Benchmarks / SurveyBench / What Hollinbrook residents think of three-weekly bin collections / Claude Opus 5.5

Measured by Spring Prompt

Claude Opus 5.5: What Hollinbrook residents think of three-weekly bin collections

The decision: whether to move general waste collection to every three weeks across the whole district, to do so with extra support for households that need it (a larger bin, or extra collections of nappies and hygiene waste), to pilot it in some areas first, or to drop the proposal. The brief and the data →

Verdict
✗ Not sound
Research score
96 of 100
Analysis rating
1,646
Head to head, this task
won 10 of 10

Why it is not sound

The analysis

  • Reported a material finding the data does not support

Findings the judges found unsupported

  • Most residents would accept some form of three-weekly collection if it is designed well. Only about a quarter choose keeping fortnightly collections as their first preference, and trial or supported options are as popular as a straight district-wide change.Q4 does not establish that most residents would accept three-weekly collection if designed well. Choosing a trial means trying it before deciding, and choosing a supported variant as a first preference is not evidence of acceptance. The finding's caveat acknowledges this distinction but does not justify its headline claim.

Scorecard

Numbers 11 of 11 right

QuestionIts answerTrue
What percentage of open-consultation respondents tend to oppose or strongly oppose collecting general waste every three weeks (Q2)?✓77.5%77.5%
What percentage of residents' panel respondents tend to oppose or strongly oppose collecting general waste every three weeks (Q2)?✓45.3%45.3%
What percentage of residents' panel respondents strongly support or tend to support collecting general waste every three weeks (Q2)?✓40.8%40.8%
What is the 95% margin of error, in percentage points, on the share of residents' panel respondents who support the change (strongly or tend to)?✓4.7 points4.69 points
On the residents' panel, is the difference in the share supporting the change (strongly or tend to) between owner-occupiers and renters statistically significant at the 95% level? (1 for yes, 0 for no)✓NoNo
Among residents' panel respondents whose household includes a child under 3 or someone who uses continence or other hygiene products, what percentage chose 'every three weeks, with extra support for households that need it' as their preferred option (Q4)?✓55.6%55.6%
How many of the open-text answers are copies or near-copies of the template comment circulated by a local group?✓209209
How many of the open-text answers from residents' panel respondents mention hygiene: smell, flies, maggots or vermin, or nappies or hygiene waste sitting in the bin?✓99
As a percentage of all residents' panel respondents, how many oppose the change at Q2 and said they would support it if their household could have a larger bin at no extra charge (Q3)?✓10.2%10.2%
What percentage of residents' panel respondents said they would be very or fairly likely to recycle more if general waste were collected every three weeks (Q5)?✓40.5%40.5%
What percentage of the addresses invited by letter to the residents' panel produced a completed questionnaire?✓21.1%21.1%

Traps in the data 8 of 8 handled

  • ✓The open consultation is self-selected: anyone with the link could respond, Brookfield is 38% of it against 12% of households, and households with a young child or hygiene needs are over-represented. It shows 78% opposed, against 45% on the panel, which matches the district's age and tenure profile.
  • ✓209 open-consultation comments (16% of the consultation's responses) are copies or near-copies of a template circulated by Keep Brookfield Tidy.
  • ✓The council leader wants to show that residents support the change. Support is 41% on the panel (with 45% opposed) and 15% in the open consultation.
  • ✓Q3 was asked only of those who oppose: 22% of panel opponents would support the change with a larger bin, which is only 10% of all panel respondents; most opponents would still oppose.
  • ✓Wendle Vale (panel base 16) shows 62% support, far above any other ward.
  • ✓On the panel, owner-occupiers support the change more than renters (43% against 37%, bases 282 and 140), but the gap is not statistically significant at 95%.
  • ✓40% of the panel say they would be likely to recycle more: a stated intention about a hypothetical change.
  • ✓Only 422 of 2,000 addresses invited to the panel completed (about 21%); the panel is matched on age and tenure only, and those who replied may care more about bins than those who did not.

The analysis

Recommendation

Do not adopt three-weekly collection district-wide now, and do not drop it. Run a time-limited pilot in a few wards that between them represent town and rural areas and different housing types, with the support package built in from day one: larger bins on request for large households, and a separate nappy and continence collection for qualifying households. Measure real outcomes before a district-wide decision. Answers to stakeholders. Council leader: no, residents do not back it. The representative panel is split, 40.8% support against 45.3% oppose, a statistical tie, so do not tell full council it has residents' backing. Cabinet member: no, do not drop it on the 77.5% figure. That figure comes from a self-selected, campaign-driven sample. The representative panel shows only 24.6% prefer keeping fortnightly collections, and about seven in ten chose a three-weekly variant, with trial or supported options most popular. Head of waste services: no, a larger bin would bring round only about one in five opposers (22.5% of 191), about 10% of all residents. Bins address capacity, but not hygiene or the 'same tax, less service' objection. Pair any change with targeted hygiene collections and a clear account of where the savings go.

What would change it

Pilot results would decide it. Move to district-wide rollout with support if the pilot shows: general waste tonnage falling and recycling rising; no material rise in side waste, fly-tipping or missed-collection and vermin complaints compared with control areas; take-up of hygiene collections and larger bins within the costed budget; and satisfaction in pilot areas no worse than in controls. Drop or rethink the proposal if fly-tipping or side waste rises clearly, if the support package costs more than the savings, or if a larger representative follow-up shows clear majority opposition even with the support package and savings explained. Robust local evidence of public-health problems for hygiene-needs households would also block rollout regardless of overall opinion.

Findings

  1. Residents are divided. There is no majority for or against three-weekly collection, so the council cannot claim residents' backing, and it cannot claim near-universal opposition either. The residents' panel is the only source that can stand for the district.

    High confidenceBase 422

    Panel Q2: 40.8% support and 45.3% oppose (base 422). The margin of error on support is about ±4.7 points. The 4.5-point gap between oppose and support is well inside the error on a difference (about ±8.8 points), so it is a statistical tie. The panel's profile closely matches the district: age 26/33/29/12 against 24/33/29/14 in the Census; owners 66.8% against 67%; ward shares within 2 points.

  2. The 'nearly four in five oppose' figure comes from a self-selected, campaign-influenced sample and should not be reported as residents' view.

    High confidenceBase 1318

    Open consultation Q2: 77.5% oppose (base 1,318). Brookfield makes up 38.0% of these respondents but only 12% of households, and 83.4% of them oppose. After Keep Brookfield Tidy circulated suggested wording on 1 June, 209 of the 316 consultation comments (66%) are copies or near-copies of that wording. Households with a child under 3 or hygiene needs are 28.9% of the consultation against an estimated 15% of the district.

  3. Most residents would accept some form of three-weekly collection if it is designed well. Only about a quarter choose keeping fortnightly collections as their first preference, and trial or supported options are as popular as a straight district-wide change.

    Medium confidenceBase 422

    Panel Q4 (base 422): whole district 22.0%, with extra support 23.7%, trial first 25.4%, keep two-weekly 24.6%, don't know 4.3%. The four options are statistically tied (each about ±4 points). Caution: three of the four options were three-weekly variants, and forced-choice preference is not the same as support. Q2 opposition (45.3%) is higher than the share who chose keeping two-weekly.

  4. Households with a baby or with continence or hygiene needs are strongly opposed. They want extra support (for example extra collections), not a blanket change. Any change should build that support in, and it needs an equality impact assessment.

    Medium confidenceBase 54

    Panel, child under 3 or hygiene products (base 54): 74.1% oppose and 14.8% support, against 41.0% oppose and 44.6% support among other households (base 368). At Q4, 55.6% of these households chose 'with extra support' and only 5.6% chose district-wide. The base of 54 gives roughly ±12–13 points, but the gap is large enough to be real. The council estimates about 15% of households (about 8,700) are in this group.

  5. A free larger bin alone would not bring most opponents round. It would convert about one in five of them, which is about a tenth of all residents.

    Medium confidenceBase 191

    Panel Q3 (base 191 opposers): 22.5% would support, 61.3% would still oppose, 9.4% neither, 6.8% don't know. That is about 43 people, or 10.2% of the whole panel. Consultation Q3 (base 1,021): 17.4% would support and 66.5% would still oppose. The open text explains why bins do not settle it: value-for-money and hygiene objections are not about bin size.

  6. The objections residents raise unprompted fall into four practical groups: bin capacity in large households, hygiene and vermin, side waste and fly-tipping, and paying the same council tax for less. Supporters cite recycling and the environment. A sizeable group of small households expect no impact.

    Medium confidenceBase 101

    Panel open text (101 answers): about 37 environment/recycling, 23 capacity, 17 value for money, 9 hygiene, 7 fly-tipping or side waste, 10 no impact. Among the 107 non-template consultation answers, the same themes recur, with capacity and hygiene more prominent.

  7. No difference in support between subgroups other than hygiene-needs households can be read as real. In particular, owners and renters do not differ significantly.

    High confidenceBase 422

    Panel support: owners 42.6% (base 282) against renters 37.1% (base 140). The difference is 5.5 points, z ≈ 1.1, not significant at 95%. Ward bases are 16–133. Wendle Vale (62.5% support, base 16) and Stanmoor (55.2% oppose, base 67) are too small to act on.

  8. Self-reported intention to recycle more is moderate and probably overstated. It should not be used to forecast diversion rates.

    Low confidenceBase 422

    Panel Q5: 40.5% very or fairly likely to recycle more, 11.8% already recycle everything they can, 29.1% unlikely (base 422). Consultation: 24.2% likely (base 1,318).

Caveats

  • The open consultation is self-selected and was campaigned on. 38% of respondents are from Brookfield (12% of households), and 209 of 316 consultation comments are the circulated template. Its percentages describe who chose to respond, not the district. Report it as the views of those who responded.
  • The template themes (overflow, smell, rats, nappies, fly-tipping) are listed as one campaign theme rather than credited to each organic theme, to avoid counting 209 copies as independent voices. The concerns are real, and also appear in independent answers.
  • The panel response rate was 21.1% (422 completes from 2,000 letters). Places were filled to match age and tenure, so it is a quota sample from random addresses, not a pure probability sample. Margins of error are approximate. Non-response could still skew towards people with stronger views or more engagement.
  • Panel subgroup bases are small. The hygiene-needs group is 54, and wards range from 16 to 133. Only large gaps should be acted on. Ward-level results are not reliable enough to choose pilot areas on attitude.
  • Q3 and Q4 are hypothetical. Q3 was asked only of opposers, so it does not show whether a larger-bin offer would change supporters' views. Q4 lists three three-weekly variants against one status-quo option, which may inflate three-weekly preferences.
  • Q5 is self-reported intention. Stated intention to recycle typically overstates behaviour, so it cannot be used to forecast tonnage diversion or savings.
  • The survey did not test the value-for-money argument (where the savings go). This is a major independent objection that bins and extra collections do not address.
  • The two sources were not added together, correctly. Results are unweighted.

Next steps

  • decisionBrief full council that the representative panel is split (40.8% support, 45.3% oppose). Present the open consultation as the views of those who responded, with the campaign effect and Brookfield over-representation stated.
  • experimentRun a 6–12 month pilot in 2–3 wards spanning town and rural areas and different housing types, against matched control areas. Include larger bins on request and a nappy and continence collection.
  • researchDesign and cost the hygiene support service: eligibility, sign-up and collection frequency. Carry out an equality impact assessment.
  • researchEstimate demand for larger bins from household size data and pilot take-up. Treat larger bins as the fix for capacity, not for opposition generally.
  • researchSet out publicly what the change saves and where the money goes, then test whether this shifts views in a follow-up panel wave.
  • monitorMonitor fly-tipping, side waste and vermin complaints by ward from before the pilot. Engage Brookfield residents and Keep Brookfield Tidy directly on rural-lane fly-tipping.
  • researchRerun the residents' panel after the pilot, with a larger sample or a top-up of hygiene-needs households.

Open-text themes it coded

Campaign template (Keep Brookfield Tidy wording: overflow, smell, rats, nappies, fly-tipping) 209Bin capacity: already full at two weeks, large households (independent answers) 65Hygiene: smell, flies, maggots, vermin, nappies and continence waste (independent answers) 35Side waste and fly-tipping (independent answers) 15Value for money: same council tax for less service 39Support: would recycle more, better for the environment 57No impact: small household or little general waste 18

The survey it planned

3 screening questions and 10 questions, as the model wrote them.

  1. S1

    How old are you?

    One answer
    • Under 18
    • 18 to 24
    • 25 to 34
    • 35 to 44
    • 45 to 54
    • 55 to 64
    • 65 to 74
    • 75 or over

    Continues if 18 to 24; 25 to 34; 35 to 44; 45 to 54; 55 to 64; 65 to 74; 75 or over

  2. S2

    Do you live in the Hollinbrook District Council area?

    One answer
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not sure

    Continues if Yes; Not sure

  3. S3

    What is your home postcode? We use this only to work out which ward and area you live in. We will not use it to identify you.

    Open text

    Continues if A valid postcode inside the Hollinbrook District Council area. The survey checks it against the council's address list and assigns ward and town/rural area automatically.

  4. Q1

    The council needs to save £3.1 million next year. One proposal is to collect general waste (the black bin) every three weeks instead of every two weeks. This would save about £600,000 a year. Food waste would still be collected every week and recycling every two weeks. It would mean storing general waste at home for longer between collections. To what extent do you support or oppose this proposal?

    Scale

    Scale 1-5: Strongly oppose to Strongly support

  5. Q2

    Thinking about the last few collections, how full is your black bin usually when it is collected?

    One answer
    • Less than half full
    • About half full
    • About three-quarters full
    • Completely full
    • Overflowing, or I put out extra bags
    • I use a shared or communal bin
    • Don't know
  6. Q3

    Does anyone in your household currently use any of the following? Select all that apply.

    Any that apply
    • Nappies (for a baby or child)
    • Continence products, such as incontinence pads
    • Other absorbent hygiene products that go in the black bin, for medical or personal care reasons
    • None of these
    • Prefer not to say
  7. Q4

    If general waste were collected every three weeks, how much of a problem, if any, would this be for your household?

    One answer
    • No problem at all
    • A small problem
    • A moderate problem
    • A big problem
    • A very big problem
    • Don't know
  8. Q5

    Please tell us the main reasons for your views on three-weekly general waste collection, including any ways it would affect you or your household, good or bad.

    Open text
  9. Q6

    Which of these options would you most prefer the council to choose?

    One answer
    • Keep general waste collections every two weeks and find the savings elsewhere
    • Move to three-weekly collections across the whole district
    • Move to three-weekly collections across the whole district, with extra support for households that need it (for example a larger bin, or extra collections of nappies and hygiene waste)
    • Try three-weekly collections in some areas first, then decide
    • No preference
    • Don't know
  10. Q7

    Suppose households that need it could get a larger black bin, or extra collections of nappies and hygiene waste. Would this change your view of three-weekly collections?

    One answer
    • I would be more supportive
    • It would make no difference to my view
    • I would be less supportive
    • Don't know
  11. Q8

    If general waste were collected every three weeks, how, if at all, would the amount your household recycles change (including food waste)?

    One answer
    • We would recycle a lot more
    • We would recycle a little more
    • We would recycle about the same
    • We already recycle everything we can
    • We would recycle less
    • Don't know
  12. Q9

    Including yourself, how many people live in your household?

    Number
  13. Q10

    Which of these best describes your home?

    One answer
    • Owned outright or with a mortgage
    • Rented from the council or a housing association
    • Rented from a private landlord
    • Other (for example, living with family or shared ownership)
    • Prefer not to say
Sample plan

Two channels using the same questionnaire. Their results are reported separately and never pooled. (1) RESIDENTS' PANEL. This is the evidence base for representative findings. Recruit about 420 adults by letter to randomly selected addresses across all six wards, with one adult per address. Target about 70 completes per ward, matched to the district's age and tenure profile. Send reminder letters to under-responding groups, especially younger adults and renters. Weight the final data to ward, age band (S1) and tenure (Q10) using census figures. Each panel invitation carries a unique code so each panellist can respond only once. (2) OPEN CONSULTATION. Anyone with the link can respond, via the council website, social media and the residents' magazine. Respondents choose themselves, so the results show the range and strength of views and the issues people raise. They do not measure district-wide opinion. Report the number of responses and screen out duplicate or ineligible responses using the postcode check. PRECISION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE MET AND MUST BE FLAGGED TO WARD COUNCILLORS NOW. Results within ±6 points at 95% confidence need about 267 completes per ward, or about 1,600 in total. With 420 completes (about 70 per ward), each ward result is accurate to only about ±12 points. The whole-district result is accurate to about ±5 points, before allowing for the effect of weighting. Options: (a) fund about 1,600 panel completes, which needs roughly four times as many letters; (b) accept ward results as indicative at about ±12 points and report reliable comparisons only for the whole district and for town versus rural areas; or (c) set ±6 points at district level as the target. Without (a), ward-level figures will be shown with their margins of error and labelled indicative. Subgroups such as households using nappies or continence products may number only 60 to 100 in the panel. These groups should be reported with their margins of error, and the open consultation can add detail in respondents' own words. NEUTRALITY: The leader's wish to show support must not shape the wording, sampling or reporting. Q1 gives the savings and the main drawback in balanced terms. It deliberately leaves out the claim that recycling rises, which would make residents more likely to agree; Q8 asks about recycling separately. Q6 includes the option of dropping the proposal. Support and opposition will be reported with equal prominence, whatever the result.