Proposed charges at Central Bedfordshire Tidy Tips shelved during 'U-turn'

But the environmental services budget of Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) faces rising costs, a meeting heard.

Charges for DIY items, weighted garden waste and ground maintenance were being proposed, according to a report to its corporate resources overview and scrutiny committee.

“As a rule, non-household or DIY waste items are materials created from the construction, demolition or alteration of a home or garden,” said the report. “These items include sinks, baths, kitchen units, radiators, fence panels and guttering.”

Independent Aspley and Woburn councillor John Baker explained: “Concerns have been raised over tidy tip charges and the lack of a quality paper to underpin it.

“I can confirm that none of these fees will be included by the executive when this goes to the committee. They’ll be removed.

“A separate paper will consider a more holistic view of the use of tidy tips. We talk about the increased tonnage and the rising costs. That’s something we can’t ignore. We can have a look at what’s driving those factors.”

Liberal Democrat Leighton Linslade South councillor Shaun Roberts said: “I was shocked when I saw it was in corporate resources papers.

“Some Independent councillors defended it and explained it in very certain terms. Others seem to have attacked it all as a lie.

“This is your responsibility. You, as an administration, put it out there. These are charges for using tidy tips where none currently exist for these types of things. You lit the match and you must accept some responsibility for that.

“On the other side, it’s really good you’ve listened. You’ve taken it out of the paper to have a much wider discussion, which is a much better approach and a really sensible thing to do.”

Conservative Cranfield and Marston Moretaine councillor Sue Clark agreed, saying: “Thank you very much for the U-turn in the face of considerable resident outcry.

“This paper is clearly in your name. Did you read it, agree with it and sign it off, or you didn’t read it, or you didn’t sign it off? One way or another, the responsibility lies with the administration for publishing this.

“I’m glad you’ve now withdrawn it, but worry that all you’ve done is kick the can down the road to save an unedifying row in this meeting or at sustainable communities overview and scrutiny committee.”

Executive member for finance councillor Baker replied: “I saw it and was happy to have the debate. I assumed a policy paper existed, but it didn’t.

“More widely, there’s a problem which needs addressing. Having a proper paper which comes to sustainable communities is sensible. So it’s not kicking the can down the road, but saying let’s have the conversation we need to have.

“There are significant overspends. You haven’t got a plan to solve those problems and we all agree we should be doing our best to implement more recycling.”

What did you think about the plans? Email us at [email protected] and let us know your thoughts. Your opinion could be included in our Letters section.