bournemouth borough council municipal waste management ... · presentation for the focus groups to...

1

Bournemouth Borough Council

Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2011-2026

Consultation Report

2

1. Executive summary 6

2. Introduction 8

2.1. Context 8 2.2. Aims and objectives 8

3. Discussion groups 10

3.1. Officers groups 10 3.2. Elected councillors 10 3.3. Waste collection operatives 10

4. Methodology 11

4.1. Web based consultation survey 11 4.2. Roadshows 12 4.3. Focus and discussion groups 12 4.4. Topic guide 13 4.5. Interpretation of quantitative data 14 4.6. Interpretation of qualitative data 14

5. Consultation survey findings 15

5.1. Headline results 15 5.2. Food waste collection options 15 5.3. Waste collection options 18 5.4. Waste disposal options 23 5.5. Strategy objectives 28 5.6. Waste campaigns and initiatives 31 5.7. Demographic profile 40

6. Focus group results 47

6.1. Recycling targets one 47 6.2. Waste prevention 48 6.3. Collection options 50 6.4. Waste treatment 52 6.5. Recycling targets two 52

7. Key messages 54

Contents

3

List of tables

Table Page

Table 1: Sample profile 15

Table 2: Matrix of options provided on the questionnaire 18

Table 3: Do you think Bournemouth should strive to achieve a higher recycling and composting rate by 2020?

47

Table 4: List any waste prevention activities that you are aware of 49

Table 5: Matrix of waste collection options 50

Table 6: Which waste collection option do you prefer? 52

Table 7: Which priorities are most important to you? 52


53

4

List of figures

Figure Page

Figure 1: Web survey screenshot 11

Figure 2: If we collected food waste weekly, to what extent do you agree that your rubbish could be continued to be collected weekly

16

Figure 3: If we collected food waste weekly, to what extent do you agree that your rubbish could be collected every other week

16

Figure 4: How likely would you be to use a separate weekly food waste collection if your rubbish bin continued to be collected every week?

17

Figure 5: There are two methods of food waste collection – external caddy and wheeled bin. Which method do you prefer?

18

Figure 6: Ranked waste collection options (overall) 19

Figure 7: Ranked waste collection options (web) 20

Figure 8: Ranked waste collection options (roadshow) 21

Figure 9: Comments on the waste collection options (roadshow) 22

Figure 10: To what extent do you agree or disagree that waste generated in

Bournemouth should be dealt within 100 miles of Bournemouth’s boundaries? 23

Figure 11: How important are the following criteria when considering treatment facilities for waste (overall)

24

Figure 12: How important are the following criteria when considering treatment

facilities for waste (web) 25

Figure 13: How important are the following criteria when considering treatment facilities for waste (roadshow)

26

Figure 14: Comments on the waste disposal options (roadshow) 27

Figure 15: Thinking about these seven objectives, to what extent do you agree or disagree that they will help manage our waste in a more sustainable way?

28

Figure 16: Comments on the key objectives (web) 29

Figure 17: Comments on the key objectives (roadshow) 30

Figure 18: On average a household currently throws away 13.5kg of waste per week. By 2016, Bournemouth aim to reduce the waste produced by each household to 8kg per week. Do you think the target is... (web)

31

Figure 19: On average a household currently throws away 13.5kg of waste per week. By 2016, Bournemouth aim to reduce the waste produced by each household to 8kg per week. To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should aim to reduce the

32

5

amount of waste we produce? (roadshow)

Figure 20: Which of the following waste campaigns and initiatives are you aware of? 33

Figure 21: Thinking about your own personal situation, which of the following schemes would encourage you to minimise your waste?

34

Figure 22: What information would be most effective in helping you to reduce your household waste?

35

Figure 23: Is there anything else Bournemouth Council could do to help you lower the amount of household waste you throw away? (web)

36

Figure 24: Is there anything else Bournemouth Council could do to help you lower the amount of household waste you throw away? (roadshow)

37

Figure 25: Do you have any other comments on the Municipal Waste Management Strategy? (web)

38

Figure 26: Do you have any other comments on the Municipal Waste Management Strategy? (roadshow)

39

Figure 27: Gender and age demographic profile 41

Figure 28: What do you consider to be your ethnic background? 43

Figure 29: What is your religion or belief? 44

Figure 30: Including yourself, how many adults (aged 18 or over) live in your household? 45

Figure 31: How many children (aged 17 or younger) live in your household? 45

Figure 32: How do you currently get your general household waste collected? 46

Figure 33: Do you consider that you have a disability as defined under the Equality Act 2010

46

6

The Bournemouth Municipal Waste Management Strategy (MWMS) is a framework of how Bournemouth Borough Council intends to manage the municipal waste (including domestic and some commercial waste) produced within the borough, for the next 15 years.

As part of the MWMS development process there is a statutory requirement to undertake public consultation. The Council chose to carry out a six week public consultation, covering the period from 20th June 2011 to 31st July 2011.

The consultation process involved three main methods of consultation:

1 Web based consultation survey

2 A series of six road shows

3 Two facilitated focus groups and four discussion groups involving internal and external stakeholders

Drawing on the outcomes from the consultation the following key messages emerged:

Support for food waste collections

There was support for the introduction of a separate weekly food waste collection. Almost three quarters (73.0%) commented it was likely that they would use a separate weekly food waste collection if their rubbish bin continued to be collected every week.

However there were mixed messages about the preferred collection frequency for the rubbish bin if the Council did introduce a separate weekly food waste collection. 69.4% agreed that their rubbish could be continued to be collected weekly, yet 56.3% also agreed that their rubbish could be collected every other week.

Waste disposal options

There was considerable support for the proximity principal. 77.6% agreed that waste generated in Bournemouth should be dealt within 100 miles of Bournemouth’s boundaries.

All respondents were asked how important a number of different criteria were when considering treatment facilities for waste. It was found that the top three criteria were cost, noise and air quality and odour.

Waste collection options

All respondents were asked about their preferences regarding the possible options for the future delivery of the waste and recycling services.

Option four was selected as being the most preferred choice by 31.3%, this option included a fortnightly collection for recycling, a weekly collection for food waste, a fortnightly collection for garden waste and a fortnightly collection for non recyclable waste.

There was a preference for a co-mingled collection of garden waste and food waste.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7

Waste strategy objectives

There was considerable support for the MWMS objectives. 77.7% agreed that the seven objectives would help Bournemouth manage its waste in a more sustainable way.

Waste campaigns and initiatives

The most popular initiatives to help encourage respondents to minimise their household waste were a furniture re-use shop at Millhams CRC, Freecycle and other similar websites and home composting.

The most popular information that respondents felt would be most effective in helping them to reduce their household waste was how to reduce unwanted mail, how to minimise waste when buying things and details on high street services where they can hire, repair, trade in and donate goods.

8

The Bournemouth MWMS is a framework of how Bournemouth Borough Council intends to manage the municipal waste (including domestic and some commercial waste) produced within the borough, for the next 15 years. The MWMS will replace the 2001 Waste Management Strategy for Bournemouth, in order to take account of Defra’s 2005 revised guidance on the format of MWMS’s (Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies’1.

The Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (The Landfill Directive) sets mandatory targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. Local authorities are central to meeting these targets. The MWMS will set out how the Council intends to optimise current service provision, and provide the basis for any new operations or infrastructure that is required. The MWMS will reflect community and key stakeholder aspirations, and will seek to ensure cost-effective compliance with all statutory obligations.

2.1 Context

The Council has undertaken a consultation exercise in order to obtain the views from interested parties on the development of a MWMS. This report details the approach to this consultation process and a full breakdown and analysis of the resulting feedback. Stakeholders were consulted upon the draft MWMS. The results of this consultation process have ultimately informed the final Headline Strategy and suite of Action Plans.

The Council recognises that there is often misunderstanding surrounding the development of waste policies and services. Therefore a comprehensive consultation process is required in order to consider a wide range of views prior to committing to any strategic decisions.

The Council believes that involving interested parties at all stages in the production of the MWMS is effective in increasing trust and engagement with stakeholders. This is because consultation:

• Promotes transparency and accountability

• Improves awareness and understanding of the policy area, and can address assumptions

• Encourages public ownership of the policy, therefore increasing public commitment to it

• The production of Bournemouth’s MWMS is of concern to everyone in Bournemouth because they will be affected financially, socially and environmentally by the choices made as a result of it

2.2 Aims and objectives

This report aims to compile and evaluate all the post draft consultation exercises. The outcomes of this report will therefore be used to inform the final Headline Strategy and Action Plans.

1 Defra, Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies, July 2005 www.defra.gov.uk

2. INTRODUCTION

9

The aims and objectives of the post draft consultation process include:

• Establish what the Council deems acceptable to incorporate in to the final strategy

• Assess whether there are any specific technologies or policies which the Council does not want incorporated into the final strategy

• Establish what participants deem acceptable to incorporate into the final strategy

• Ensure all relevant parties feel they have been involved and had input into the strategy and therefore take ownership of the strategy once it is produced

10

Prior to the start of the consultation campaign, three internal discussion groups were held in order to refine and ultimately provide approval the format of the consultation presentation for the focus groups to be held as part of the consultation process.

These were held with three internal stakeholder groups on 22nd June 2011:

• Officer groups

• Elected Councillors

• Waste collection operatives

3.1 Officer groups

Senior waste management officers met to discuss the format of the focus group presentation. The draft presentation was made to the group in the draft format, followed by a group discussion which provided critical analysis of this format. The group suggested several amendments to the content, format and visual design where changes were required.

These amendments were then made and then approved by the officers prior to the following discussion group with the Elected Councillors who had the final approval. It was also agreed that Strategic Operations Manager, Larry Austin would attend the focus groups to detail the current service position of the Council.

3.2 Elected councillors

Elected Councillors were presented the revised focus group presentation in full which included a description of how the events would be run. The Councillors then provided scrutiny of the presentation and requested changes to be made. This presentation was then approved by the Councillors to be used during consultation focus groups.

3.3 Waste collection operatives

A third discussion group was held with waste collection operatives, ultimately to test the approved focus group format and presentation. Any lessons learned during this presentation were noted and drawn upon during the later focus groups.

3. DISCUSSION GROUPS

11

As part of the MWMS development process there is a statutory requirement to undertake public consultation. The Council chose to carry out a six week public consultation, covering the period from 20th June 2011 to 31st July 2011.

During the consultation period, local residents and interested parties could access all consultation documents through the Council website. This included:

• Draft Headline Municipal Waste Management Strategy

• Draft Baseline Report

• Draft Key Drivers Report

• Draft Waste Treatment Technology Report

• Draft Strategic Environmental Assessment Report

• Draft Waste Prevention Plan

The consultation process involved three main methods of consultation:

•••• Web based consultation survey

•••• A series of six road shows

•••• Two facilitated focus groups and four discussion groups involving internal and external stakeholders

4.1 Web based consultation survey

A consultation survey was designed by Hyder Consulting with support from the Council Waste Management and Corporate Consultation teams.

The survey was published online via the Council consultation portal and was available for the consultation period. Residents were able to complete the survey online or alternatively print the survey out and return to the Council.

Figure 1: Web survey screenshot

4. METHODOLOGY

12

4.2 Roadshows

During the consultation period, six roadshows were held in high footfall areas around the borough:

• 30th June - Boscombe precinct

• 2nd July - Bournemouth Square

• 15th July - Castlepoint Shopping Centre

• 9th July - Bournemouth Square

• 17th July - Muscliffe Park

• 28th July - Meyrick Park

The event included displays, copies of the draft MWMS and other supporting material; and attended by council staff and technical advisors from Hyder Consulting who answered questions and discussed the MWMS with the members of the public.

Visitors to the roadshow were asked to complete a consultation survey. If a resident was too busy to complete the survey at the roadshow, they were directed to the online consultation portal or given a paper based version that could be completed at a more convenient time before being returned to the Council. Completed questionnaires were stored in a secure location in accordance with the Data Protection Act.

4.3 Focus and discussion groups

Focus and discussion groups are an excellent way to gather detailed and constructive feedback on the MWMS. It was decided to run three internal and three external focus and discussion groups:

Internal stakeholders

• Senior waste management officers (nine participants) on 22nd June 2011

• Elected Councillors and waste officers (nine participants) on 22nd June 2011

• Waste collection operatives (nine participants) on 22nd June 2011

External stakeholders

• Special interest groups (seven participants) on 12th July 2011

• Local residents (13 participants) on 13th July

• DOTS Disability CIC group (10 participants) on 19th July

13

4.4 Topic guide

The issues from the MWMS were set out in the form of a topic guide suggesting particular lines of enquiry but the respondents were encouraged to talk freely about what they saw as the issues. The interviewer used a variety of open-ended questions to encourage comment and feedback, whilst keeping the discussion broadly in line with the topic guide. Each focus and discussion group lasted approximately two hours.

The topic guide outlined four main exercises:

Session one: Recycling targets

The participants were told that the Council had already met the national waste strategy recycling and composting target of 50% recycling set for 2020 with the current collection and waste treatment provision.

Participants were asked to vote whether they thought Bournemouth should strive to achieve a higher recycling and composting rate by 2020.

Session two: Waste prevention

Participants were asked to list any waste prevention campaigns operated by the Council or in partnership with the Council that they were aware of.

The participants were then shown a list of waste prevention campaigns that are currently being used by the Council including:

• Real nappy incentive scheme

• Smart shopping

• Give or take days

• Love Food Hate Waste

• Mail Preference Service

• Home re-use

• Product services

A group discussion was then facilitated to discuss and suggest any further ideas on how the Council could promote and support waste prevention in the community.

Session three: Collection options

The participants were given an explanation of the five waste collection options which have been short listed by the Council. In addition there was a more detailed explanation of the differences between separate food waste collection bins and mixing food waste with green waste.

The participants were asked to vote for their preferred waste collection option or options. Each participant received five votes.

Session four: Waste treatment

The participants were given the following list of criteria to consider when choosing the appropriate waste treatment option:

14

• Minimising transportation to the facility

• Cost

• Noise and air quality

• Visual impact

• Odour

• Carbon impact

• Provide employment opportunities

The participants were asked to vote for the criteria which were most important to them. Each participant was given seven votes.

Session five: Recycling targets

Participants were asked to vote whether they thought Bournemouth should still strive to achieve a recycling and composting rate higher than 50% by 2020.

4.5 Interpretation of quantitative data

In some instances, the responses to the survey may not add up to 100%. There are several reasons why this might happen: the question may have allowed each respondent to give more than one answer; only the most common responses may be shown in the table or individual percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number so the total may come to 99% or 101%. Please note that the results exclude the non responses.

The questionnaire was designed to promote truthful responses and to minimise social desirability bias. However, some measures of respondents attitudes towards waste and recycling may be subject to a degree of social desirability bias (that is people may provide a response which they think is socially desirable rather a response that in truth reflects their attitude or behaviour).

4.6 Interpretation of qualitative data

It should be noted that the results of qualitative research of this type are not based on quantitative statistical evidence because they involve relatively small sample sizes. Although the sample was chosen to cover a cross section of the groups of interest, this should not be confused with statistical representation. Qualitative research deals with perceptions and whilst these perceptions may well be factual, respondents may also at times hold views based on incorrect or incomplete information and these perceptions have also been included in the report.

15

This section presents the results gained from the consultation survey.

5.1 Headline results

In total 433 completed interviews were achieved. Table 1 outlines the achieved sample.

Table 1: Sample profile

Achieved sample

Percentage of interviews (%)

Web 316 73.0

Roadshow 117 27.0

Total 433 100.0

5.2 Food waste collection options

All respondents were asked, if the Council collected food waste weekly to what extent do they agree that their rubbish bin could be continued to be collected every week or could be collected every other week. The results are shown in Figure 2 and 3.

A higher percentage of respondents felt that their rubbish should be collected every week compared to those who felt their rubbish could be collected every other week. 69.4% agreed that their rubbish could be continued to be collected weekly. However it is interesting to note that over half of respondents (56.3%) agreed that their rubbish could be collected every other week.

It was found that a higher percentage of respondents disagreed that their rubbish could be collected every other week. Overall, 39.3% disagreed that their rubbish could be collected every other week, compared to only 18.4% who disagreed that their rubbish could be continued to be collected weekly.

5. CONSULTATION SURVEY FINDINGS

16

Figure 2: If we collected food waste weekly, to what extent do you agree that your rubbish could be continued to be collected weekly

Figure 3: If we collected food waste weekly, to what extent do you agree that your rubbish could be collected every other week

0.9

3.7

19.4

13.0

28.7

34.3

0.4

7.3

9.0

11.0

19.6

52.7

0.6

6.2

12.2

11.6

22.4

47.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Dont know

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

0.9

20.0

16.4

3.6

37.3

21.8

28.5

12.0

4.5

31.0

24.0

0.3

25.9

13.4

4.3

33.0

23.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Dont know

Strongly disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly agree

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

17

All respondents were asked how likely they would be to use a separate weekly food waste collection if their rubbish bin continued to be collected every week. The results are shown in Figure 4.

Overall, almost three quarters (73.0%) commented it was likely that they would use a separate weekly food waste collection. Only 18.7% commented it was unlikely that they would use a separate weekly food waste collection.

Figure 4: How likely would you be to use a separate weekly food waste collection if your rubbish bin continued to be collected every week?

3.4

9.5

5.2

60.3

1.3

13.9

7.1

8.1

21.6

48.1

0.9

11.0

7.7

7.3

51.4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Don't know

Very unlikely

Unlikely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Likely

Very likely

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

18

All respondents were asked whether they would prefer an external caddy or a wheeled bin for the collection of the food waste. The results are shown in Figure 5.

Overall, just over half (53.1%) would prefer a wheeled bin for the collection of food waste.

Figure 5: There are two methods of food waste collection – external caddy and wheeled bin. Which method do you prefer?

5.3 Waste collection options

All respondents were asked about their preferences regarding the possible options for the future delivery of the waste and recycling services.

Table 2 shows the matrix of options that the respondents were asked to consider and rank in order of their preference; with one being their most preferred and five representing the least preferred option.

Table 2: Matrix of options provided on the questionnaire

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Recycling Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly

Food waste Weekly Weekly

- Weekly Weekly

Garden waste Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly

Non-recyclable waste

Weekly Weekly Weekly Fortnightly Fortnightly

Cost of scheme

£48 per household

£51 per household

£38 per household

£41 per household

£45 per household

Ranking

8.0

53.8

38.1

7.9

50.9

41.2

8.0

53.1

39.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Don't know

Wheeled bin

External caddy

Percentage (%)

Overall

Roadshow

Web

19

Figure 6 outlines the overall rankings.

Option four was selected as being the most preferred choice by 31.3% of respondents, with 22.3% selecting option three as their preference. It is interesting to note that option four is the preferred choice, as this would involve a fortnightly collection of non-recyclable waste.

The options ranked most often by respondents as being least preferable were options three and five (selected by 29.0% and 26.2% respectively).

The results show that the respondents would prefer a co-mingled collection of garden waste and food waste. Option one and four were selected by more respondents as being their preferred choice and option two and five were selected by more respondents as being least preferable.

Figure 6: Ranked waste collection options (overall)

16.3

31.3

22.3

11.7

21.0

18.1

17.1

16.3

22.0

22.5

18.9

15.3

21.8

20.5

23.8

20.5

20.2

10.6

22.3

21.5

26.2

16.1

29.0

23.6

11.1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Option 5

Option 4

Option 3

Option 2

Option 1

Percentage (%)

20

Figure 7 provides an overview of the rankings provided from the web survey.

The option selected most often as the preferred choice was option four, selected by 30.4% of respondents.

The options ranked most often by participants as being least preferable were options three and five (selected by 31.1% and 26.8% respectively).

Figure 7: Ranked waste collection options (web)

17.1

30.4

21.1

12.1

22.9

17.5

17.1

13.9

24.6

21.4

17.1

15.7

22.9

19.6

25.0

21.4

19.6

11.1

21.8

19.3

26.8

17.1

31.1

21.8

11.4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Option 5

Option 4

Option 3

Option 2

Option 1

Percentage (%)

21

Figure 8 provides an overview of the rankings provided from the roadshow survey.

The option selected most often as the preferred choice was option four, selected by 34.0% of respondents.

The options ranked most often by participants as being least preferable were options two and five (selected by 28.3% and 24.5% respectively).

Figure 8: Ranked waste collection options (roadshow)

14.2

34.0

25.5

10.4

16.0

19.8

17.0

22.6

15.1

25.5

23.6

14.2

18.9

22.6

20.8

17.9

21.7

9.4

23.6

27.4

24.5

13.2

23.6

28.3

10.4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Option 5

Option 4

Option 3

Option 2

Option 1

Percentage (%)

22

In addition to being able to provide their preferred options, respondents to the roadshow survey were able to comment on the waste collection options. Figure 9 provides a summary of the comments and is based on 45 responses.

14 respondents commented that they are happy with the current service. Five respondents suggested their own collection ideas, including the collection of a greater range of recyclables at the kerbside.

A number of respondents commented on the frequency of the services: four respondents commented that the refuse should remain to be collected weekly, four respondents suggested an increase in the collection frequency for the garden waste scheme and four respondents felt they should be able to recycle more items.

Figure 9: Comments on the waste collection options (roadshow)

14

5

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Like the service as it is at the moment

Own collection ideas

Recycle more items

Increase garden waste collections

Refuse weekly

Issues specific to flats/HMO's

Food waste good idea

Recycling weekly

Cost

Don't produce much food waste

Number of respondents

23

5.4 Waste disposal options

All respondents were asked to what extent do they agree or disagree that waste generated in Bournemouth should be dealt within 100 miles of Bournemouth’s boundaries. The results are shown in Figure 10.

The majority (77.6%) agreed that waste generated in Bournemouth should be dealt within 100 miles of Bournemouth’s boundaries. Only 2.9% disagreed that waste generated in Bournemouth should not be dealt within 100 miles of Bournemouth’s boundaries.

Figure 10: To what extent do you agree or disagree that waste generated in Bournemouth should be dealt within 100 miles of Bournemouth’s boundaries?

1.7

2.6

12.0

26.5

57.3

1.4

1.8

1.4

20.4

32.3

42.8

1.5

1.2

1.7

17.9

30.6

47.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Don't know

Strongly disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly agree

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

24

All respondents were asked how important a number of different criteria are when considering treatment facilities for waste. The overall results are shown in Figure 11.

The majority of respondents felt that all criteria were important. The results show that the three top criteria were cost (94.0%), noise and air quality (92.9%) and odour (92.9%).

Figure 11: How important are the following criteria when considering treatment facilities for waste (overall)

40.7

47.6

51.3

34.3

61.7

41.6

33.1

47.1

46.4

41.6

47.3

31.2

41.8

45.2

8.8

4.8

5.4

13.9

5.4

11.4

17.5

1.9

3.5

4.5

3.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Minimising distance travelled to the

facility

Cost

Noise and air quality

Visual impact

Odour

Carbon impact

Employment opportunities

Percentage (%)

25

Figure 12 provides an overview of the results provided from the web survey.


Figure 12: How important are the following criteria when considering treatment facilities for waste (web)

38.0

45.2

47.2

33.9

59.0

34.6

25.4

50.8

48.5

45.6

48.2

33.9

46.4

49.5

7.9

5.0

4.9

13.0

4.9

13.1

20.2

1.3

3.6

4.9

3.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


facility

Cost


Visual impact

Odour

Carbon impact


Percentage (%)

26

Figure 13 provides an overview of the results provided from the roadshow survey.


Figure 13: How important are the following criteria when considering treatment facilities for waste (roadshow)

47.9

53.8

62.1

35.3

69.0

60.0

53.4

37.6

41.0

31.0

44.8

24.1

29.6

33.6

11.1

4.3

6.9

16.4

6.9

7.0

10.3

3.4

3.4

3.5

2.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


facility

Cost


Visual impact

Odour

Carbon impact


Percentage (%)

27

Respondents to the roadshow survey were able to comment on the waste disposal criteria. Figure 14 provides a summary of the comments and is based on 13 responses.

Three respondents stated that they would like the Council to move further towards incineration and three respondents would like more bring banks to be located in Bournemouth.

Two respondents did not want a waste treatment facility to be located within Bournemouth and two respondents thought the Council should consider a range of disposal options.

Figure 14 – Comments on the waste disposal options (roadshow)

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

0 1 2 3 4

Pro incineration

More bring banks

NIMBY

Different disposal options

Reduce waste

Partner with other Local Authorities

Commercial recycling


28

5.5 Strategy objectives

All respondents were asked to what extent do they agree or disagree that the MWMS’s seven objectives will help manage waste in a more sustainable way. The results are shown in Figure 15.

Overall, the majority of respondents (77.7%) agreed that the seven objectives would help Bournemouth manage waste in a more sustainable way.

Figure 15: Thinking about these seven objectives, to what extent do you agree or disagree that they will help manage our waste in a more sustainable way?

1.8

10.9

42.7

44.5

2.9

1.6

2.0

19.2

51.8

22.5

2.6

1.2

1.4

17

49.4

28.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Don't know

Strongly disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly agree

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

29

Respondents to the web survey were able to comment on the seven objectives. Figure 16 provides an overview of any comments and is based on 55 responses.

11 respondents felt that Bournemouth should lobby the Government to reduce the amount of packaging produced by manufacturers and supermarkets. 10 respondents stated that they thought there should be a greater focus on education and five respondents felt that the Council should listen more to the local residents.

Figure 16: Comments on the key objectives (web)

11

10

5

4

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Reduce packaging

Education

Listen to the local people

Increase items to be recycled

Dislike EU targets

Keep it simple

Commerical waste recycling

Nothing


Convenience

Encourage composting

Use energy from waste

Good objectives

Comments on the survey

Incentives


30

Respondents to the roadshow survey were able to comment on the seven objectives. Figure 17 provides an overview of any comments and is based on 24 responses.

Six respondents were against basing any objectives on EU targets. Six respondents wanted the Council to lobby the Government to reduce the amount of packaging produced by supermarkets.

Four respondents thought there should be a greater focus on education.

Figure 17: Comments on the key objectives (roadshow)

6

6

4

3

3

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Against EU targets

Reduce packaging

Education

Keep it simple

Convenience

Increase communications


31

5.6 Waste campaigns and initiatives

The MWMS aims to reduce the waste produced by each household to eight kgs per week by 2016. Respondents to the web survey were asked to comment on the waste prevention target. The results are shown in Figure 18.

The majority of respondents (51.7%) felt that the target was just right. The percentage of respondents who commented that the target was either too high or too low was about equal, 18.1% felt that the target was too high and 16.4% felt that the target was too low.

Figure 18: On average a household currently throws away 13.5kg of waste per week. By 2016, Bournemouth aim to reduce the waste produced by each household to 8kg per week. Do you think the target is... (web)

13.8

16.4

51.7

18.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Don't know

Too low

Just right

Too high

Percentage (%)

32

Respondents to the web survey were asked to comment on the waste prevention target. The results are shown in Figure 19.

The majority of respondents (90.6%) agreed that Bournemouth should aim to reduce the amount of waste produced. Only 8.5% of respondents disagreed that Bournemouth should aim to reduce the amount of waste produced.

Figure 19: On average a household currently throws away 13.5kg of waste per week. By 2016, Bournemouth aim to reduce the waste produced by each household to eight kg per week. To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should aim to reduce the amount of waste we produce? (roadshow)

The Council currently offers a wide range of waste campaigns and initiatives. All respondents were asked which campaigns and initiatives they were aware of. The results are shown in Figure 20.

The majority of respondents recognised the main waste and recycling services offered by the Council. 91.7% of respondents were aware of the Big Bin/Little Bin schemes, and at least three quarters of respondents were aware of the green waste collection scheme and Millhams Community Recycling Centre (88.2% and 83.7% respectively). However less than half of respondents were aware of the bulky household waste collection scheme and the excess waste policy (42.5% and 40.1% respectively).

Home compositing was the most recognised waste campaign or initiative. 59.2% of respondents were aware of the initiative.

Over three quarters of respondents were aware of the Dorset Reclaim service (75.5%).

1.7

6.8

0.9

26.5

64.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Strongly disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly agree

Percentage (%)

33

Figure 20: Which of the following waste campaigns and initiatives are you aware of?

34

All respondents were asked which initiatives would encourage them to minimise their household waste. The results are shown in Figure 21.

The top three initiatives were a furniture re-use shop at Millhams CRC (56.8%), Freecycle and other similar websites (56.6%) and home composting (55.3%).

The least preferred initiatives were council run workshops to teach waste prevention activities (23.9%) and incentives for using washable nappies (26.1%).

It was found that the roadshow responses were always higher than the web responses. This is likely due to the fact that each of the schemes would have been explained during the roadshow survey.

Figure 21: Thinking about your own personal situation, which of the following schemes would encourage you to minimise your waste?

34.8

35.7

50.4

64.3

58.3

52.2

63.5

19.2

21.9

40.8

41.9

54.0

58.5

54.0

23.9

26.1

43.7

48.7

55.3

56.6

56.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Council run workshops

Incentives to use washable nappies

Community composting

Monthly Give or Take Days

Home composting

Freecycle and other similar …

A furniture reuse shop at Millhams

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

35

All respondents were asked what information would be most effective in helping them to reduce their household waste. The results are shown in Figure 22.

Overall, it was found that the majority of respondents felt that information on how to reduce unwanted mail (69.4%), how to minimise waste when buying things (65.7%) and details on high street services where they can hire, repair, trade in and donate goods (63.9%) would be most effective in helping them to reduce their household waste.

Figure 22: What information would be most effective in helping you to reduce your household waste?

39.1

35.7

59.1

73.0

70.4

38.2

40.4

65.9

62.5

68.9

38.5

39.0

63.9

65.7

69.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

How to reduce food waste

How to produce less waste at

home

Details on high street services

How to minimise waste when buying things

How to reduce unwanted mail

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

36

Respondents to the web survey were asked if there was anything else the Council could do to help them lower the amount of household waste they throw away. The results are shown in Figure 23 and are based on 126 responses.

29 respondents wanted to be able to recycle more items including plastics and foil. 27 respondents stated that they thought more should be done to reduce the amount of packaging which is produced. However, 18 respondents said that nothing further could be done to help them reduce their household waste.

Figure 23: Is there anything else Bournemouth Council could do to help you lower the amount of household waste you throw away? (web)

29

27

18

10

7

6

5

5

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Recycle more items

Reduce packaging

Nothing


Increased communications on what can/cannot be recycled

Incentives


Encourage home composting

Improved bulky waste service, collection/drop-off

Reduce junk mail

Education

Stop Bournemouth free magazine

Keep weekly refuse collection

Allow vans in to Millhams

Target those over filling bins

Council to join with other Council's to deal with waste


37

Respondents to the roadshow survey were asked if there was anything else the Council could do to help them lower the amount of household waste they throw away. The results are shown in Figure 24 and are based on 39 responses.

11 respondents stated that they think more should be done to reduce the amount of packaging which is produced. Eight respondents wanted to be able to recycle more items including plastics and foil.

Four respondents gave positive comments on the current services provided by the Council.

Figure 24: Is there anything else Bournemouth Council could do to help you lower the amount of household waste you throw away? (roadshow)

11

8

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Reduce packaging

Recycle more items

Positive service comments

Look at commercial waste

Information on real nappy campaign

Education

More information

Communal recycling/composting

Incentives

Efficient use of transport


38

Respondents to the web survey were asked if they had any other comments on the MWMS. The results are shown in Figure 25 and are based on 112 responses.

13 respondents gave positive comments on the current services provided by the Council.

A number of respondents made comments about the current waste and recycling services. 10 respondents wanted an increase in the collection frequency for the garden waste collections. Nine respondents felt that more work needed to be done to develop the recycling facilities for flats and houses in multiple occupation (HMO).

10 respondents stated that they did not want an increase in the number of bins for waste and recycling. Nine respondents felt that the Council should do more work to educate local residents about waste and recycling.

Figure 25: Do you have any other comments on the Municipal Waste Management Strategy? (web)

13

10

10

9

9

8

7

7

5

5

5

4

4

3

3

3

3

2

2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14


Don't increase the number of bins



Education

Reduce packaging

Keep it as it is

Use fines

Comments on the service

Issues with Millhams

Nothing

Use communal bins

Suggestions on the options

Deal with waste locally

Incentives

Encourage reduce/reuse

Issues with old people

Recycle more items

Use energy from waste


39

Respondents to the roadshow survey were asked if they had any other comments on the MWMS. The results are shown in Figure 26 and are based on 20 responses.

Six respondents gave positive comments on the current services provided by the Council. Six respondents made comments about service recommendations, including increasing the materials that can be accepted for recycling and increasing the collection frequency for the garden waste collection service.

Figure 26: Do you have any other comments on the Municipal Waste Management Strategy? (roadshow)

6

6

3

3

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Service recommendations

Commercial waste

Education

Pro food waste collections


40

5.7 Demographic profile

Figure 27 provides a breakdown of gender and age of the respondents.

Overall there was a good split in responses from both male (44.9%) and female (55.1%). It was found that females were more likely to complete the roadshow survey and males were more likely to complete the web survey.

Responses were received across all age ranges. Overall, the predominant age bracket was those who were in the 35-44 and 45-54 age ranges, representing 50.2% of responses. The response from those under 18 is pleasing although still low in terms of overall representation.

41

Figure 27: Gender and age demographic profile

4.3

4.3

20.9

33.9

30.4

6.1

57.5

42.5

1.6

2.2

10.6

21.9

24.8

23.8

13.8

1.3

54.2

45.8

1.2

1.6

8.9

17.1

23.7

26.5

18.3

2.6

55.1

44.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Prefer not to say

75 + years

65 - 74 years

55 - 64 years

45 - 54 years

35 - 44 years

25 - 34 years

18 - 24 years

Female

Male

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

42

Figure 28 provides a breakdown of ethnic background.

A range of ethnic groups were represented in the responses received. However the majority of responses were received from those identifying themselves as White English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British (89.2%).

Please note that no responses were received for White Gypsy or Irish Traveller, Mixed White and Black Caribbean, Mixed White and Black African, any other mixed background, Black/British Caribbean, Black/British African, Any other Black/African/Caribbean background, Asian/British Pakistani, Asian/British Chinese, Arab or any other ethnic group.

43

Figure 28: What do you consider to be your ethnic background?

1.8

0.9

5.3

0.9

91.2

6.1

0.3

1.3

2.3

1.6

88.4

4.5

0.2

0.9

1.7

1.4

1.4

89.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Prefer not to say

Any other Asian background

Asian/British Indian

Mixed White and Asian

Any other White background

White Irish

White English/Welsh/Scottish/N

.Irish/British

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

44

Figure 29 provides a breakdown of religion or belief. Please note that this was only asked on the web survey.

The majority of responses were received from those identifying themselves as having no religion (34.0%) or those identifying themselves as Christian (50.2%).

Figure 29: What is your religion or belief?

Figure 30 and 31 provides a breakdown of the household composition.

The majority of respondents were from households with either one adult (18.5%) or two adults (63.6%). The majority of respondents were from households with either one child (38.0%) or two children (35.2%).

9.6

4.0

0.0

0.0

1.7

0.0

0.7

50.2

34.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Prefer to not say

Any other …

Sikh

Muslim

Jewish

Hindu

Buddhist

Christian

No religion

Percentage (%)

45

Figure 30: Including yourself, how many adults (aged 18 or over) live in your household?

Figure 31: How many children (aged 17 or younger) live in your household?

0.9

3.5

7.0

60.5

28.1

1.6

0.6

5.1

12.8

64.7

15.1

1.4

0.5

4.7

11.3

63.6

18.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Prefer not to say

6 or more

5

4

3

2

1

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

3.1

6.3

9.4

43.8

37.5

22.7

1.8

4.5

32.7

38.2

17.6

0.7

2.8

5.6

35.2

38.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Prefer not to say

6 or more

5

4

3

2

1

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

46

Figure 32 outlines how the respondents currently have their general household waste collected.

The majority of respondents had their own wheeled bin (84.7%).

Figure 32: How do you currently get your general household waste collected?

Figure 37 provides a breakdown of whether the respondent had a disability defined under the Equality Act 2010. Please note that this was only asked on the web survey.

The majority of respondents did not consider themselves to have a disability (89.7%).

Figure 37: Do you consider that you have a disability as defined under the Equality Act 2010

20.4

79.6

13.4

86.6

15.3

84.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

A shared communal bin

Your own wheeled bin

Percentage (%)

Overall

Web

Roadshow

7.4

89.7

2.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Prefer not to say

No

Yes

Percentage (%)

47

The following section summarises the outputs from the two workshops. While the focus groups were held separately, the outcomes have been combined below to summarise the main findings.

6.1 Recycling targets one

The first part of the focus group was focused on the recycling targets in the MWMS.

The groups were told that the Council had already met the national waste strategy recycling and composting target of 50% set for 2020 with the current collection and waste treatment provision. Participants were invited to consider whether Bournemouth should strive to achieve a higher recycling and composting rate by 2020, and the results are shown in Table 3.

The results show that all participants felt that Bournemouth should strive to achieve a higher recycling and composting rate by 2020.


Special interest group

Resident group

Much higher 5 7

Higher 2 6

Stay the same

0 0

Lower 0 0

Participants were then asked to discuss the target amongst themselves and feedback to the group afterwards.

All participants felt that Bournemouth should be trying to achieve a higher recycling and composting target. All participants accepted that Bournemouth was currently a high performing council, but it was felt that Bournemouth should continue to push and improve its recycling and composting rate.

“The national target doesn’t stretch us enough” Special interest group

A number of participants felt that Bournemouth should lead the way on environmental issues.

“Bournemouth should set a standard for doing well, and show others” Resident group

6. FOCUS GROUP RESULTS

48

“If Scotland and Wales are aiming higher, then we can as well” Resident group

It was felt that by trying to achieve a higher recycling and composting target it would help Bournemouth’s green image and encourage tourism.

“Bournemouth is striving to be a green town, we need to lead the way and achieve a higher recycling rate” Special interest group

“It would be good for Bournemouth to have a green image” Special interest group

A number of participants felt that a higher recycling and composting rate would be better for the environment.

“There is a lack of natural resources so we need to do better, we need to recycle more” Special interest group

“We need to recycle more for the future of our children and the environment” Resident group

However a minority of participants felt that with the current recycling and waste provision, Bournemouth might not be able to achieve a much higher recycling and composting rate. It was felt that further action would be needed through legislation and a greater proportion of household waste would need to be recyclable.

“There is only so much we can do, we need tough legislation to make more things recyclable” Special interest group

6.2 Waste prevention

The second part of the focus group was focused on the waste prevention messages in the MWMS.

Participants were asked to list any waste prevention initiatives or campaigns offered by the Council or in partnership with the Council that they were aware of. The results are shown in Table 4.

The results show that 20 waste prevention initiatives were identified. From the Special interest group two participants did not list any activities and from the resident group six participants did not list any activities.

49

Table 4: List any waste prevention activities that you are aware of

Waste prevention activity Special interest group

Resident group

Waste education 2 -

Big Bin / Little Bin Scheme 4 -

Dorset Reclaim 2 2

Millhams CRC 1 -

Give and take days 1 1

Real nappy incentive scheme 1 1

Dorset Scrap Store 1 -

Green list in local library 1 -

Love Food Hate Waste - 1

Charity shops - 1

Collection of white goods to resell

- 1

Shared bins in town - 1

Litter bins on street - 1

Fabric bins 1 -

Glass bins 1 -

Dog bins 1 -

Fag end bins 1 -

Paper bins 1 -

No answer 2 6

The group were then informed about the waste prevention campaigns and initiatives offered by the Council. Participants were asked to discuss the campaigns amongst themselves and feedback to the group afterwards.

There was limited awareness towards the waste prevention campaigns and initiatives offered the Council. The majority of participants felt that the Council should be doing more to promote the schemes.

“I haven’t heard of any of those, we need to know about them if we are going to participate in them” Resident group

“These activities do help encourage people to reduce their waste; however more information needs to get to residents” Special interest group

Participants did feel that more work needed to be done to educate the public about the importance of waste prevention.

50

“Some people can’t be bothered or don’t have the time to recycle. It’s these people that need to be educated” Special interest group

“People should take more responsibility for the amount of waste they produce” Special interest group

“Waste prevention should be taught as a social responsibility” Special interest group

6.3 Collection options

The third part of the focus group was focused on the possible collection options. The participants were given an explanation of the five waste collection options which have been short listed by the Council. The options are shown in Table 5.

Participants were asked to discuss the possible collection options amongst themselves and feedback to the group afterwards.

Table 5: Matrix of waste collection options

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Recycling Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly

Food waste Weekly Weekly

- Weekly Weekly

Garden waste Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly

Non-recyclable waste

Weekly Weekly Weekly Fortnightly Fortnightly

Cost of scheme

£48 per household

£51 per household

£38 per household

£41 per household

£45 per household

A number of participants were concerned about how Bournemouth could afford to introduce the new services.

“How do we pay for it? I assume it means that our council tax will go up and residents will be forced to pay for it. People don’t have enough money as it is” Resident group

A number of participants raised concerns about whether people would be able to accommodate the extra waste and recycling bins.

“I think there would be problems with the extra bins – I just don’t have the space”. Special interest group

“I think it would be an issue having additional bins” Resident Group

“What about those properties that don’t have a garden. Where will they put all the bins?” Resident group

51

The majority of participants were positive about the introduction of a fortnightly collection for non recyclable waste. However it was felt that the collection frequency for the recycling scheme should be increased to weekly.

“A fortnightly collection is absolutely viable with a big bin for recycling, a food waste collection and education on how to prevent waste” Special interest group

“I would be happy for my refuse to be collected fortnightly. It would be more of an issue with the recycling bin filling up – recycling should be collected weekly” Resident group

“I would want my recycling collection to be weekly. At the moment my bin is always full” Resident group

However a number of participants did comment that it would be difficult to sell the idea of a fortnightly collection for non recyclable waste to residents.

“There will be a major public uprising if Bournemouth go to a fortnightly collection – residents will not like it” Special interest group

A number of participants also raised concerns over the health aspects of a fortnightly collection for non recyclable waste.

“Refuse should be weekly due to health hazards” Special interest group

It was felt that the Council would need to undertake a great deal of education with residents if the new schemes were introduced. There were also concerns about the additional cost of any promotional work.

“Residents would need to be educated to be less wasteful for a fortnightly collection to work” Resident group

“If people don’t recycle already, how do we get them to use a new waste collection scheme or adapt to a fortnightly collection of refuse. It is going to take a lot of work” Resident group

Generally participants were positive about the introduction of a separate food waste collection. However a number of participants raised concerns over health and odour.

“It’s a crazy idea; there will be health issues and vermin” Special interest group

“Odour is a big issue if the bins are out in the sun all day. There is also an issue with flies, rats and foxes” Resident Group

All participants were then asked which collection option they preferred. Each attendee was provided with five votes and were asked to vote on their preferred option or options. The results are shown in Table 6.

Option four was the preferred waste collection option for both the special interest and resident groups. The results also show a preference for kitchen and green waste to be collected co-mingled.

52

Table 6: Which waste collection option do you prefer?


Resident group

Option 1 2 8

Option 2 0 0

Option 3 10 6

Option 4 23 30

Option 5 0 8

6.4 Waste treatment

The fourth part of the focus group was focused on the possible waste treatment options.

The participants were asked to evaluate a number of evaluation criteria and decide which criteria were most important to them. Each attendee was given seven votes and asked to vote for which priority or priorities were most important to them. The results are shown in Table 7.

It was found that the top three criteria were carbon impact, noise and air quality and employment opportunities.

Table 7: Which priorities are most important to you?


Resident group

Minimising distance travelled to the facility

9 3

Cost 6 10

Noise and air quality 8 23

Visual impact 1 13

Odour 4 7

Carbon impact 15 20

Employment opportunities 6 15

6.5 Recycling targets two

At the end of the focus group, the participants were asked to reconsider the recycling and composting targets in the MWMS. Participants were asked whether they still thought that Bournemouth should strive to achieve a higher recycling and composting target by 2020. The results are shown in Table 8.

There was no change in the views from the special interest group. However all 13 participants in the resident group felt that Bournemouth should achieve a much higher

53

recycling and composting rate (compared to only seven participants at the start of the session).



Resident group

Much higher 5 13

Higher 2 0

Stay the same

0 0

Lower 0 0

54

Drawing on the outcomes from the consultation the following key messages have emerged:

Support for food waste collections

There was support for the introduction of a separate weekly food waste collection. Almost three quarters (73.0%) commented it was likely that they would use a separate weekly food waste collection if their rubbish bin continued to be collected every week.

However there were mixed messages about the preferred collection frequency for the rubbish bin if the Council did introduce a separate weekly food waste collection. 69.4% agreed that their rubbish could be continued to be collected weekly, yet 56.3% also agreed that their rubbish could be collected every other week.

There was a preference for food waste to be collected via a wheeled bin rather than a caddy. Over half of respondents (53.1%) preferred a wheeled bin for the collection of food waste.

Waste collection options

Option four was selected as being the most preferred choice by 31.3% of respondents with 22.3% selecting option three as their preference. It is interesting the note that option four is the preferred choice as this would involve a fortnightly collection of non recyclable waste.

There was a preference for a co-mingled collection of garden waste and food waste.

Waste disposal options

There was considerable support for the proximity principal. 77.6% agreed that waste generated in Bournemouth should be dealt within 100 miles of Bournemouth’s boundaries.

All respondents were asked how important a number of different criteria were when considering treatment facilities for waste. It was found that the top three criterion were cost, noise and air quality and odour.

Waste strategy objectives

There was considerable support for the MWMS objectives. 77.7% agreed that the seven objectives would help Bournemouth manage its waste in a more sustainable way.

The majority of respondents (90.6%) agreed that Bournemouth should aim to reduce the amount of waste produced. It was found that 51.7% felt that the stated waste prevention target was just right. However 18.1% felt that the target was too high and 16.4% felt that the target was too low.

It was felt that Bournemouth should strive to achieve a higher recycling and composting rate by 2020.

8. KEY MESSAGES

55

Waste campaigns and initiatives

The most popular initiatives to help encourage respondents to minimise their household waste were a furniture re-use shop at Millhams CRC, Freecycle and other similar websites and home composting.

The most popular information that respondents felt would be most effective in helping them to reduce their household waste was how to reduce unwanted mail, how to minimise waste when buying things and details on high street services where they can hire, repair, trade in and donate goods.

56

For more information about this document, please contact:

Larry Austin, Strategic Operations Manager

Telephone: 01202 451690

email: [email protected]

bournemouth borough council municipal waste management ... · presentation for the focus groups to...

Documents