GPT-6.1 Sol: 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: ✓ Sound research
Research score: 96 of 100
Analysis rating: 1,650
Head to head, this task: won 6 of 8

Scorecard

Numbers 11 of 11 right

Question		Its answer	True
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)?	✓	4.69 points	4.69 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)	✓	No	No
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?	✓	189	209
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?	✓	9	9
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 approve an unsupported district-wide change now, and do not claim a resident mandate. Retain fortnightly collections outside a time-limited, evaluated pilot. Proceed with a supported pilot only if an initial operational and financial assessment shows a credible benefit. Include free capacity support where justified and a separately specified nappy and hygiene-waste service, with accessible eligibility and safeguards from the outset. Select pilot areas to cover town and rural routes, different housing and storage conditions, renters, larger households and relevant care needs, rather than selecting only apparently supportive wards. This recommendation is a risk-managed way to resolve uncertain feasibility, not a claim that the pilot option won the survey. If effective support is unaffordable or safe operation cannot be demonstrated, drop the proposal.

What would change it

A supported district-wide rollout would become defensible if a controlled pilot, including warm weather, demonstrates meaningful net savings or environmental gains, no material deterioration in overflow, collection reliability, fly-tipping or hygiene outcomes, and satisfactory results for households with unavoidable waste and restricted storage. These criteria and acceptable deterioration thresholds should be set before the pilot. Evidence of persistent harm despite support, inaccessible provision, negligible net benefit, or costs that outweigh savings would favour retaining fortnightly collections and dropping the proposal. A stronger household-representative follow-up on a fully specified policy could change the assessment of public acceptability, but would not replace operational evidence.

Findings

The council leader cannot accurately claim that residents back the unqualified move to three-weekly collections. The better-balanced panel is divided, with opposition slightly ahead of support.

Medium confidenceBase 422

Among 422 panel respondents, 40.8% support and 45.3% oppose. The conventional simple-random-sample 95% margin on support is approximately ±4.69 percentage points. This is not a majority for change, and the 4.5-point opposition lead should not be presented as a decisive population difference.
The environment cabinet member is right about consultation respondents, but not entitled to generalise their opposition to the district or conclude that the proposal must be dropped on that figure alone.

High confidenceBase 1318

Opposition is 77.5% among 1,318 open-consultation respondents, versus 45.3% among 422 panel respondents. Brookfield supplies 38.0% of consultation responses but represents 12% of district households. Nevertheless, consultation opposition is high in every ward, ranging from 70.7% to 83.4%; the opposition cannot simply be dismissed as a Brookfield campaign.
Larger bins would bring some opponents round, but not most. The head of waste services should not treat bin enlargement as a sufficient solution.

Medium confidenceBase 191

Of 191 panel opponents asked Q3, 22.5% would support with a free larger bin, 9.4% would become neutral and 61.3% would still oppose. Approximately 43 respondents would switch to support: 10.2% of the whole panel. Adding these to existing supporters gives an illustrative 51.0%, but not a measured support level for a complete larger-bin policy.
Households producing nappies or hygiene waste are the clearest priority for protection. Their concerns require attention to storage duration as well as bin capacity.

Medium confidenceBase 54

Among 54 panel respondents in these households, 74.1% oppose the basic proposal and only 14.8% support it. However, 55.6% prefer three-weekly collections with extra support, compared with 19.0% among the other 368 respondents. Nine panel comments mention smell, flies, maggots, vermin or hygiene waste being stored. Q4 bundles larger bins and extra hygiene collections, so it does not establish which support measure works.
A supported pilot is the most defensible next decision, but the survey does not establish that a pilot is residents' clear favourite.

Medium confidenceBase 422

Panel preferences are closely divided: trial first 25.4%, retain fortnightly 24.6%, three-weekly with support 23.7%, and district-wide three-weekly 22.0%. The three change-related options total 71.1%, but include conditional preferences and a trial followed by another decision. In the consultation, retaining fortnightly is the largest individual preference at 42.7%; the change-related options total 52.4%.
Do not select pilot wards on the basis of apparent ward support, or assume that renters and owners have demonstrably different attitudes.

Medium confidenceBase 422

Panel support is 42.6% among 282 owner-occupiers and 37.1% among 140 renters. A conventional two-sided two-proportion test gives approximately z=1.08, p=0.28: not significant at 95%. Ward bases range from 16 to 133. Wendle Vale's 62.5% support rests on only 16 respondents.
Increased recycling is a plausible benefit to test, not an established outcome or a basis for predicting savings.

Medium confidenceBase 422

Among 422 panel respondents, 40.5% say they would be very or fairly likely to recycle more; 29.1% are fairly or very unlikely and 11.8% say they already recycle everything they can. Consultation likelihood is 24.2%. These are intentions, not measurements of waste reduction, recycling quality or realised behaviour.
Separate organised campaign participation from independently described household problems, without discarding campaign respondents.

High confidenceBase 189

The supplied row-level text contains 189 copies or near-copies of the campaign objection. These repeat overflow, hygiene and fly-tipping concerns together. Other consultation comments and panel comments independently describe already-full bins, unavoidable hygiene waste, limited storage and perceived poor value. Repeated wording is evidence of mobilisation, not proof of duplicate respondents or proof that the predicted harms will occur.

Caveats

The open consultation is self-selected and campaign-promoted. It measures the views of participants, not the percentage of district residents opposing. Campaign participation should remain visible rather than being excluded merely for using suggested wording.
The panel is the stronger source for a district-wide indication because addresses were randomly invited and its achieved age, tenure and ward profiles are much closer to the district. However, only 422 of 2,000 invited addresses produced completes: 21.1%. Non-response, online-only participation and quota selection can still bias results.
The ±4.69-point margin uses 1.96 × sqrt(0.408 × 0.592 / 422). It is a conventional simple-random-sample benchmark, not a guarantee that the quota-filled, responding panel estimates population support within that range. The tenure significance test has the same sampling assumptions.
The survey samples adults reporting about their households, while the service decision concerns approximately 58,000 households. Adult age and tenure matching does not automatically make household experiences representative.
The sources must not be pooled. Their overlap, if any, is unknown, and their recruitment mechanisms differ.
The panel includes 54 households with a child under 3 or hygiene-product use, or 12.8%, compared with the council's estimate of about 15%. Their subgroup results are important but imprecise. These two needs are combined in the supplied cross-tabs and may require different support.
Q3 was asked only of opponents. It measures a hypothetical response to a free larger bin, not actual take-up, sustained satisfaction, or support for a fully specified district policy. Neutrality is not support. The original supporters were not asked whether adding larger bins would change their views.
Q4 asks for one preferred option. Combining all change-related options must not be described as support for immediate district-wide implementation. Nor can the small differences between individual panel options establish a clear favourite.
Q4 combines larger bins and extra nappy or hygiene collections in one option, so their separate effectiveness and costs are unknown.
The open-text heading states 417 answers, but the supplied row-level extract and respondent IDs should be reconciled before publishing comment prevalence figures. The template count is based on the listed copies and near-copies, not inferred from the heading.
Template objections are grouped separately in the theme coding. The capacity, hygiene and fly-tipping themes explicitly cover non-template comments; the template group also expresses all three concerns. Theme counts overlap and should not be added.
The segment label 'Neither' in the comment records describes absence of the specified household needs; it is not a Q2 neutral response. Household labels alone were not counted as mentions of hygiene.
Comments describe experiences and anticipated consequences. They do not establish that three-weekly collections cause pests, health harms or fly-tipping. Likewise, favourable environmental comments do not establish waste reduction or landfill diversion.
No evidence is supplied on bin sizes, measured residual-waste volumes, household size distribution, communal bins, storage access, assisted collections, missed collections, route costs, contamination, or net savings after support and enforcement.

Next steps

decisionPublish a balanced decision paper answering the three stakeholder questions directly and keep consultation and panel results separate.
researchAudit the respondent-level dataset and reconcile the Q1 extract; check routing, duplicate submissions, campaign wording and recruitment metadata without automatically excluding campaign participants.
researchMeasure existing bin utilisation and residual-waste composition, and investigate capacity, storage and hygiene needs with purposively selected households.
decisionCost the complete supported policy before authorising a pilot, including larger bins, separate hygiene collections, assisted provision, communications, missed collections and enforcement.
experimentRun a supported pilot with comparable fortnightly control areas, baseline measurements and coverage of warm weather; randomise routes where feasible.
monitorTrack missed collections, overflow, fly-tipping, hygiene complaints and support-service performance throughout the pilot, with rapid remedies and stopping rules.
researchConduct an accessible household-based follow-up on the fully specified support package, including offline participation and deliberate inclusion of renters and care-related needs.

Open-text themes it coded

Campaign-template objection combining overflow, hygiene and fly-tipping concerns 189Already-full bins and insufficient capacity in non-template comments 65Smell, flies, maggots, vermin or stored nappies and hygiene waste in non-template comments 35Reduced service for the same council tax and perceived poor value 39Predicted fly-tipping or abandoned public-space rubbish in non-template comments 15Positive incentive to recycle more, reduce waste or benefit the environment 57Little personal impact or sufficient existing capacity 18

The survey it planned

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

S1
Hollinbrook District Council is asking residents about a possible change to household waste collections. No decision has been made. Your answers will help inform the decision full council makes in the autumn. This survey takes about 6 minutes. Taking part is voluntary, and you can skip any question after the eligibility questions. What is your age group?
One answer
- Under 18
- 18–24
- 25–34
- 35–44
- 45–54
- 55–64
- 65–74
- 75 or over
- I am 18 or over but prefer not to give my age group
Continues if 18–24; 25–34; 35–44; 45–54; 55–64; 65–74; 75 or over; I am 18 or over but prefer not to give my age group
S2
Do you currently live in the Hollinbrook District Council area?
One answer
- Yes
- No
- Not sure
Continues if Yes
Q1
What is your full home postcode? We will use this to group answers by ward and by town or rural area. Please do not enter your street address. You can leave this blank if you prefer.
Open text
Q2
Which of these best describes your household's housing situation? Select one.
One answer
- Own our home outright
- Own our home with a mortgage or loan
- Part-own and part-rent our home through shared ownership
- Rent from the council or a housing association
- Rent from a private landlord
- Live rent-free
- Another housing situation
- Not sure
- Prefer not to say
Q3
Which, if any, of the following apply to your household? Select all that apply. You do not need to identify anyone or give details about a health condition. Select 'None of these' or 'Prefer not to say' on its own.
Any that apply
- At least one child aged under 5 lives here
- We regularly dispose of disposable nappies
- We regularly dispose of continence products or other medical or personal hygiene waste, other than nappies
- Five or more people live here
- Someone has a health condition or disability that makes using or moving the bins difficult
- We use shared or communal general waste bins
- None of these
- Prefer not to say
Q4
Thinking about the last three scheduled general waste collections, how often was your household's black bin full or overflowing before collection day? If you use shared bins, answer about those bins.
One answer
- On none of the three occasions
- On one occasion
- On two occasions
- On all three occasions
- Not sure
- Our household does not use this collection service
Q5
Please read this information before answering the remaining questions. Hollinbrook currently collects general waste in the black bin every two weeks, food waste every week, and recycling every two weeks. The council needs to find £3.1 million in savings next year. Changing general waste collection to every three weeks across the district is estimated to save about £600,000 a year in collection rounds and disposal costs. Food waste would still be collected weekly and recycling every two weeks. Hollinbrook currently recycles 43% of household waste. Councils that have changed to three-weekly general waste collections report higher recycling, although the effect in Hollinbrook is not yet known. The longer gap between collections could make it harder for some households to store their general waste. Based on this information, to what extent do you support or oppose changing general waste collection from every two weeks to every three weeks across the district, without additional support for households?
One answer
- Strongly support
- Tend to support
- Neither support nor oppose
- Tend to oppose
- Strongly oppose
- Not sure
Q6
If general waste were collected every three weeks, with food waste still collected weekly and recycling every two weeks, what effects would you expect on your household without additional support? Select all that apply. Select 'No noticeable effect', 'Not sure' or 'Not applicable' on its own.
Any that apply
- We would run out of space in our general waste bin
- We would have difficulty storing waste securely outside the bin
- We would have more problems with smells
- We would have more problems with flies or other pests
- We would have difficulty storing nappies, continence products or other hygiene waste
- We would need to make extra trips to dispose of waste
- We would make more effort to separate recycling or food waste
- We would try to produce less waste
- Another effect
- No noticeable effect
- Not sure
- Not applicable — our household does not use this collection service
Q7
Now consider a version of the proposal with additional support for households assessed as needing it. This could include a larger general waste bin where extra capacity is needed, or extra collections of nappies and hygiene waste where needed. Eligibility and the details have not yet been decided. Providing this support would have costs, so the saving could be lower than £600,000 a year. With this additional support available to households that need it, to what extent would you support or oppose changing general waste collection to every three weeks across the district? Food waste would still be collected weekly and recycling every two weeks.
One answer
- Strongly support
- Tend to support
- Neither support nor oppose
- Tend to oppose
- Strongly oppose
- Not sure
Q8
Which one of the following would you most prefer the council to do? Food waste would remain weekly and recycling every two weeks under all options. If the council keeps general waste collections every two weeks, it would need to find the proposed £600,000 saving elsewhere. Select one.
One answer
- Change general waste collections to every three weeks across the district, without additional household support
- Change general waste collections to every three weeks across the district, with additional support for households that need it
- Pilot three-weekly general waste collections in some areas before deciding whether to change collections across the district
- Drop the proposal and keep general waste collections every two weeks
- No preference
- Not sure
Q9
If general waste collections changed to every three weeks, do you think your household would separate more, the same amount, or less recyclable material and food waste from general waste than it does now? Food waste would still be collected weekly and recycling every two weeks.
One answer
- More — there is currently some recyclable material or food waste in our general waste that we would separate
- The same amount — we already separate all or almost all that we can
- The same amount — we would not change what we separate
- Less
- Not sure
- Not applicable — our household does not use these collection services
Q10
What, if anything, currently makes it difficult for your household to separate recyclable material or food waste from general waste? Select all that apply. Select 'Nothing makes it difficult', 'Not sure' or 'Not applicable' on its own.
Any that apply
- Not knowing which items go in which bin
- Not enough space in our recycling bin or food waste container
- Not enough space at home to keep materials separate
- Difficulty accessing or moving bins or containers
- Missing or damaged recycling bins or food waste containers
- Problems with collection reliability
- Smells or mess from storing food waste
- The recycling service does not accept some of our waste
- The time or effort involved
- Another difficulty
- Nothing makes it difficult
- Not sure
- Not applicable — our household does not use these collection services

Sample plan

Use the same questionnaire in both channels, with a hidden source flag identifying panel and open-consultation responses. The open consultation is available to eligible adults through the council website and promoted through social media and the residents' magazine; its response count is not capped at 420. For the panel, randomly select residential addresses, stratified across the six wards, and send letters with unique survey codes. Ask one eligible adult per address to respond, selected by the next-birthday method. Release randomly selected reserve addresses and send reminders as needed, rather than substituting volunteers from the open consultation. Target about 420 panel completes, approximately 70 per ward, with recruitment monitored against district adult age and household tenure benchmarks; monitor these within wards where reliable benchmarks exist. Match benchmarks using recruitment and, where necessary, calibration weights rather than excluding otherwise eligible respondents. Record panel ward from the sampled address; derive open respondents' ward from Q1 using a verified postcode-to-ward lookup, retaining an unknown category where assignment is unavailable or ambiguous. Remove raw postcodes from analysis exports after geographic coding. IMPORTANT: 420 panel completes cannot meet the requested ward precision. With about 70 independent responses per ward, a proportion near 50% has an approximate 95% margin of error of ±11.7 percentage points, before weighting or other design effects. ±6 points requires approximately 267 effective responses per ward, or 1,602 across six wards, under simple random sampling; unequal weighting could require more. Seek approval to increase panel recruitment accordingly, or explicitly relax ward precision and treat ward comparisons as exploratory. The overall simple-random-sample margin at n=420 is approximately ±4.8 points, not the ward margin. Nonresponse and online coverage bias are not included in these margins. Open responses cannot supply the missing probability-sample precision. Before launch, cognitively test the questionnaire, postcode coding and mobile usability with residents including households with nappies or hygiene waste; time completion and confirm it remains within six minutes. Make post-screener questions optional and enforce the stated exclusive choices in multi-select questions. Randomise Q8's first four options while keeping 'No preference' and 'Not sure' last. Preserve the same wording and presentation across channels.