Muse Wonder: What Hollinbrook residents think of three-weekly bin collections

Scorecard

The analysis

Findings

1. The council leader cannot claim residents back three-weekly collections. In the representative panel, support is a minority and is outweighed by opposition, although the gap is within sampling uncertainty.

   High confidenceBase 422

   Panel Q2: 40.8% support, 45.3% oppose, 10.4% neither, 3.6% don't know, base 422. 95% margin on support is +/-4.7pp, so support is plausibly 36.1-45.5% and there is no majority backing.

2. The cabinet member's 'nearly four in five oppose' is real for the open consultation but cannot be read as the district view. It is a self-selected, campaign-affected count, not a population estimate.

   High confidenceBase 1318

   Open consultation Q2: 77.5% oppose, 14.7% support, base 1,318, versus panel 45.3% oppose, 40.8% support, base 422. Open respondents are skewed: Brookfield 38.0% of open vs 12% of households; child-under-3/hygiene households 29% approx. in open (381/1,318 at Q2 split) vs council estimate about 15% and panel 54/422; owners 81.5% in open vs 67% population. On 1 June Keep Brookfield Tidy circulated suggested wording.

3. Do not drop the proposal solely on the open consultation, and do not roll it out district-wide on this evidence. Panel opinion is closely divided, with intensity against: more strongly oppose than strongly support.

   High confidenceBase 422

   Panel Q2: strongly oppose 28.2% vs strongly support 17.3%; tend to oppose 17.1% vs tend to support 23.5%. Net oppose 45.3% vs net support 40.8%, difference 4.5pp on base 422.

4. A larger bin alone would not bring most opponents round, answering the head of waste services: no.

   High confidenceBase 191

   Panel Q3, asked only of Q2 opponents: 22.5% would support with a larger free bin, 61.3% would still oppose, 9.4% neither, 6.8% don't know, base 191. That converts only 10.2% of all panel respondents (191 x 22.5% / 422). Open consultation is similar: 17.4% would support, 66.5% still oppose, base 1,021.

5. Targeted extra support matters most to the households most opposed and most at risk of harm: those with a child under 3 or hygiene-product use. For them extra support is the single most preferred model, not a larger-bin-only offer tested at Q3.

   Medium confidenceBase 54

   Panel Q2 for child/hygiene group: 74.1% oppose, 14.8% support, base 54, vs 41.0% oppose and 44.6% support for others, base 368. Panel Q4 for that group: 55.6% prefer three-weekly with extra support, 25.9% keep two-weekly, 13.0% trial first, 5.6% district-wide without support, base 54. Small base, so treat direction as strong but precise share as uncertain.

6. When forced to choose a model, panel respondents prefer some form of three-weekly change over simply keeping two-weekly, but outright district-wide rollout is the least supported three-weekly variant alongside supported rollout - support is conditional on trial or support.

   High confidenceBase 422

   Panel Q4: keep every two weeks 24.6%; every three weeks whole district 22.0%; three-weekly with extra support 23.7%; trial in some areas first 25.4%; don't know 4.3%, base 422. Combined three-weekly variants 71.1%, but no single variant has a majority. Open Q4 differs sharply: keep 42.7%, base 1,318.

7. There is no clear tenure mandate either way. Renters oppose more in raw terms, but the support gap between owners and renters is not statistically significant at 95%.

   High confidenceBase 422

   Panel Q2 support: owner-occupiers 42.6%, base 282; renters 37.1%, base 140; gap 5.5pp, 95% interval for the difference about +/-9.9pp, includes zero. Opposition: owners 41.8%, renters 52.1%. Do not target or exempt by tenure on this alone.

8. Age and most ward differences in the panel should not be over-read. Subgroup bases are small, especially Wendle Vale, and apparent extremes are unreliable.

   Medium confidenceBase 422

   Panel Q2 ward bases: Wendle Vale 16, Brookfield 47, Stanmoor 67, Kettlewell 76, Ashby Marsh 83, Hollinbrook Town 133. Wendle Vale 62.5% support rests on 10 people. Age 75+ support 51.0% rests on base 51. Stanmoor oppose 55.2%, base 67; Ashby Marsh oppose 33.7%, base 83. These are indicative only.

9. A recycling uplift is plausible but not guaranteed and is stated intention, not behaviour. A substantial minority say they already recycle everything or are unlikely to do more.

   Medium confidenceBase 422

   Panel Q5: very/fairly likely to recycle more 40.5%, neither 16.1%, fairly/very unlikely 29.1%, already recycle everything 11.8%, don't know 2.4%, base 422. Open: likely 24.2%, base 1,318. This supports testing actual recycling tonnage in a pilot rather than assuming it.

10. Open-text volume against the proposal is heavily inflated by a template campaign and must not be counted as 209 independent experiences. The underlying concerns in genuine comments - capacity for larger households, hygiene for nappy/hygiene waste, fly-tipping, and council-tax value - recur independently in both sources.

    High confidenceBase 417

    417 open-text answers supplied: 209 are copies or near-copies of the Keep Brookfield Tidy template in three wording variants. Panel open-text, unaffected by that template count, still contains overflow, hygiene, fly-tipping and value comments, e.g. hygiene mentioned by 9 panel respondents.

Open-text themes it coded

Bin already full / would overflow - household capacity, especially larger households 269Hygiene - smell, flies, maggots, vermin, foxes, nappies or hygiene waste sitting in bin 244Fly-tipping, side waste and dumping in lanes, lay-bys and streets 224Poor value - same or higher council tax for fewer collections / service cut 40Positive environmental effect - would recycle more, waste less, support change 56Little or no effect - small household, bin rarely full, food waste weekly helps 16Campaign template copy or near-copy 209

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 34
   • 35 to 49
   • 50 to 64
   • 65 to 74
   • 75 or over

   Continues if 18 to 34; 35 to 49; 50 to 64; 65 to 74; 75 or over

2. S2

   Do you live in the Hollinbrook District Council area as your main home?

   One answer
   • Yes
   • No
   • Don't know

   Continues if Yes

3. S3

   Please enter your home postcode. This will only be used to check that you live in the Hollinbrook District Council area and to analyse results by ward. It will not be used to identify you.

   Open text

   Continues if A postcode in the Hollinbrook District Council area

4. Q1

   Hollinbrook District Council currently collects general waste (the black bin) every two weeks, food waste every week and recycling every two weeks. The council must save £3.1 million next year. It is considering collecting general waste every three weeks instead. Food waste would stay weekly and recycling would stay every two weeks. The council estimates this would save about £600,000 a year, and councils that have made this change have reported higher recycling. Some residents may be concerned about their general waste bin filling up. To what extent do you support or oppose collecting general waste every three weeks, with no extra support?

   Scale

   Scale 1-5: Strongly oppose to Strongly support

   Judges: leading

   The introduction frames the change as addressing necessary savings and increasing recycling, while presenting drawbacks only as something some residents may worry about. This imbalance steers respondents towards support.

   The preamble presents three points in favour as fact: the £3.1m savings need, the £600,000 saving and the higher recycling reported elsewhere. Against these there is only one hedged concern ('some residents may be concerned'). This tilts the main support measure towards support.

5. Q2

   If general waste was collected every three weeks, how easy or difficult would it be for your household to fit all your general waste in your black bin between collections?

   Scale

   Scale 1-5: Very difficult to Very easy

6. Q3

   What concerns, if any, would your household have about general waste being collected every three weeks? Please select all that apply.

   Any that apply
   • My general waste bin would be full before collection day
   • Smell, flies or other pests
   • Having nowhere to store extra waste
   • Nappies or hygiene products building up
   • Pet waste building up
   • Extra waste at busy times, such as Christmas or when visitors stay
   • It would be harder to sort waste correctly
   • I would have no concerns
   • Other concerns
   • Don't know
7. Q4

   Which of the following, if any, apply to your household? Please select all that apply. This will help us understand how the proposal would affect different households.

   Any that apply
   • A child under 5 lives here
   • Someone here uses nappies
   • Someone here uses continence or other hygiene products that go in the general waste bin
   • Five or more people live here
   • We have limited space to store bins or extra waste
   • Someone here has a health condition or disability that creates extra general waste
   • None of these
   • Prefer not to say
8. Q5

   Please rank the following options from 1 (most preferred) to 4 (least preferred).

   Ranking
   • Keep collecting general waste every two weeks and do not make this change
   • Collect general waste every three weeks across the whole district, with no extra support
   • Collect general waste every three weeks across the whole district, with extra support for households that need it, such as a larger bin or extra collections of nappies and hygiene waste
   • Try collecting general waste every three weeks in some areas first, review the results, and then decide whether to introduce it across the whole district
9. Q6

   If general waste was collected every three weeks, but households that need it could get a larger general waste bin at no extra charge and households with nappies or continence or hygiene waste could get extra collections of that waste, to what extent would you support or oppose the change?

   Scale

   Scale 1-5: Strongly oppose to Strongly support

10. Q7

    Which of the following, if any, would help your household if general waste was collected every three weeks? Please select all that apply.

    Any that apply
    • A larger general waste bin
    • An extra collection of nappies and hygiene waste
    • An extra general waste collection after Christmas and bank holidays
    • Clearer information about what can be recycled
    • Help to use the weekly food waste collection
    • An assisted collection from my property
    • None of these would help my household
    • I already support the change without extra support
    • Don't know
11. Q8

    If general waste was collected every three weeks, what, if anything, do you think you would do differently? Please select all that apply.

    Any that apply
    • Recycle more using the recycling collection
    • Use the weekly food waste collection more
    • Recycle more at recycling centres or bring banks
    • Squash or compact general waste more
    • Put recyclable items in the general waste bin if the recycling bin was full
    • Make more trips to dispose of waste elsewhere
    • I would not do anything differently because I already recycle everything I can
    • I would not do anything differently for another reason
    • Don't know
12. Q9

    What is the main reason for your views on this proposal, and is there anything else the council should consider before deciding? Please do not include your name, address or anything that could identify you or anyone else.

    Open text
13. Q10

    Which of the following best describes your home?

    One answer
    • I own it outright or with a mortgage
    • I rent it from a private landlord
    • I rent it from the council or a housing association
    • Other
    • Prefer not to say