Benchmarks / SurveyBench / What Hollinbrook residents think of three-weekly bin collections / Gemini 4 Argon

Measured by Spring Prompt

Gemini 4 Argon: 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
73 of 100
Analysis rating
985
Head to head, this task
won 1 of 29

Why it is not sound

The survey

  • Presumed the stakeholder's view instead of testing it
  • A leading question: Q4
  • A double-barrelled question: Q8
  • A double-barrelled question: Q9
  • A double-barrelled question: Q10

The analysis

  • Got at least one set number wrong
  • Reported a material finding the data does not support
  • Missed a trap: 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.
  • Missed a trap: 40% of the panel say they would be likely to recycle more: a stated intention about a hypothetical change.

Findings the judges found unsupported

  • To the Council Leader: You cannot tell full council that a majority of residents support a standard, unmitigated shift to three-weekly collections. On the representative residents' panel, opinion on the unmitigated proposal is evenly divided (40.8% support vs. 45.3% oppose; difference within the ±4.7 percentage point margin of error). However, when asked to choose between delivery models (Q4), 71.1% of panel respondents prefer one of the three-weekly options (22.0% whole district, 23.7% with extra support, 25.4% trial first) over keeping fortnightly collections (24.6%). Residents will back a carefully managed transition, not a blanket change.Adding the three Q4 options is a valid calculation, but choosing a trial followed by a decision is not support for eventual implementation. The assertion that residents will back a carefully managed transition goes beyond the preferences measured.
  • To the Cabinet Member for Environment: Do not drop the proposal based on the 77.5% opposition in the open consultation. That sample is heavily skewed by self-selection and an organised campaign by 'Keep Brookfield Tidy'. Brookfield accounts for 38.0% of open consultation responses versus 12% of district households, and 157 of the 417 open-text comments are verbatim copies of the campaign's template. Even in the open consultation, when given policy options at Q4, less than half (42.7%) prefer keeping fortnightly collections, while 52.4% choose one of the three-weekly options.The stated count of 157 verbatim campaign comments is not established by the supplied evidence. The known campaign total is 209 copies or near-copies, which the analysis reports elsewhere without explaining the distinction.
  • To the Head of Waste Services: Offering a larger bin at no extra charge will not win over most opponents—nearly two-thirds of opponents (61.3% on the panel) would still oppose the change. However, it shifts 22.5% of panel opponents into support, which equates to 10.2% of the entire panel. Combined with existing supporters (40.8%), offering larger bins lifts total district support to a narrow majority of 50.9%, while reducing active opposition from 45.3% to 27.7%.The 50.9% calculation is a possible combined share if existing supporters retain their support and opponents respond as stated. Q3 did not test the larger-bin policy with everyone, and the panel is not an unbiased census of district opinion. Calling this a demonstrated majority of district support, with high confidence, is unsupported.
  • The proposal has strong potential to achieve its behavioural goal: 40.5% of panel respondents say they are likely to recycle more if general waste moves to three-weekly, and a further 11.8% state they already recycle everything they can.Hypothetical intentions to recycle more do not establish that the proposal will achieve its behavioural goal. The analysis does not acknowledge the intention–behaviour gap, and those already recycling everything they can do not provide evidence of additional recycling.
  • Support does not vary significantly by housing tenure (42.6% owner-occupiers vs. 37.1% renters on the panel; p = 0.28), though renters are more likely to strongly oppose (37.1% vs. 23.8%). Qualitative feedback shows opposition is driven by household size (4+ adults or large families running out of bin capacity at 14 days), lack of outdoor storage space in terraced/courtyard properties, fears of fly-tipping in rural lanes and urban alleys, and resentment over paying rising Council Tax for fewer collections.The quoted non-campaign theme counts are not supported consistently: the analysis elsewhere reports 65 capacity comments, 39 value-for-money comments and 15 fly-tipping comments, rather than 75, 35 and 22. No alternative coding or denominator explains these differences.

Scorecard

Numbers 10 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?✗157209
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 6 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 implement an unmitigated district-wide move to three-weekly collections, and do not drop the proposal. Instead, proceed with a phased approach (or district-wide transition) that explicitly incorporates a targeted support package: (1) separate, more frequent collections (or dedicated disposable sack collections) for households with children under 3 or medical/continence hygiene waste, and (2) larger or supplementary bins for large households (e.g., 5+ occupants) after a recycling capacity check. Pilot this supported model in selected wards first to validate operational costs, side-waste/fly-tipping controls, and recycling yield before full rollout.

What would change it

Evidence from operational financial modelling or the pilot showing that the cost of providing extra hygiene/nappy collections, larger bins for big families, and clearing fly-tipping/side-waste exceeds the financial and environmental savings of moving from two-weekly to three-weekly black bin collections.

Findings

  1. To the Council Leader: You cannot tell full council that a majority of residents support a standard, unmitigated shift to three-weekly collections. On the representative residents' panel, opinion on the unmitigated proposal is evenly divided (40.8% support vs. 45.3% oppose; difference within the ±4.7 percentage point margin of error). However, when asked to choose between delivery models (Q4), 71.1% of panel respondents prefer one of the three-weekly options (22.0% whole district, 23.7% with extra support, 25.4% trial first) over keeping fortnightly collections (24.6%). Residents will back a carefully managed transition, not a blanket change.

    High confidenceBase 422

    Residents' panel (base 422): Q2 Net support 40.8% (17.3% strongly, 23.5% tend to), Net oppose 45.3% (28.2% strongly, 17.1% tend to), 95% MoE ±4.7pp. Q4 preferences: 22.0% three-weekly across district, 23.7% three-weekly with extra support, 25.4% trial in some areas first, 24.6% keep fortnightly, 4.3% don't know.

  2. To the Cabinet Member for Environment: Do not drop the proposal based on the 77.5% opposition in the open consultation. That sample is heavily skewed by self-selection and an organised campaign by 'Keep Brookfield Tidy'. Brookfield accounts for 38.0% of open consultation responses versus 12% of district households, and 157 of the 417 open-text comments are verbatim copies of the campaign's template. Even in the open consultation, when given policy options at Q4, less than half (42.7%) prefer keeping fortnightly collections, while 52.4% choose one of the three-weekly options.

    High confidenceBase 1318

    Open consultation (base 1,318): Q2 Net oppose 77.5% (83.4% in Brookfield, base 501). Ward profile (Q7): Brookfield is 38.0% of open consultation vs. 11.1% of panel (base 422) and 12% of district population. Household needs (Q6): 28.9% in open consultation vs. 12.8% in panel and ~15% in population. Q1 open text: 157 template comments. Q4 open consultation: 42.7% keep fortnightly vs. 52.4% combined three-weekly options.

  3. To the Head of Waste Services: Offering a larger bin at no extra charge will not win over most opponents—nearly two-thirds of opponents (61.3% on the panel) would still oppose the change. However, it shifts 22.5% of panel opponents into support, which equates to 10.2% of the entire panel. Combined with existing supporters (40.8%), offering larger bins lifts total district support to a narrow majority of 50.9%, while reducing active opposition from 45.3% to 27.7%.

    High confidenceBase 422

    Q3 among panel opponents (base 191): 22.5% (43 respondents) would support, 9.4% (18) neither, 61.3% (117) would still oppose, 6.8% (13) don't know. As a share of all panel respondents (base 422): 43 / 422 = 10.2% switch to support, lifting total support from 40.8% (172) to 50.9% (215) and lowering opposition to 27.7% (117). In the open consultation (base 1,021 opponents), 17.4% would support and 66.5% would still oppose.

  4. Households with children under 3 or users of continence/hygiene products strongly oppose an unmitigated move to three-weekly collections (74.1% oppose on the panel), because their concern is hygiene and odour (sitting waste for 21 days) as well as bin volume. However, when offered targeted support (larger bins or extra nappy/hygiene collections), 55.6% choose this as their preferred option, reducing the share wanting to keep fortnightly collections to just 25.9%—identical to households without these needs (24.5%).

    Medium confidenceBase 54

    Residents' panel households with child <3 or hygiene needs (base 54) vs. neither (base 368): Q2 Net oppose is 74.1% vs. 41.0% (Net support 14.8% vs. 44.6%). At Q4, 55.6% of needs households prefer 'Every three weeks, with extra support', 13.0% trial, 5.6% whole district, and 25.9% keep fortnightly (vs. 24.5% keep fortnightly among 'neither'). Open text confirms smells, maggots, foxes, and 21-day storage of soiled pads/nappies are primary barriers.

  5. The proposal has strong potential to achieve its behavioural goal: 40.5% of panel respondents say they are likely to recycle more if general waste moves to three-weekly, and a further 11.8% state they already recycle everything they can.

    High confidenceBase 422

    Q5 Residents' panel (base 422): 15.6% very likely, 24.9% fairly likely (Net likely: 40.5%), 11.8% already recycle everything they can, 29.1% unlikely (13.7% fairly, 15.4% very).

  6. Support does not vary significantly by housing tenure (42.6% owner-occupiers vs. 37.1% renters on the panel; p = 0.28), though renters are more likely to strongly oppose (37.1% vs. 23.8%). Qualitative feedback shows opposition is driven by household size (4+ adults or large families running out of bin capacity at 14 days), lack of outdoor storage space in terraced/courtyard properties, fears of fly-tipping in rural lanes and urban alleys, and resentment over paying rising Council Tax for fewer collections.

    High confidenceBase 422

    Residents' panel Q2 by tenure: Owner-occupiers (base 282) 42.6% support, 41.8% oppose (23.8% strongly); Renters (base 140) 37.1% support, 52.1% oppose (37.1% strongly). Two-proportion z-test on support gap (5.5pp): z = 1.08, p = 0.28 (not significant at 95%). Supported by 75 non-campaign open-text comments on bin capacity, 35 on Council Tax value, and 22 on fly-tipping.

Caveats

  • The open consultation (n=1,318) is not representative of the district and must not be used to estimate population sentiment. It was heavily distorted by a local campaign ('Keep Brookfield Tidy'), resulting in Brookfield residents making up 38.0% of respondents (vs. 12% of the district), owner-occupiers 81.5% (vs. 67%), and households with young children or hygiene needs 28.9% (vs. ~15%).
  • While the residents' panel (n=422) was quota-filled to match district age and tenure profiles and closely matches ward distribution, it achieved a 21.1% response rate and was completed entirely online, which may under-represent digitally excluded residents.
  • Subgroup sample sizes on the residents' panel are small—particularly for individual wards (e.g., Wendle Vale n=16, Brookfield n=47) and households with children under 3 or hygiene products (n=54, margin of error ±13.3pp)—so subgroup percentages carry wide confidence intervals.
  • Question Q3 tested only a 'larger general waste bin at no extra charge' among opponents, whereas Q4 combined 'a larger bin or extra collections of nappies and hygiene waste' into a single option. The survey does not isolate how many hygiene/nappy households would only be satisfied by fortnightly/weekly hygiene sack collections rather than a larger bin, nor does it test larger bins for large households (e.g., 5+ people) who do not have nappies or medical waste.

Next steps

  • decisionDesign and cost the 'Extra Support' eligibility policy, distinguishing between volume needs (larger bins for households of 5+ people) and hygiene/odour needs (fortnightly/weekly nappy and clinical/continence sack collections), including solutions for terraced/flatted properties without space for larger wheelie bins.
  • experimentRun a 6-month operational pilot of three-weekly collections with the Extra Support package across a mix of urban/terraced (e.g., parts of Hollinbrook Town or Stanmoor) and rural wards (e.g., Kettlewell or Ashby Marsh), spanning summer months.
  • researchConduct rapid follow-up research (qualitative focus groups or a short targeted survey) with large households (5+ occupants), terraced/courtyard renters, and continence/nappy households to refine the application process and collection logistics for extra support.
  • monitorMonitor baseline and pilot-period fly-tipping, alley/lay-by dumping, and missed collection rates, alongside a transparent communications campaign explaining how waste savings fund frontline council services and environmental goals.

Open-text themes it coded

Organised campaign template (Keep Brookfield Tidy) 209Insufficient bin capacity and overflowing bins (especially larger households) 65Hygiene, odour, pests, and nappies/continence waste 35Poor value for money and Council Tax resentment 39Risk of fly-tipping and street/alleyway dumping 15Environmental benefits and motivation to recycle more 57Minimal impact / already generate very little general waste 16

The survey it planned

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

  1. S1

    Are you aged 18 or over?

    One answer
    • Yes
    • No

    Continues if Yes

  2. S2

    Do you live in the Hollinbrook District Council area?

    One answer
    • Yes, I live in Hollinbrook District
    • No, I live outside Hollinbrook District
    • Not sure

    Continues if Yes, I live in Hollinbrook District

  3. Q1

    Which ward or area of Hollinbrook District do you live in? (If you are unsure, please choose the option that best matches your town or surrounding village area.)

    One answer
    • Ward 1 (Town North)
    • Ward 2 (Town South)
    • Ward 3 (Town East)
    • Ward 4 (Rural West)
    • Ward 5 (Rural North)
    • Ward 6 (Rural South)
    • Not sure / prefer to enter first part of postcode in the box at the end
  4. Q2

    How would you describe the area where you live and the type of property you live in?

    One answer
    • House or bungalow in a town
    • Flat, maisonette or shared bins in a town
    • House or bungalow in a village or rural area
    • Flat, maisonette or shared bins in a village or rural area
    • Other property type
  5. Q3

    On a normal two-week collection day, how full is your household's general waste bin (the black bin)?

    One answer
    • Less than half full
    • About half to three-quarters full
    • Nearly full or full, with the lid closed
    • Overfull, or we regularly have extra bags that do not fit
    • We use communal / shared bins
    • Don't know
  6. Q4

    Hollinbrook District Council needs to find £3.1 million in savings next year. One proposal is to collect general waste (the black bin) every three weeks instead of every two weeks. Food waste would still be collected every week, and recycling every two weeks. This change would save around £600,000 a year, and councils that have made this change report higher recycling rates (Hollinbrook currently recycles 43% of household waste). Based on this information, to what extent do you support or oppose moving general waste (black bin) collections to every three weeks?

    Scale

    Scale 1-5: Strongly oppose to Strongly support

    Judges: leading

    The introduction presents savings and higher recycling rates as benefits of the proposal without balancing them with potential adverse effects, steering the support rating towards approval.

    The preamble gives only the case for the change: the savings pressure, £600,000 saved, and higher recycling stated as fact. It mentions no drawbacks, which steers respondents towards support.

  7. Q5

    If general waste (black bin) collections moved to every three weeks (with weekly food waste and fortnightly recycling unchanged), what impact, if any, would this have on your household? Please select all that apply.

    Any that apply
    • No significant problem — we would manage with our current bins
    • Our black bin would not be big enough for three weeks of general waste
    • We do not have space to store extra waste or a larger bin
    • Difficulty storing nappies for three weeks
    • Difficulty storing adult continence, medical or hygiene waste for three weeks
    • Concerns about smells, pests or hygiene around the bin
    • Increases in fly-tipping or side waste in our neighbourhood
    • Other impact
    • Don't know
  8. Q6

    Suppose the council offered extra support for households that need it — such as a larger black bin for larger households, or a free extra collection service for nappies, continence and medical hygiene waste. If this extra support was included, to what extent would you support or oppose moving general waste collections to every three weeks?

    Scale

    Scale 1-5: Strongly oppose to Strongly support

  9. Q7

    The council is considering four options for how to proceed. Which ONE of the following options do you most prefer?

    One answer
    • Move general waste collections to every three weeks across the whole district
    • Move general waste collections to every three weeks across the whole district, with extra support for households that need it (larger bins or extra collections for nappies/hygiene waste)
    • Pilot three-weekly general waste collections in some areas of the district first before making a final decision
    • Drop the proposal and keep general waste collections every two weeks (finding the £600,000 savings from other council services or charges)
    • Don't know / no preference
  10. Q8

    If general waste was collected every three weeks instead of every two, how would this affect the amount of recycling and food waste separation your household does?

    One answer
    • We would recycle and separate food waste much more than we do now
    • We would recycle and separate food waste a little more than we do now
    • It would make no difference — we already recycle and separate all the food waste we can
    • It would make no difference — we would not change how we sort our waste
    • We would need a second or larger recycling bin / food caddy to recycle more
    • Don't know
    Judges: double-barrelled

    The options allow increased or unchanged sorting but not decreased sorting. Recycling and food-waste separation are combined into one answer even though they could change differently.

    It combines recycling and food waste separation in one answer, though a household may change one and not the other. One option also mixes in a need for extra containers.

  11. Q9

    To help us understand how different households would be affected, how many people live in your household, and do any of the following apply? Please select all that apply.

    Any that apply
    • 1 to 2 people live in the household
    • 3 to 4 people live in the household
    • 5 or more people live in the household
    • Household includes children under 4 who use disposable nappies
    • Household includes someone who uses continence, stoma or medical hygiene products
    • None of the specific waste needs above apply
    • Prefer not to say
    Judges: double-barrelled

    It asks household size and specific waste needs together in one multi-select. Respondents could pick several sizes or none, and 'Prefer not to say' covers both parts at once.

    The question asks for two distinct things (household size and specific hygiene/nappy waste needs) in a single multi-choice list, meaning a respondent could wrongly select multiple conflicting household sizes alongside their waste needs.

  12. Q10

    Which age group are you in, and how does your household occupy your home? (And if you have any final comments on the proposal, please note them in your response.)

    One answer
    • Aged 18–34, owner-occupier (own outright or with mortgage)
    • Aged 18–34, renting (social or private) or other
    • Aged 35–64, owner-occupier (own outright or with mortgage)
    • Aged 35–64, renting (social or private) or other
    • Aged 65+, owner-occupier (own outright or with mortgage)
    • Aged 65+, renting (social or private) or other
    • Prefer not to say
    Judges: double-barrelled

    It combines age group and tenure in a single choice. It also asks for final comments without providing any comment box.

    The question combines age and housing tenure into single options, and also asks for final comments without providing an open text box to write them in.

Sample plan

Dual-track online administration using identical neutral wording (note to stakeholder: under UK public consultation law / Gunning principles, questions must present the financial context and options neutrally without leading respondents toward a pre-determined outcome):

  • Random-sample Residents' Panel: Target n=420 completes recruited by letter to randomly selected addresses from the PAF/council tax register, with interlocked quotas/rim weighting matched to Hollinbrook's Census age (18-34, 35-64, 65+) and housing tenure (owner-occupied vs rented) profile, stratified evenly across the 6 wards (n=70 per ward).
  • Open Public Consultation: Identical online survey hosted on the council website and promoted via social media and the residents' magazine, open to all residents aged 18+. Analysed and reported completely separately from the representative panel to prevent self-selection bias.
  • Statistical Precision Check (Crucial Flag for Ward Councillors): With n=420 total completes (~70 per ward across 6 wards), the district-wide margin of error at 95% confidence is ±4.8 percentage points, which exceeds the ±6pp requirement overall. However, at the individual ward level (n=70 per ward), the maximum margin of error at 95% confidence (at p=50%) is ±11.7 percentage points. Achieving ±6 percentage points at 95% confidence inside EACH of the 6 wards individually would require roughly n=260 completes per ward (n=1,560 total panel completes). If the budget/constraint is fixed at n=420 panel completes, results can be reported at ±4.8pp for the district as a whole, ~±6.8pp for Town vs Rural groupings (3 wards each, n=210), and ±11.7pp for individual wards.