Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of MRW, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Council and contractor in contamination row

collection

A dispute between Amey and Gloucester City Council has continued over who is responsible for contaminating recyclables, with the council blaming Amey and Amey passing the buck to members of the public.

In June the council withheld a £300,000 payment to the contractor, which it accused of having lost 2,000 tonnes of materials which could have been sold for nearly £250,000.

A report to councillors at that time noted that the council and Amey had agreed on a ’worst case scenario’ of income of £699,000 for the last financial year but only £446,000 was raised, pushing Gloucester’s environment operation into deficit.

Cabinet member for environment Richard Cook, told MRW: “We discovered that Amey has collected stuff for recycling but about 700 tonnes has been sent to landfill and 300 tonnes sent on to others but rejected as contaminated, so it’s about 1,000 tonnes in all.

“I do not accept that it has been contaminated by the public. We have a kerbside system with 55-litre boxes, one for plastics and cans and the other for paper and glass. Where people do not have two boxes, or do nt need that many, Amey is supposed to collect the waste and sort it into different lorry pods. [But] that is not happening – they are just putting it into any old pod.”

Cook said Gloucester was still withholding the payment, and “we have held several meetings and made no progress because they blame residents for the contamination”.

A motion to the full council last week from Liberal Democrat opposition group leader Jeremy Hilton called on Cook to “increase the frequency of meetings he holds with Amey from current quarterly meetings to monthly meetings until the matter of poor performance by Amey is resolved”.

Hilton told MRW this demand was removed from the motion by the ruling Conservatives, which said Cook had met Amey three times in as many weeks.

Amey’s account director Steve Wightman said: “Unfortunately, there seems to be ongoing misunderstanding about the recycling process.

“Any waste put in a recycling box that is contaminated cannot be recycled… While our collection teams have occasionally commingled some recycling in the past, this recycling has always been subsequently sorted at a reprocessing plant. This has only taken place at periods of high demand (for instance, Christmas) and with the consent of the council.”

Wightman said it was “unfortunate” that Gloucester had not introduced a second recycling box across the city.

“This was what had been agreed in 2016 and we believe would have resulted in higher recycling rates,” he said.

“As we previously said, we have seen absolutely no evidence that recyclable material has ever been sent to landfill. We are happy to have further discussions with the council to address any other misunderstandings.”

 

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.