent areas will increase fly tipping and negatively impact costs to councils to that up clear up, and worse cause environmental issues”

Comments mentioning disagreement with proposed charges also referenced impacts on older people or those with disabilities (who might benefit more from help to dispose of waste), environmental impacts of selling disposable items, and that charges would place an additional barrier to using services alongside the need to book to use them:

“Charging for human help discriminates against the elderly and disabled.”

“Really don't like the idea of 'disposable' items for sale. Presumably this would involve single use (plastic?) Items then requiring going to landfill.”

“These sites are hard enough to access now we have to book a slot. Stop looking at charging to use them.”

Comments mentioning agreement with proposed charges described views that these charges be preferable to other changes to the HWRC service, that discretionary charges may not reduce service levels, and that they may make the service more accessible for customers with busy schedules:

“Charging for specialist items…would be much more preferable to closing the sites entirely.”

“…charging for premium slots or help on hand should have minimal impact on the amount of recycling that can happen.”

“…charging for premium slots will benefit people who have busy lives or unusual working hours which preclude them from using the service regularly but are prepared to go later or earlier than standard opening times.”

Implementing alternative delivery models

Summary of views

21% agreed, and 46% disagreed, with this proposal (31% neither agreed nor disagreed).

There was higher agreement amongst users of Portsmouth and Southampton HWRCs (35%), residents of Basingstoke and Deane (33%) or Winchester (27%), respondents aged under 45 (33% for those aged under 25, 27% for those aged 25 to 44), respondents with children or young people in their household (25%), respondents from households with incomes over £60,000 (29%), and respondents from urban areas (23%).
There was higher disagreement amongst users of proposed Tier 3 (49%) and Tier 4 (48%) sites, as well as residents of Rushmoor (53%), Havant (49%), and East Hampshire (48%).
Agreement was higher amongst respondents from households earning over £60,000 (29%) compared with respondents earning up to £20,000 per year (22%), and was higher amongst respondents aged under 25 (33%) and 25 to 44 (27%) compared with respondents aged 45 to 54 (21%) and aged 65 or over (20%).

Reasons given for agreement or disagreement

Individual responses from local authorities who gave a view on this proposal (including New Forest District Council, Eastleigh Borough Council, Havant Borough Council, and the Basingstoke and Deane and Hart Joint Waste Team) suggested that they do not expect this proposal to be viable for their organisations to adopt.
Comments in relation to alternative delivery models indicated that there is general concern amongst respondents about any potential changes to the ways that HWRC services are delivered:

“It is crazy to make any changes to this valuable service that has a massive impact on our local environment and sustainability/recycling”

“In essence, Hampshire CC should not be contemplating any alteration to the existing operation of its HWRCs. It is a basic service which needs to be retained at the current level.”

“At the moment it works well because it is simple - all sites accept (nearly) all the types of waste and are operated in the same way, overseen by HCC. Outsourcing their management and would give differences in how to use them and types of waste which I believe would radically reduce uptake”

In addition, some respondents mentioned views that alternate delivery models would be less efficient than Council-managed operations overall, or that they would not be seen as viable by potential operators:

“I think HWRCs should continue to be managed by HCC. The complexities of other management systems might save money on paper, but would add additional administrative, etc burden to HCC inc finding an alternate provider, management of them, etc.”

“Without the economies of scale that can be achieved by a large county-wide network of HWRCs the organisation managing a single HWRC is likely to struggle to run the facility sustainably in the medium to long term, putting the facility at risk of closure.”

“Somerset and Suffolk Councils have previously investigated alternative delivery models, although largely unsuccessfully”

There were also concerns about the possibility of alternate delivery models resulting in additional costs for service users:

“Stop 'smoke and mirror' proposals ie giving sites to charity or contractor to manage so that fees can be increased.”

“…the organisation may have to find ways to raise revenue to support running costs by considering service changes such as charging: this would further erode the service that residents should expect”

Where respondents mentioned agreement with the proposed change in delivery model, this was frequently seen as preferable to the closures of sites, with some expressing caution about the potential impact this could have on services:

“I think closing recycling centres and reducing hours to a degree is a mistake…I agree that a good alternative could be a charitable organisation runs it but I would still want the same level of service previously offered”

“I saw mention of having some sites be handed over partially/completely to private firms, this is a great idea for the closed centres”

“If the council can’t run the tip than sell it to private company that can do a better job.”

There was also some agreement with alternative operators making proposed Tier 3 or Tier 4 sites sustainable through the application of charging, particularly if these charges made them more attractive than travelling to an alternate HWRC:

“As you are not permitted to charge for waste disposal, if Marchwood is closed it should be sold to a company that is legislated to maintain the facilities but is able to charge for waste disposal, this money would otherwise be spent on travelling to Southampton”

“Better to keep all open, transfer to private / 3rd party operators and ask resident to pay a small charge on a Pay as you Go basis.”

Some respondents suggested that district, town, or parish councils would be suitable operators for sites that could otherwise be closed:

“Alresford Tip could be run by the town council to save money, in addition to a nominal charge per visit. With an expanding population of 300 new houses coming to Alresford we do not want to lose our facility.”

“Maybe local councils should take on these sites for their residents. Residents could pay for a years permit like trade vehicles do.”

Changing the types of waste accepted at HWRCs

Summary of views

14% agreed, and 71% disagreed, with this proposal (15% neither agreed nor disagreed).

There was higher agreement amongst elected representatives (26%), organisations (20%), respondents aged under 45 (20% for those aged under 25, 18% for those aged 25 to 44), respondents with children or young people in their household (17%), respondents from households with incomes over £60,000 (18%), residents of Havant (19%), and users of proposed Tier 4 sites (17%).
There was higher disagreement amongst users of Tier 2 HWRCs (74%), as well as residents of East Hampshire, Fareham, Gosport, and Rushmoor (74% each).
Agreement was higher amongst respondents aged under 25 (20%) and 25 to 44 (18%) compared with respondents aged 45 to 54 (15%) and aged 65 or over (13%), although the proportion who disagreed was similar across all of these age groups.

Reasons given for agreement or disagreement

Those who disagreed with the proposal to change the types of waste accepted at HWRCs commonly mentioned potential impacts on fly tipping:

“Not being able to take garden waste to the HWRCs will also lead to [fly tipping] with the dumping of this waste on the roadside or up country lanes.”

“We should be increasing the type of recycling the centres take not reducing services. I can’t believe how little is currently recyclable. In addition I do think this will lead people to dump their waste”

Disagreement with the proposed change to the types of waste accepted also made reference to potential impacts on the environment with regards to reduced recycling rates:

“We have mountains of bottles including at recycling…If your restrict other recycling items we will see even more mountains of [waste]”

“It’s important to encourage as much accessibility to recycling as much as possible. Our county is hopeless as to what we can currently recycle - more is needed not less”

Those who mentioned agreement with the proposed change in waste types accepted at HWRCs frequently described sympathy with the Council’s financial situation:

The sheer scale of the savings you need to make (notwithstanding the fact that there is no information given about other areas in which savings could - possibly more justifiably - be made) means you should do all of these things to the fullest extent”

There was also mention of potentially realising economies of scale in agreement with the proposed change in the types of waste accepted:

It's sensible for certain sites to focus on certain types of waste thus gaining economies of scale. If there could be, say, one site for furniture that would be great”

Some respondents also mentioned that restricting types of waste accepted would be acceptable if it minimised site closures:

“I use Somerley often…A reduction in the service would be acceptable in terms of opening times and types of waste but closure would equal madness and certainly result in any money saved being spent elsewhere on rectifying the consequences of closure”

“By all means consider reducing hours or days or types of waste collected. But please, on no account, close the Hayling Island tip with all the loss of quality of life, leisure time, that it would involve.”

Reducing the opening days and/or hours of HWRCs

Summary of views

44% agreed, and 41% disagreed, with this proposal (14% neither agreed nor disagreed).

There was higher agreement amongst residents of Havant (71%, with 30% describing strong agreement) and Test Valley (48%), respondents with children or young people in their household (47%), users of proposed Tier 4 HWRCs (56%) those with household incomes of over £60,000 (52%), and those living in urban areas (48%).
There was higher disagreement amongst residents of Rushmoor (52%), Fareham (49%), Hart (48%) and East Hampshire (46%), as well as users of proposed Tier 2 sites (51%) and Portsmouth and Southampton HWRCs (50%).
Agreement was higher amongst respondents from households earning over £60,000 (52%) compared with respondents earning up to £20,000 per year (43%).

Reasons given for agreement or disagreement

Where respondents disagreed with the proposal to change opening hours or days of HWRC sites, there were frequent references to risks of increased fly tipping:

“Staying open 7 days a week will help discourage illegal dumping of rubbish”

“Reducing sites, charging and reducing opening hours will have a big impact on fly tipping. No reduction in hours”

“As a farming business we suffer regular episodes of fly tipping across the farm and report such incidents on at least a weekly basis and often far more frequently. Any action by HCC to reduce access to recycling facilities, or access for some types of waste, will inevitably increase the levels of fly tipping in rural areas”

There were also suggestions that, if opening days or hours are reduced, needs of working people should be considered when designing the schedule:

“Evening and weekends should remain available as the weekday daytime slots are not suitable for the majority of people working”

“A lot of people work so it makes sense to open afternoon and early evening in the summer and full days at weekend.”

The main driver for agreement with this proposal appeared to be seeing it as a more agreeable option to closing HWRC sites:

“Think that shutting sites would have a climate impact on people then travelling around the County to their next nearest site. Reducing hours of operation seems like a more sensible decision.”

“Please charge us more in council tax to keep the dump open, maybe reduce opening times and hours but we can not lose this facility.”

Put some sites to 4 days per week, with neighbouring sites on different rotas, and have it so you are open late one day but close early the next. Close as few sites as possible.

The preference for a reduction in hours as opposed to site closures seemed to be driven by views that the nearest alternative site would be too far away to conveniently access:

“Where I live outside Fordingbridge Somerley is the nearest site. A lot further than 7 miles in either direction to other site. This will result in more fly tipping in the north of the Forest and more expense to employ the small truck that collects fly tipping. Please keep it open with reduced hours.”

“I use the Bunny Lane site. If it closed it would mean a long journey. I’d be happy if you cut some days to save money but not weekends”

“I think a reduction during winter months would be very sensible along with more limited opening times during the week in summer, but people are not likely to want to travel more than 7 miles.”

Reducing the number of existing sites

Summary of views

8% agreed, and 87% disagreed, with this proposal (4% neither agreed nor disagreed), making this the proposed change with the second highest level of disagreement in the Future Services Consultation (with proposed changes to highways maintenance showing slightly more disagreement).

There was higher agreement amongst residents of Basingstoke and Deane (19%), Fareham (15%), Eastleigh (12%) and Winchester (12%), users of proposed Tier 1 (21%) and Tier 2 (16%) sites, users of Portsmouth or Southampton HWRCs (15%), respondents aged under 45 (13%), respondents with children or young people in their household (11%), and respondents from households earning over £60,000 (14%).
There was higher disagreement amongst residents of East Hampshire (94%), the New Forest (93%), and Hart (92%), as well as users of proposed Tier 4 (95%) and Tier 3 (94%) sites, and respondents aged 65 or over (90%).
Agreement was higher amongst respondents from households earning over £60,000 (14%) compared with respondents earning up to £20,000 per year (8%) and was higher amongst respondents aged under 45 (13%) compared with respondents aged 45 to 54 (9%) and aged 65 or over (6%).

There was a strong level of disagreement with the proposed closure of HWRCs from the unstructured responses, with a large number of letters from individuals mentioning the value they placed on these services and from local councils (including parish, towns, and districts) describing their value to their local communities

Anticipated changes in behaviours following proposed site closures

The table below outlines the expected HWRC visiting patterns of users of proposed Tier 3 and Tier 4 sites should their main site close:

Site	Most common alternative site	Would not visit an HWRC	Not sure
Aldershot	Farnborough (60%)	27%	10%
Alresford	Winchester (54%)	16%	11%
Bishops Waltham	Fair Oak (38%)	12%	18%
Bordon	Alton (40%)	21%	15%
Casbrook	Eastleigh (38%)	17%	25%
Fair Oak	Eastleigh (41%), Hedge End (40%)	11%	8%
Hartley Wintney	Farnborough (52%)	13%	12%
Hayling Island	Havant (71%)	20%	8%
Hedge End	Fair Oak (40%)	11%	18%
Marchwood	Southampton (44%)	24%	23%
Petersfield	Bordon (32%)	21%	19%
Somerley	Efford (9%)	42%	37%

Reasons given for agreement or disagreement

As previously mentioned, the comments provided indicate that respondents were most agreeable with changing site opening hours and days as an alternative to closing sites, with lobbying for new charges, or introducing discretionary charges, also regularly mentioned by those who disagreed with the proposed site closures.
Dorset County Council, who pay Hampshire to allow Dorset residents to use Hampshire HWRCs, mentioned that the closure of Somerly HWRC would impact on Dorset’s level of service provision
Similarly to other proposed changes, the impacts of this proposal were largely seen to involve fly tipping:

“Closure of sites will come with increased fly tipping and costs of cleanup there.”

“I strongly urge you not to close the Marchwood site, it seems to be very well used and would certainly increase fly tipping”

“Do not close any sites as there will be more fly-tipping. It is important to keep as many sites open as possible.”

Those who disagreed with this proposed change also frequently mentioned impacts on rural communities:

“Keep Romsey (Casbrook) site open - serves a wider area with a lot of rural communities that would be impacted by the closure.”

“Closing the Tier 3 sites would leave a large proportion of the New Forest population without access to a HWRC.”

“I am hugely concerned about closing of sites which serve the more rural communities such as Alresford, Fair Oak, Petersfield and Bishops Waltham. Once these sites are lost then residents will have to drive much further for a service that is a requirement of day-to-day living.”

There were also a large number of mentions of concerns about increased pollution and car use as a result of proposed HWRC closures:

“Having a local tip in Romsey will reduce my carbon footprint otherwise I will need to travel to Andover or Eastleigh or Winchester, meaning more road usage traffic and emissions.”

“The drive to Alton is on smaller roads and would significantly increase carbon footprint and my journey there due to the roads is often in excess of 30 mins.”

“Do not close any sites…The alternative is drivers going greater distances to sites, burning more fuel in the process and adding to climate change emissions…It also discriminates those who cannot drive longer distances from home for whatever reason.”

Concerns about the impacts of future developments in Hampshire, and the demand that these could create for HWRCs were also raised:

“Given the new housing development in the town I would strongly disagree that Alresford tip should be closed.”

“We live in Fair Oak and the household waste recycling centre is always busy. We have more houses being built as we speak and more to come in Horton Heath.”

“Basingstoke and Deane borough has over 80,000 households which implies that the borough requires further HWRC investment and capacity, especially for the future as the population continues to grow.”

“[Bordon] is still growing in population and there is a clear need for the facility. Closure would impact the existing and future residents.”

Among the small proportion who agreed with the proposed reduction of HWRCs, respondents frequently mentioned recognition of the need for the HWRC service to contribute to the savings required by the County Council, and the need to balance savings across different services:

“Although I like the convenience of having Bishops Waltham site nearby, I understand the need to save money and travelling to Hedge End would not put me off taking items to the recycling centre. I also believe that other proposals to withdraw money from public transport and homelessness are more important to reject.”

“I think you will make the right decision and I fully endorse the sites you have proposed to shut to save money.”

“If Tier 4 sites are running at a loss and require huge investment, then it makes little sense to keep these open.”

There were also some suggestions from respondents who agreed with the proposed reduction in HWRC sites that some of the smaller locations are no longer fit for purpose, or cost effective to run:

“We use the Hayling recycling centre a lot, at least once a month but often more than that, but we can see it must be very uneconomic to run, and would rather you saved money by closing it than cutting other services. We can use Havant if we need to.”

“I currently live on Hayling Island, but I do not use this site as it is poorly laid out when compared to Havant, which always seems to be very efficiently run and offers a greater level of service for recycling. I would be very much in favour of Hampshire council closing the Hayling site to save costs.”

“The location of the Bordon site makes it no longer fit for purpose. Station Road regularly has people parking illegally while they wait for their slot at the tip to open. Furthermore, they are often queues on to station road of people waiting their turn for the tip. Given it's a residential road, this is of great [sic] inconvenience to those who live there. It is no longer an appropriate position for the site and I would suggest it should be a priority to close.”

Public views on finding a balance between proposed changes in site opening days and hours, and proposed site closures

Respondents were asked “If we were to reduce opening days and/or hours, which of these options would you prefer?”, and given four options from which to choose:

Closing as few sites as possible, with a reduction in opening days and/or hours at the remaining sites (with an explanation that this choice alone would not deliver a minimum saving of £1.2 million and would need to be combined with other options)
Closing some sites, along with some reduction of opening days and/or hours at the remaining sites (with an explanation that this choice alone would not deliver a minimum saving of £1.2 million and would need to be combined with other options)
Closing more HWRC sites, with no reduction in opening days or hours for the remaining sites
Not sure

When balancing this proposed closure of HWRC sites alongside changing HWRC opening hours, 79% believed that the saving should be delivered through changing opening hours as much as possible, with 10% preferring a mix of the two options and 3% preferring that site closures be prioritised (8% unsure).

The preference for changing opening hours over site closures was highest amongst users of proposed Tier 4 (87%) and Tier 3 (86%) sites, elected representatives (85%), respondents living in rural areas (83%), and residents of East Hampshire (85%), the New Forest (84%), Havant (83%), and Test Valley (82%).
The preference for a mixture of changing opening hours and reducing HWRC sites was highest amongst users of Tier 1 (19%) and Tier 2 (16%) sites, respondents aged 25 to 44 (15%), and residents of Basingstoke and Deane (18%), Gosport (16%), and Fareham (15%).
The preference for closing HWRC sites over changing opening hours was highest amongst elected representatives (9%), users of proposed Tier 1 (9%) and Tier 2 sites (6%) and Portsmouth and Southampton HWRCs (10%), as well as residents of Basingstoke and Deane and Fareham (8%).

Respondents were also asked “If we were to reduce opening days and/or hours, which of these options would you prefer?”, and given three options from which to choose:

Reducing opening hours at all sites, but with HWRCs still open every day (with an explanation that this choice alone would not deliver a minimum saving of £1.2 million and would need to be combined with other options)
Closing HWRCs on certain days of the week, but with no change to their opening hours on the other days
Not sure

When balancing these options around reducing opening hours and opening days at HWRC sites, a majority (53%) preferred closing on particular days but maintaining opening hours, compared with 38% who preferred reducing opening hours instead of closing sites on specific days (9% not sure).

This preference was consistent across different groups, with the exception of organisations which provided a response, where there was a small preference for reducing opening hours (38%) instead of opening days (35%), with 27% unsure.

Categorising HWRCs into four tiers

Overall views on proposed tier criteria

Of those with a view on the criteria used to propose tiers for HWRCs, 63% felt the existing criteria were the correct ones to use and 37% felt that they were not.

There was higher agreement with the proposed criteria amongst residents of Basingstoke and Deane and of Gosport (both 78%), users of proposed Tier 1 (81%) and Tier 2 (73%) HWRCs, those aged under 25 (83%) and those with household incomes of over £60,000 (74%).
There was higher disagreement with the proposed criteria amongst residents of Hart and Havant (44%) and the New Forest (41%), as well as users of proposed Tier 4 sites (53%), elected representatives (43%), and respondents from ethnic minority groups (44%).
Agreement was higher amongst respondents from households earning over £60,000 (74%) compared with respondents earning up to £20,000 per year (62%), and was higher amongst respondents aged under 25 (83%) or aged 25 to 44 (71%), compared with the average (63%).

Suggested alternative criteria

Where respondents said that they did not think we were using the correct criteria they were asked “What other criteria do you think we should consider?”. 3,295 comments were provided in response to this question.
2,258 of these responses suggested alternative criteria that could be used to categorise HWRCs, which related to the following:

Fly tipping (41% of suggestions), specifically in relation to the level of fly tipping in the area, the risk of this increasing, and the potential costs for dealing with the issue.

“Risk of fly tipping on rural communities and farmers / land owners in particular”

“You should consider the impact on the borough councils and the communities of fly tipping”

“The volume of local fly tipping - which indicates the difficulty of legally disposing of waste”

The suitability of alternative sites (39% of suggestions), particularly in relation to accessibility of sites for road users and for people who do not travel by car, expectations of housing developments in the area around an alternative site, and the availability of booking slots at an alternative site.

“7 miles does not consider the type of roads, congestion or air quality issues”

“Not all users of the tip will be car drivers and this should be given consideration”

“Our alternate site is heavily over subscribed and traffic in Havant is horrendous”

The needs of site users (23% of suggestions), particularly in relation to the anticipated greater demand from rural service users, feedback from existing site users, and the needs of older site users.

“The criteria are weighted against vital smaller less economical sites in more rural communities”

“User satisfaction surveys can highlight areas for enhancement and indicate how well the centres meet local needs”

“No consideration has been given to elderly or disabled residents who are unable to travel up to 7 miles”

The environmental impacts of closures (16% of suggestions), such as increased car journeys to alternative sites impacting air and road quality, congestion in the areas around HWRCs, and potential reductions in recycling rates.

“Environmental impact of having to drive to further away HWRC”

“Site layout and capacity aren't important criteria, but the impact on surrounding busy roads is”

“Closing tips would make it less likely that people would recycle as much of their waste but would be more likely to throw more waste in their household bins. Encouraging recycling is a necessity in the current climate crisis”

The distance to an alternative site (8% of suggestions), such as comments that seven miles is too far to travel (compared with 1% of comments that suggested the distance should be more than seven miles).

“We are an Island. 7 miles to Havant could take a long time when the main road is busy”

“Not everyone can travel up to 7 miles, this discriminates against those who may walk in waste”

“If a site is in a rural location the seven mile rule could be expanded”

1% of suggestions mentioned the potential for income generation from discarded waste should be considered.
There were also some suggestions made around impacts of closures on other council-run services, issues with local flood zones, and the costs of site closures.

1,376 responses made mention of things that were not related to suggestions for additional criteria:

37% mentioned concerns about fly tipping as a result of proposed changes
28% mentioned disagreement with proposals to close HWRC sites
11% mentioned disagreement with the proposed criteria, such as the inclusion of mention of alternative sites, the inclusion of a criteria on site layout, the inclusion of a flooding criteria, and the method of calculating the number of households
9% mentioned dissatisfaction with the existing booking system for HWRC site visits
7% mentioned general dissatisfaction with the County Council
5% mentioned a desire for more recycling facilities
4% suggested that opening days or hours at HWRCs should change instead of site closures
3% mentioned a desire for more investment in HWRC services
2% suggested the County Council partner with other local authorities to deliver efficiencies
2% mentioned the perceived quality of staff at HWRC sites
2% suggested that the County Council reduce costs by reducing the number of council staff
2% disagreed with the principle of tiering for HWRC sites
1% made comments unrelated to the consultation, such as mention of political views, or about the current level of Council Tax in Hampshire

In addition, at the end of the Response Form on the proposed changes to HWRCs respondents were asked to provide any further comments, details of impacts, or suggestions for alternatives on how the Council could deliver savings to its budget. 31 comments suggested that different criteria should be used when making decisions, although not specifically in relation to decisions on HWRC tiers. These included comments about fly tipping, population increases and developments, impacts of changes on the capacity of remaining HWRC sites, and the environmental impacts of longer journeys being made to use HWRC sites.
Bishops Waltham Society provided a response which highlighted some concerns about the criteria used for the proposed tiers:

It challenged some of the criteria proposed, specifically that there was a risk in double-reporting tonnage data under “Tonnes diverted from landfill” and “Overall recycled, composted, reused, recovered”
The response suggested that applying a smaller weighting for recycling (3%) than for tonnage (22%), could indicate that the importance of recycling in decision making is lower than it should be
Data from a previous Hampshire County Council consultation in 2016 was presented with concerns that there was no explanation for the drop in reported tonnage figures between the two years, used in the tier criteria
The household figures used in the consultation were challenged on the basis that they are higher than figures reported by the ONS, although the response accepts that overlaps between the radiuses of HWRC sites would contribute to this, particularly with households being ‘clustered’ in population centres
The figures for housing developments were also challenged, on the same basis that they appear higher than their true figure when collectively compared across the radiuses of individual HWRC sites
The response also suggested a criteria that could be used, the number of households currently served by each site, as an alternative to the number of households within a certain radius. The response accepts would be an estimate and suggests using a calculation based on average tonnage to provide a figure for each site, which it believes would strengthen the case for maintaining some of the proposed Tier 3 or Tier 4 sites

Braishfield Parish Council and Nursling and Rownhams Parish Council mentioned that in their response that other factors should be given greater consideration when making decisions on proposed changes to HWRCs, although without specific reference to the decisions around tiers for HWRC sites:

Fly tipping rates
Impacts of additional car journeys to sites on congestion, road quality, pollution, and air quality
Impacts on communities of additional garden bonfires if sites were closed
Impacts on recycling rates of reduced HWRC access
Impacts on HWRC employees’ jobs if sites were closed
Impacts on remaining HWRC site capacity if some sites were to close

Impacts related to protected characteristics

3,501 respondents indicated in the Response Form which characteristics or issues they felt would correspond with the impacts of the changes proposed for HWRCs. Respondents were able to select any of the protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010, as well as poverty, rurality, and environmental impacts.

27% suggested that they did not feel that any impacts would be worsened by any of the criteria listed.
27% mentioned that impacts would be felt on the basis of age, with comments showing that this overwhelmingly related to older people who tend to live in rural areas and may have greater issues travelling to other sites compared with younger people.
20% mentioned that impacts could affect those affected by health issues or disabilities, with comments suggesting that it may be harder for people with disabilities to access an alternate site or make use of sites if their opening hours were to change.
Only 1-2% of respondents identified each of the remaining protected characteristics, including gender reassignment, marriage and/or civil partnership, pregnancy and/or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation, indicating that there is not a general view that any of these groups would be disproportionately impacted by the proposed changes to HWRC services.
In addition, 59% of respondents highlighted environmental impacts, 32% noted impacts related to rurality, and 16% make reference to poverty. While these are not protected characteristics under the Equality Act, they are recognised in the impact assessments that Council services undertake.

Additional impacts identified via the further comments

The comments provided about this proposal were also analysed to understand what potential impacts the proposal could have if it were to be implemented.

3,602 out of 4,885 respondents (74%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal mentioned a potential impact in their feedback.

Of the responses which mentioned impacts:

83% described increases in fly tipping, with some mentions of the additional impacts of fly tipping on local land owners.

“I think it important to keep these sites going as otherwise we will have even more flytipping which is unsightly, hazardous and probably more expensive”

“Making it more difficult to access a HWC will have the opposite effect & increase the scourge of fly tipping - increasing costs further”

“I feel that any closures of HWRC sites would see an increase in fly tipping. This would increase council costs of waste recovery from public spaces and also a financial penalty and inconvenience to private landowners”

40% mentioned increases in other costs as a result of the proposed changes, such as through higher costs dealing with fly tipping, and increased demand for other HWRC sites.

“Cutting too much cost here would increase costs to clear the increase in fly tipping that may result”

“I don’t think the increased pressure on sites that stay open is considered. Farnborough already causes traffic problems at busy times. Closing HW and Aldershot would make that much worse”

“There is more and more development being built around near Somerly. Closing it will put further strain on other sites which are a big distance away”

33% mentioned potential environmental impacts, such as pollution and car usage from longer drives to alternative HWRCs, reduced recycling rates, and impacts on the attractiveness of the local environment near to remaining HWRCs from additional use, and elsewhere in the area due to fly tipping.

“Have you considered the environmental impact with more fuel having to be used to get to HWRCs that are far away for some areas?”

“…increasing the distance people have to travel to dispose of waste increases traffic on already worn out roads and increases emissions”

“On my daily walks I pick up a vast amount of rubbish... I frequently come across fly-tips of all sorts. These forms of trashing our roads and woodlands will increase greatly if you close recycling centres”

The discussion at the Hampshire Youth Forum event highlighted three potential impacts from the proposed changes, similar to what was reported by other respondents:

Increased travel time and car usage for people needing to travel to an alternative HWRC site.
Increased fly-tipping, particularly in rural areas, resulting in costs to remove this and harm for local wildlife.
Capacity issues for HWRCs that remain open if some were to close, particularly with regard to space, staffing, and ability to deal with more specialised waste.

In addition to the impacts mentioned in direct response to the proposal, at the end of the Future Services Consultation Response Form respondents were given the opportunity to provide further comments on any subjects they wished. 1,151 comments referred to the impacts of the proposed changes to HWRC services, of which:

48% mentioned the proposals could encourage increased fly tipping or waste burning

“If the site at Marchwood closes there will be more fly tipping throughout the Waterside and New Forest area. It’s bad enough now it will get a lot worse”

“I note the comments about fly tipping being mostly by criminal groups but suspect it would be likely to increase.”

“…many residents will burn their rubbish and garden waste if this site is closed, resulting in increased local air pollution”

19% mentioned potential increases in car use or congestion

“It is a very hard choice, you need to save money, but in closing the Hayling tip, you will increase car usage driving to Havant more pollution and cars at busy times trying to get on and off the island”

“I cannot drive long distances to go to the HWRC, and would not want to drive for half an hour to get rid of a few lawn clippings or similar. It uses fuel, time and makes busy roads even busier”

“People will not wish to spend more hours in their car travelling to sites further away. Residents living near to the remaining open sites will be affected by the increase in traffic and traffic pollution on their local streets”

8% mentioned negative financial impacts for local authorities

“Reducing access to waste sites will increase fly tipping so will be a false economy in the long run”

“…whilst you might feel you are saving by removing the tips…I think it will actually just end up causing other problems and in turn costing [more]”

7% mentioned potential environmental impacts

“If the Hartley Wintney site is closed the result is more time and costs for local resident users and increased pollution”

“Reducing access to HWRC's will lead to more fly tipping which is detrimental to the environment”

3% mentioned increased capacity pressure on remaining HWRC sites if some were closed
2% mentioned impacts on rural areas
Fewer than 1% mentioned impacts on elderly or other vulnerable service users

Suggested alternatives to the proposal

1,433 out of 4,885 respondents (29%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal made a suggestion about any alternatives to the proposal or how they felt the service could be carried out differently.

Themes around alternatives to the proposed changes are described below:

36% of suggested alternatives mentioned changes to the existing HWRC network, such as changing opening times and days (including the suggestion of dynamic opening hours to meet unexpected shifts in demand), introducing new HWRCs or recycling facilities (or upgrading existing services), and that the Council should look to provide waste services in partnership with other local authorities.

“I feel that to close the site on weekdays (certain weekdays) would be an advantage as most people of a working age are available at weekends then to leave the weekend days alone imperative”

“Suggest closing Tier 4 centres and up grade tier 3. Hedge End is increasing in size by 3000-5000 households. It needs a new HWRC which is easier to access, more efficient and able to increase capacity.”

“I live on the border and have to pay to visit a West Berks Recycling Centre as it is too far to drive to Andover or Basingstoke and would cost me more in time and money. A mutual agreement with West Berks to use their sites would be great, as we used to be able to do.”

36% suggested finding other sources of funding, including the introduction of charges for HWRC services, generating revenue from sales of items disposed at HWRCs, and increased fining for littering and fly tipping.

“Potentially introduce charges for less-common waste. Rubble is something already charged for, could this also apply to some other waste-types?”

“Closing Petersfield would mean a minimum of 13 miles to what will become an extremely congested site. A round trip of 36 miles at least twice a month would increase cost and environmental pollution for residents. You should be able to charge a small fee to residents using a site.”

“Increase fly-tipping surveillance and financial penalties and ringfence proceeds for current HWRC provision”

“I have seen stuff 'put by' for dealers. I suspect that there is a resale value in these items. More needs to be done to reuse/rehome discarded items”

21% suggested that changes be made to other budgets or services, such as reducing Council staffing numbers and administration, reviewing the efficiency of services, and renegotiating contracts to deliver better value for money.

“The cuts need to be made in the cost of management and office staff. Not on essential services”

“Maybe it would be better to reduce local council management costs instead of reducing the people doing the work”

“Put contracts out to tender for the running of the sites. If not, directly run them and take control of all operating costs”

14% mentioned implementing ways to reduce landfill rates which included encouraging greater usage of HWRCs, encouraging people to throw away less waste, and lobbying to reduce the amount of packaging used for items.
9% proposed improvements that could be made to waste services such as accepting more types of waste in kerbside and HWRC services, and lobbying district councils to undertake more frequent waste collections.
1% suggested that the proposed changes could be amended to improve them.

In addition to the alternatives mentioned in direct response to the proposal, at the end of the Future Services Consultation Response Form respondents were given the opportunity to provide further comments on any subjects they wished. 1,151 comments related to the proposed changes to HWRCs, of which:

14% suggested that fees or charges be introduced to HWRC services

“Pay a yearly fee for using the HWRC service”

“Make a small £1 charge as suggested for every visit to a recycling centre, most people would be happy to pay for this in order to have a centre close to their home”

“I wish the government would allow charging a nominal entry fee, for which I would be happy to pay if it meant keeping the site open”

7% suggested that services should be made more efficient rather than reduced
3% suggested that services should be expanded or receive greater investment
2% suggested that HWRC sites should sell items to generate revenue
2% suggested that staff numbers should be reduced
2% suggested that the Council should realise savings by running services in partnership with other local authorities
2% suggested that HWRC services should be reduced
2% suggested there should be changes to the service operating model
1% suggested that site closures should be based on evidence and examined individually
1% suggested that lessons should be learned from how other local authorities manage their HWRC services
1% suggested that more should be done to encourage recycling or reuse of waste
Fewer than 1% suggested that site visits should be restricted (such as a maximum number per household per year, or by weight of waste disposed)
Fewer than 1% suggested that volunteers should be used to deliver HWRC services
Fewer than 1% suggested that neighbourhoods should have a skip in which they could dispose of waste
Fewer than 1% suggested that there should be fewer disabled bays for site visitors
Fewer than 1% suggested that the Council should look to generate sponsorship or funding from other organisations

The participants from the Hampshire Youth Forum suggested that, to discourage fly tipping, the Council could consider placing free-to-use skips around town centres and car parks, providing recycling drop-off points to provide an alternative to HWRCs, as well as ensuring that people are aware of the range of ways to dispose of waste available to them. The group also suggested that local authorities lobby to reduce the amount of packaging on items as a way of reducing waste, while also encouraging people to reuse bags and containers when shopping. Finally, the group also noted that closures should be managed collectively to ensure that areas are not left without adequate provision, and also suggested adding a small fee to booking slots at HWRCs (while recognising the impact this might have on low-income households).

One expression of interest to run HWRCs in Somerley, Pennington and Marchwood, and an expression of interest in buying the site of the Bishop’s Waltham HWRC (and possibly other sites), were submitted as part of the responses, and have been forwarded to the Council’s waste services for their attention.

Further comments

3,048 out of 4,885 respondents (62%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal provided other comments on the proposed changes or the HWRC service more widely.

Themes around alternatives to the proposed changes are described below:

39% mentioned disagreement with some or all of the proposed changes…

“As residents paying council tax we deserve a decent service to get rid of our waste. The HWRCs have already faced cuts, bookings systems put in place, charges added for items, no cash sales etc which residents aren’t happy about”

“It’s appalling that you’re looking at closing sites, along with other cuts to the services that we need. These are necessary services for local residents, and should be continued”

…compared with 21% who mentioned agreement with some or all of the proposed changes

“The closure of less used sites in category 4 would seem sensible. The closure of less well used/efficient and less safe sites in category 3 provided there was a good access to alternative site seems possible”

“I agree with the need to reduce sites and charge for the services, it is still going to be cheaper than a skip or private option. I saw mention of having some sites be handed over partially/completely to private firms, this is a great idea for the closed centres”

23% mentioned that fly tipping is an issue in their area

“Fly tipping is already an eyesore in our countryside and a drain on your finances”

“We already have problems with fly tipping in the National Park”

22% mentioned that the alternative HWRC site described in the consultation would be too far for them to travel to access

“I am concerned that the 7 mile rule is discriminatory and does not take into account populations without transport”

“My husband and I are nearly 80 and live in Hythe. We use the Marchwood site fairly often and find it very easy to use with helpful staff. We would not be able to travel further afield and would have to pay someone to take our unwanted items away which would put a strain on our already stretched budget”

16% provided positive feedback on the HWRC service…

“The booking system works well so people know that they have to book in advance to attend”

“Romsey HWRC is efficient and the staff are superb”

…compared with 10% who provided negative feedback, primarily relating to the booking system

“The current booking system is not being optimised. On a number of occasions it has shown that there are no slots available but I have never seen the site more than 50% full”

9% mentioned general disagreement with reductions to Council services
9% felt that future needs should be considered more when making decisions about HWRC services
8% felt that reducing the HWRC service was better than it being removed more widely
3% provided feedback on the waste services of other local authorities, such as waste collection in Hampshire’s districts
Fewer than 1% mentioned a view that people should take more responsibility for managing the waste they generate

38% mentioned that they disagreed with some or all of the proposed changes
1% mentioned that they feel the current HWRC network is of a good quality
Fewer than 1% mentioned that they disagreed with proposal related to service charges
Fewer than 1% mentioned that any site closures would be hard to reverse once implemented

Feedback on the consultation

123 of the out of 4,885 respondents (3%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal made a comment relating to the consultation itself, on the basis of its legitimacy, the functionality of the process, or the scope and quality of the information it included. Of these:

31% mentioned the information provided in the consultation document, commenting on the accuracy of the information, expressing feelings that other information should have been included, or mentioning that some of the names of HWRC sites used in the consultation may not be familiar to some of the sites’ users:

“The document shows that only 20% of the 'waste' budget relates to running the sites, and that you're aiming to save £1.2m/ year. However I can't find either the total 'waste' budget or the budget for individual sites”

“Your assertion that there would not be an increase in fly tipping is a fallacy, just look at the evidence for the increase after charges for certain waste products were introduced a few years ago”

“The HCC proposals cannot be fully understood because (a) the actual running and overhead costs of each site have not been given, (b) the modelling process is complex and opaque and quite possibly flawed, (c) the consequences of site closure have not been explained in readily understandable terms”

“I think it is duplicitous to name the HWRC that services Romsey purely as 'Casbrook'. The majority of people will look at the list of potential closures and assume Romsey is not being considered. There should be a reference to the Town that it serves otherwise you will be in danger of being seen to be sneaking this through the consultation”

25% suggested that the Council is looking at the wrong information when deciding how to deliver savings:

“…there is a lack of consideration for how reducing the number of sites will lead to an increase in fly tipping which is already a systemic issue across the country”

“You need to consider number of trips to each site, not the amount of waste each site receives, as trips to site will directly impact carbon emissions. If a HWRC were to shut, then the increased carbon output needs to be considered in your proposals”

“The proposed closures of Fair Oak and Bishops Waltham HWRCs based on current usage do not take into account projected future usage based on the number of new homes being built in the area”

10% queried the legitimacy of the consultation, expressing views that proposed changes may not be consistent with the County Council’s legal duties, or that the Council should instead focus on finding other ways to identify sources of funding:

“You have already tried this once with waste charging that have been deemed unlawful. You have [a] duty to provide residents with facilities”

“…the borough council does not support the proposals for transferring responsibility to a charity, community organisation, parish council or local authority district. The legislative responsibility for HWRCs must remain with the county council”

“The effort being made by [the Council] to cease societal services should be expended on lobbying the Govt instead of asking the Tax payers to make sense of leading questions”

Braishfield Parish Council and Nursling and Rownhams Parish Council mentioned that the following should be given greater consideration when making decisions on proposed changes to HWRCs:

Fly tipping rates
Impacts of additional car journeys to sites on congestion, road quality, pollution, and on, and air quality
Impacts on communities of additional garden bonfires if sites were closed
Impacts on recycling rates of reduced HWRC access
Impacts on HWRC employees’ jobs if sites were closed
Impacts on remaining HWRC site capacity if some sites were to close

Kingsley Parish Council commented that the proposed changes may not be consistent with the Council’s stated priorities, as the proposed changes could undermine the Council’s climate change commitments around carbon neutrality, while also impacting its ability to support people to recycle their waste.

Swanmore Parish Council mentioned concerns that the older population of Hampshire has not been taken into account when developing its proposed HWRC changes, and that rural sustainability might be impacted by site closures.

Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council and Hart District Council Joint Waste Team suggested that the proposed changes could breach existing (non-statutory) Waste and Resources Action Program (WRAP) guidance around the number of households served by each HWRC, disagreeing with figures provided in the consultation document.

One local residents society (the Bishop’s Waltham Society) provided a document outlining concerns about the quality of information provided in the consultation, queries about the criteria used for the proposed tiers (covered previously in this summary), and challenging the utilisation, capacity, and mileage figures provided, which has been reviewed by the Waste Service.

The New Forest National Park Authority provided a response which challenged the legal basis for making reductions to the HWRC network, on the basis of the Council’s statutory responsibilities to support National Parks.

Document

Download this Insight Summary as a Word document