Public bins removed in Council cost cutting measure

All the Council rubbish bins in red will be removed as a cost saving measure. Source, Auckland Council. Inset, Solar powered Big Belly Bins, such as this one in Gulf Harbour, cost around $11,000 each, but save money over time because they alert contractors when they need emptying.

Removing a significant number of public rubbish bins is one of Auckland Council’s cost saving proposals – almost 90 bins (30 percent) will be removed from public places on the Hibiscus Coast.

The proposal was put before the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at its workshop on June 13 where it received a mixed response.

Although the local board was asked for feedback, Council is insisting on the changes – its report reminded members that the Governing Body “holds the ultimate decision-making responsibility for the contracts with respect to budget and minimum service levels”.

The proposal will see 30 percent of Auckland’s 10,000 rubbish bins removed. Council staff calculate this could save around $1.5m per annum.

Bins to be removed are chosen for being “in low usage areas, areas with multiple bins, or neighbourhood parks that receive active care and attention from residents”. Locally, the removals are largely from Ōrewa, Silverdale and Stanmore Bay, but all areas are affected.

Local board members were particularly concerned at removal of bins from beside beaches, where they are in high demand, especially in summer.

In response, Auckland Council Programme Manager, Sandra May said that people have learned to take rubbish home with them from regional parks, where no bins are provided, and that this behavioural change will include other public areas in time.

Council proposes signs to encourage people to take their rubbish and recycling home. 

Local board members noted that new habits take time.

“It sounds good,” deputy chair Julia Parfitt said, “but what will actually happen? In regional parks, there is still clearing up – a lot of the rubbish isn’t taken home.”

Board members also mentioned the potential for more litter, and Council’s report noted this too, suggesting that its contract for the collection of ‘loose litter’ would not change and that this could “mitigate the potential adverse effects of reducing bins”.

Chair Gary Brown described it as “a hell of a lot of bins to lose”. 

“Sometimes they overflow four or five times a day in busy areas,” he said. “Surely this is a core service that we should not be messing with?”

May replied that if the local board doesn’t want to remove bins, it will need to fund the ongoing service for the larger number of bins itself.

Once the bins have been removed, Council says it will monitor user feedback to assess the impact of the proposal and take appropriate measures to address concerns or issues that arise and manage the complaints. 

Council staff gave the local board three days to get its feedback in. Deputy chair Julia Parfitt says the board raised issues such as the potential to save money by using smarter technology such as Big Belly solar powered bins, which are expensive but compress rubbish and emit a signal when full. 

At the same time, the local board’s plan to install recycling bins around the community, to reduce waste to landfill, has been removed from its work programme. Council’s advice to the local board was that public recycling bins are not effective as people put general rubbish in them. This means the contents must all go to landfill – a problem that affects around 85 percent of the recycling put in public recycling bins.