Despite objections from residents, Hillingdon Council has backed a decision to remove 700 dog waste bins across the borough, with the aim of generating £160,000 per year in savings.

The local authority’s cabinet approved the move last Thursday, following a meeting of its Residents' Services Select Committee on October 14.

In the report, the council explains its reasoning for removing all standalone waste bins, in favour of integrating dog waste disposal into its current litter bin network and household residual waste collection arrangements.

It argues that the move would provide the ‘greatest operational simplification and financial benefit whilst maintaining accessible disposal facilities for residents and dog owners’.

The report also proposes that £60,000 of the funds generated from the change are reinvested annually into the council’s street cleansing operations.

It claims that gross annual savings of roughly £160,000 could be unlocked, as well as ensuring a recurring net saving of around £100,000 per year after reinvestment.

‘In addition to the financial benefits, the proposal will simplify service delivery, reduce duplication within the council's waste collection infrastructure and align the Borough's approach with practices already adopted by many local authorities’, it reads.

The council has said that a phased programme of bin removal, targeted communications, and ongoing operational monitoring will be used to support the transition.

Criticisms

However, the plans have been opposed by Ruislip Residents’ Association, which has criticised the lack of formal public consultation on the issue.

It argues that the existing litter bin network does not have the capacity to absorb the extra waste, highlighting that some bins are already overflowing and cannot be expected to facilitate an extra 174 tonnes of dog waste a year.

Their statement on October 15 said: ‘Where there is no litter bin close by, some owners will carry the bag home. Others will not. We think more dog poo will be left on the pavement. The council seems to expect the same. Why else would it be keeping back £60,000 a year of the saving for street cleansing?’

It adds: ‘The report itself lists “an increase in dog fouling” as a main risk. But it treats it as a risk that comes from residents being “unaware” of the alternatives, to be fixed with signs and stickers. It doesn’t consider the case where the alternative is a long walk away, or doesn’t exist.’

The council has been contacted for comment.