Hillingdon wants to remove every dog waste bin in the borough, without asking residents

It is a decision for Cllr Bridges alone, who can sign it off from Thursday 22nd October. The report says no formal public consultation has been carried out or is proposed. The Residents’ Services Select Committee can call the decision in before it takes effect, but only has five working days to do so.

What the Council wants to do

The dog bins cost about £160,000 a year to empty, under a contract with Charman Environmental Services Ltd. Ending that part of the contract produces the saving. The Council would put £60,000 a year back into street cleansing, leaving a net saving of about £100,000.

The 14½ tonnes of dog waste collected each month (about 174 tonnes a year) would move into the litter and household waste streams. The Council says its litter bins are “capable” of taking it.

If Cllr Bridges signs on 22nd October, stickers reading “I can take dog waste too” could start appearing on selected litter bins from mid-November, and the dog waste bins could start to disappear from late January.

“I can take dog waste too” sticker on a bin… good luck with that on the full bins in Ruislip Manor!

The Council explains that it has no legal duty to provide dog waste bins, and that dog waste can legally go in a litter bin. Two bins side by side may well be one too many. The question is whether that is true of all 700.

Duplication, but not the kind the report means

The report says many dog bins sit close to litter bins, and that removing the duplication is part of the point. These two places in Ruislip and Ruislip Manor have duplication of a different kind: two dog waste bins side by side.

That isn’t the duplication the report is describing.  But it shows the same thing the report admits: a network that grew “incrementally” rather than through a “strategic assessment of operational need”.  If we can find examples like these, the 700 bins have clearly not been placed or reviewed with much care.  That is a case for sorting them out bin by bin, not for removing all of them. The report considered that approach as Option 2, and rejected it because it would still need a dedicated collection service.

Hillingdon Council’s Priorities for 2026-2030

“Brilliant at the basics”?

Cabinet has just adopted its priorities for 2026–2030. Under “Brilliant at the basics” the Council promises to keep “neighbourhoods, roads and green spaces clean, safe and well maintained”, and to take “tough enforcement action against those who harm our communities”. Under “Putting our residents first” it promises “listening to your views to shape what we do”. Under “Easy to deal with” it promises “responding to you quickly when you need us.”

How would you judge this proposal against those promises?

What we’ve seen on the ground

The report assumes the existing litter bin network will absorb the extra waste. We have been looking at it.

Dog waste bin in Ruislip Manor. Full and spilling over, with no litter bin nearby.

Some of these bins are already overflowing under the current dedicated service. The Council asks residents to report problems through the Love Clean Streets app. In our experience, reports of overfilled dog waste bins are closed almost immediately with a reply that the bin will be emptied within the next five days anyway. That suggests the bins are well used and can fill up between collections.

If bins dedicated to dog waste overflow within a five-day cycle, how will ordinary litter bins cope with an extra 174 tonnes of dog poo a year, when on many streets there isn’t one to cope?

Our concern: poo on the pavement, and a “poo Christmas tree”

Where there is no litter bin close by, some owners will carry the bag home. Others will not. We think more dog poo will be left on the pavement. The Council seems to expect the same. Why else would it be keeping back £60,000 a year of the saving for street cleansing?

We can also imagine bags of dog poo tied to bushes and shrubs along the walks where the bins used to be, until they look like a poo Christmas tree. Dedicated dog bins exist largely because many owners didn’t take the bag home, and the report offers no evidence that this has changed.

The report itself lists “an increase in dog fouling” as a main risk. But it treats it as a risk that comes from residents being “unaware” of the alternatives, to be fixed with signs and stickers. It doesn’t consider the case where the alternative is a long walk away, or doesn’t exist.

What else the report doesn’t say

• Which bins will go. The summary says “many” dog bins are close to litter bins, and a later section says “the majority” are in areas with alternatives. That implies some aren’t, yet all will be removed. There is no list or map, and no plan to put litter bins where dog bins are the only bin.
• What the £60,000 covers. One recommendation says it is for litter bin servicing “and associated waste disposal costs”, while the financial section says disposal costs will be “absorbed” into an existing budget.
• The evidence. The decision rests on a “comprehensive review”, but the list of background papers says “NIL”.  The “many other local authorities” that have done the same aren’t named.

No consultation

The Council says this is “a change in the method of collection rather than the withdrawal of a service”, so formal consultation isn’t “necessary or proportionate”. Many dog walkers will see it differently when the bin they use every day disappears.

The parking changes we reported last month are also about £160,000 a year of savings (saving another “RAGC”), and they are going to a 21-day consultation. This decision was published on the Cabinet Member Decisions page, where few residents will look. The report’s answer to public concern is a communications plan explaining “the financial benefits to the Council”. Residents will be told rather than asked.

What happens next

Cllr Bridges can take the decision from 22nd October. Once it is published, the Residents’ Services Select Committee has five working days to “call it in”, counted from 5pm on the day of publication. Call-in lets the committee ask for the decision to be reconsidered before it takes effect. If it isn’t called in, the stickers and then the bin removals follow.

In its review, CIPFA found a lack of depth in the Council’s scrutiny, and the Best Value Notice expects scrutiny that works. This is a chance to show it can.

The committee’s members are:

• Cllr Peter Smallwood (Chair), Ruislip
• Cllr Daniel Singham, Eastcote
• Cllr Tommy Balaam, Harefield Village
• Cllr Riley Russell, Uxbridge
• Cllr Navnit Dhesi, Hayes Town
• Cllr Kamal Preet Kaur, Wood End
• Cllr Paul Capps, West Drayton

Every member has received the report, and the window is short. If a dog waste bin matters on your road, in your park or on your regular walk, tell your ward councillors, Cllr Bridges and the committee members now. We’d also like to hear from you and we’ll share in a future update what we receive.  If you email your ward councillors or Cllr Bridges, please copy us in – secretary2@ruislipresidents.org.uk.

Join our newsletter mailing list