Auckland Drive
This report was prompted as an effort to reduce report accidents/incidents on the route.
An FOI request for these reported accidents/incidents showed that there were 2 minor reports in the last 10 years
Full report here
Context: The Council justified these changes to residents under the guise of “Health & Safety.”
The Evidence: Internal emails prove that Environmental Services actively ignored explicit safety warnings from the Council’s own Highways Department to implement the cheapest option. On 30 June2025, Highways explicitly rejected the chosen plan (Option 4), warning: “From a highway perspective placing bins in a live carriageway is not appropriate and not the right solution” and that it “Will cause obstructions.“ Critically, Highways warned that the “Bins will not be properly visible / reflective at night causing hazards,“ and that there is “a risk cars will park opposite the bins and block the road entirely.“
The department proceeded with the dangerous option anyway, proving resident safety was actively disregarded.
Context: A lawful public consultation requires residents to be fully informed of how proposals will affect them.
The Evidence: FOI documents reveal officers actively conspired to hide the exact locations of the proposed bins from the consultation letter because they knew it would cause alarm. On 7 October 2025, while reviewing the draft letter, an officer requested the specific bin locations be obscured, stating: “can we find another way to describe these locations – if I was at [redacted] and told it was coming near my house I would worry. “ This demonstrates a deliberate strategy to withhold materialfacts from the public to avoid opposition.
Context: The Council’s Stage 2 response claimed that internal edits to public communications were made “solely to improve tone” and denied any intent to mislead residents.
The Evidence: The attached internal email explicitly demonstrates that the consultation was a sham. A Project Development Officer writes: “Regarding the amends, there was some concern about the communal service sounding like a proposal rather than something that is being implemented… which seems unnecessary if the plan is being carried out regardless of feedback. I understand we might be looking to keep letters more open to indicate we’re taking feedback, but I don’t think we should be disingenuous to residents. “ This proves the consultation was conducted in bad faith with a predetermined outcome, and officers deliberately tried to hide this fact. This evidence demonstrates a top-down culture of deliberately obfuscating facts and manipulating public consultation to force through predetermined operational changes. It’s written in black and white.
Context: The Council’s Stage 2 response explicitly claimed that “the original risk assessment was carried out in June before residents were notified of the proposal.“
The Evidence: The attached FOI emails prove no such risk assessment existed at the time the decision was made. On 20 January 2026-months after the changes were forced on residents-the Council’s own Health and Safety Advisor admits: “I have requested the current full risk assessment from the Ops Managers… but nothing has been shared with me to date. I’m happy to work with the team to complete this if risk assessments and method statements are not already in place.” Subsequently, an email on 19 February 2026 shows the specific risk assessment for the street (ES-Collections-RA15 Collections on uphill terrain) was only just being drafted and reviewed. The Stage 2 investigator has relied on, and formally submitted, a false timeline to dismiss this complaint. All Risk Assessments that were shared with me were dated in 2026, way after the changes were due to be rolled out. The authority also could not provide metadata proving these assessments were created earlier.