Lead Member for Transport and Environment, February 2025

Proposed implementation of a booking system at Household Waste Recycling Sites

Appendix 2 – consultation results tables.

1.    The consultation ran from 28/10/2024 to 22/12/2024 (8 weeks) and was hosted on Citizen Space. There were 5992 responses to the survey.

·         Question one asked for the name of the respondent (5992 responses).

·         Question two asked if the respondent was a resident of East Sussex (5992 responses). Over 99% of respondents were from East Sussex. Only 34 did not live in the county.

·         Question three asked respondents for their postcode (5992 responses).

·         Question four asked respondents which site they visit (5992 responses).

Option

Total

Percent

Crowborough

1227

20.48%

Eastbourne

216

3.60%

Hastings

1004

16.76%

Heathfield

1024

17.09%

Hailsham

259

4.32%

Lewes

505

8.43%

Maresfield

1033

17.24%

Mountfield

376

6.28%

Newhaven

1015

16.94%

Seaford

333

5.56%

Not Answered

0

0.00%

 

1.1       The sites with the most responses were Crowborough, Maresfield, Heathfield, Newhaven and Hastings. Eastbourne responses were low considering that it is a very busy site.

2.0       Question five asked how often respondents visit the sites (5992 responses).

Option

Total

Percent

Weekly

421

7.03%

Once a month

1696

28.30%

2-3 times a month

1265

21.11%

Once every 3 months

1788

29.84%

Once every 6 months

420

7.01%

Every 6-12 months

261

4.36%

Less often than 12 months

72

1.20%

Don't know

69

1.15%

Not Answered

0

0.00%

 

2.1       The consultation was more popular with regular users of the service with 56% of respondents visiting the sites once a month or more.

3.0       Question six asked if respondents wanted to experience less queuing at the sites (5905 responses).

Option

Total

Percent

Yes

1158

19.33%

No

4747

79.22%

Not Answered

87

1.45%

 

3.1       79% of respondents did not want less queuing at the sites. Feedback received from residents during the consultation period indicated that they did not see queuing at the sites as a problem and they did not think that a booking system was needed.

4.0       Question seven asked respondents if they wanted a booking system to improve the operations at our sites (5979 responses).

Option

Total

Percent

Yes

299

4.99%

No

5680

94.79%

Not Answered

13

0.22%

 

4.1       94% of respondents did not want a booking system to improve operations at the sites. Again, feedback indicated that respondents felt that the sites work well and they did not think that a booking system was necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.0       Question eight asked if respondents would like to see a booking system that reduces trade waste at our sites (5919 responses).

 

Option

Total

Percent

Yes

1086

18.12%

No

4833

80.66%

Not Answered

73

1.22%

 

5.1       81% of respondents did not want a booking system to reduce trade waste at the sites. It can be surmised that some respondents are choosing to provide negative answers as they are against the proposal. Some responses may also be from traders who do not want to see a system introduced.

6.0       Question nine asked how positive or negative respondents would feel about using a booking system to access the HWRSs in the future (5992 responses).

Option

Total

Percent

Extremely positive

80

1.34%

Quite positive

175

2.92%

Neither positive nor negative

242

4.04%

Quite negative

1115

18.61%

Extremely negative

4352

72.63%

Don't know

28

0.47%

Not Answered

0

0.00%

 

 

6.1       91% of respondents felt quite negative or extremely negative about using a booking system.

4% of respondents felt quite or extremely positive about using a booking system.

 

7.0       Question ten asked for the main reason from those who felt positive about a booking system (554 responses).

 

Option

Total

Percent

Less time spent queuing

66

1.10%

I can be sure that I will be able to access the site

120

2.00%

Less busy once on site

33

0.55%

Ensures only local residents use the site with their own waste

62

1.03%

Reduces trade waste abuse

32

0.53%

Other

241

4.02%

Not Answered

5438

90.75%

 

7.1       The main reasons were other, being confident that the site will be accessible, less time queuing and ensures only local residents use the site.

 

8.0       Question eleven asked for the main reason from those who felt negative about a booking system (5581 responses).

 

8.1       The main reasons were that it would be an inconvenience to have to book, booking would not fit in with work/life demands, other and not finding booking systems easy to use.

 

9.0       Emails received by the consultation inbox

9.1       Below is an overview of the responses sent into the consultation email grouped by subject. Some responses covered more than one subject area.  

Content of response

Percentage of emailed responses

How this response has been considered

24 responders didn’t like the consultation questions saying that they saw them as being biased in favour of a booking system or the format of the consultation.

31%

The consultation ran for a full 8 weeks and was hosted on the Citizen Space platform. The questions were internally reviewed including by the ESCC Communications team. A dedicated email address was made available for residents to provide comment on the proposal.

21 responders wanted bicycle access maintained at the sites where it is available.

27%

Bicycle access – where available - would be retained, however the consultation did not make that point clear enough.

19 responders said they did not encounter queues when visiting a household waste site so a booking system isn’t needed.

24%

The likelihood of queuing can vary greatly across the network and at different times of day / week / year. We do know that queuing is an issue at certain sites and at certain times of year. Not everyone is able to visit at quieter times, which tend to be midweek.

13 responders thought that a booking scheme will lead to increased flytipping.

17%

A 2023 report commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) concluded there is no evidence of a rise in fly-tipping linked to the introduction of booking schemes.

Our neighbours in Kent and West Sussex did not see an increase in fly tipping after introducing their booking systems.

9 responders said that they wanted the HWRS network left to function as it does currently.

10%

These proposals, whilst providing the benefits to residents outlined in the main report paper, have also come forward in order to help meet some of the savings needed by ESCC.

3 responders thought any booking scheme should be applied in a limited format i.e. just to some sites and / or at particular times of the year.

4%

Other authorities who operate booking systems tell us they are best rolled out across whole networks. This reduces the likelihood of people avoiding sites with a booking system and possibly making longer journeys rather than visiting their local site.

 

10.0     Organisations making formal consultation responses

·         Crowborough Town Council

·         Lewes District Council

·         Telscombe Town Council

·         Age UK

·         Piddinghoe Parish Council

·         Withyham Parish Council

·         Mayfield and Five Ashes Parish Council

·         Cycle Lewes

11.0     Representations and complaints received by the Lead Member and Leader of the council

10.1     During and after the consultation process there were a total of 9 messages of objection sent directly to Lead Member and the Leader of the council regarding the booking system proposal.

10.2     A petition with 2,276 signatures, detailed in the main report, was sent directly to the waste team inbox  by the Lewes Liberal Democrats group.