Lincolnshire cracks down on household rubble taken to CA sites

The clampdown, which comes into force this month, follows confirmation from the government that rubble from householders does not count as domestic waste.
Lincolnshire hopes that its new approach will encourage householders to hire skips for removal of building waste. However, it is trying to get the message over to the public that while the council does not have to take the rubble at CA sites because it is not household waste, residents will be allowed a “concession” in that they can deposit a bin load of soil or rubble a day.

The government’s best value consultation paper last autumn said that household waste excludes incinerator wastes, beach cleaning residues, home composted waste, rubble and abandoned vehicles.

In recycling terms the issue of rubble at CA sites can be important. There have been accusations in the past that some local authorities have reported higher recycling figures because they have counted in rubble from households which has been recycled for use as landfill cover and similar purposes.

Councillor Ian Croft, chairman of the county council's highways and planning committee said: “Waste minimisation is central to the Government's national waste. We are doing our bit to support the strategy by minimising acceptance of the amount of waste that we have no duty or obligation to receive.”

Martyn Hands, the County Council's Waste Services Manager said: “Under the Government's waste strategy, re-use of soil and hardcore does not count as recycling. It cannot be used as a means of artificially boosting our recycling performance as has happened elsewhere in the UK. None of the 7,000 tonnes of soil and hardcore received and re-used at household waste sites last year counts towards recycling performance.

“Clearly it is wrong for people who renovate old properties, dig up concrete driveways or extend their existing properties to expect other council tax payers to subsidise the disposal of waste from another persons construction or demolition activities. That would be contrary to the 'polluter pays' principle”.