Lyttelton Rubbish Scheme Criticised By Residents

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30214, 20 August 1963, Page 15

Lyttelton Rubbish Scheme Criticised By Residents

The Lyttelton Borough Council’s “reorganised” rubbish disposal system was criticised by ratepayers in letters of protest to a meeting of the council last evening. The new regulations, which were brought into effect a fortnight ago, reduced the number of collections to one a week and restricted all house* holders to one standard-size tin each.

Mr B. C. McCormick said he objected strongly to the new method and asked the council to review the matter immediately. It was the council’s duty, he said, to provide an adequate and proper rubbish collection service. "The quantity of rubbish the council is now prepared to collect is quite inadequate for most householders,” he said. Rubbish fires were likely to become more frequent and with rubbish tins on the streets overnight, prowling animals would have a greater opportunity of strewing the rubbish about. "As a pharmacist, I am concerned that the council appears to have overlooked the danger to health as a result of an unsatisfactory or inadequate disposal service,” said Mr McCormick. Mr L. H. Govan, a director of Lichfield (N.Z.), Ltd., said he had received a complaint from the firm's Lyttelton

brancb manager that the “severe restrictions” had caused considerable inconvenience. He asked the council to revert to collecting twice a week. “If this cannot be achieved, under what condition is the council prepared to accept a greater volume of rubbish than that now stipulated?” asked Mr Govan. His firm usually had between six and eight tins of rubbish each week. (The new regulations allow business premises two tins.) Mr W. Thomas, of 33 London street, said the accumulation of rubbish left in unattended business premises over the week-ends would attract rats and would create a health hazard. “The council could be sacrificing the health of the community on the grounds of economy,” said Mr Thomas. After the letters had been read by the town clerk (Mir J. Thompson), Or N. D Parrott moved they be referred

to the works committee. ‘‘We hope to hold a meeting soon to discuss the whole business,” he said. Cr. G. E. Boyd said she hoped the “present starte of mass confusion” in the borough would not be allowed to continue much longer. Or. Parratt: The meeting will be held on Wednesday. Cr. N. D. Walker suggested that the special health and sanitetton sub - committee should look inrto the matter. "I see no reason for deferring st.” said Or. R. H. Duff ‘ 'This matter was approved by the whole council.” Cr. Walker said if some aspects of the new system were unsatisfactory, they should be reviewed. The matter was then referred to the works committee after Cr. Parnaitit had invited any councillors interested to attend. A full investigatton into the scheme would be made, he sand. Council Explains In a prepared statement released to the press, the council said the reorganisation of the refuse collection in Lyttelton was the result of investigations into the service and its operating costs. “The collection of refuse in Lyttelton has been taking few days and a half a week to complete and is costing more than £4OOO a year. The investigartdon shows that in other boroughs refuse is collected on one day a week only, though in one case the collection takes one day and a half a week. “The council had two alternatives open to it. The first was substantially to increase the rates so that the service given could be continued The second was to reorganise the service on a more efficient basis. “lit was finally decided by the full council to adopt the system which is now in force tt takes two days to complete. “The council appreciates the co-operation that has been shown by householders in making the reorganised service a success,” the statement said.