Hawkesbury City Council has confirmed the removal of 38 public bins, but questions remain about the savings involved and how it determined that the changes caused little or no increase in litter.
Hawkesbury City Council has directed the Gazette to its public statements and new podcast in response to detailed questions about the removal of the public bins, without supplying the requested savings figures, audit or litter inspection records.
In the first episode of Chambers and Beyond, General Manager Will Barton said monitoring showed little change in litter after the removals and that some locations had improved.
“What we’ve found as we’ve continued to monitor these locations where the bins have been pulled out is that there’s been pretty well no increase in litter since their removal,” Mr Barton said.
“And in fact, for many of these locations, there’s been a reduction.”
However, neither the podcast discussion nor Council’s written response supplied measurements, inspection dates or before-and-after records supporting that assessment.
The issue follows the Gazette’s September 11 report on concerns from residents and businesses about bins disappearing from Windsor, Richmond and Wilberforce.
In a September 17 statement, Council said an audit under its Hawkesbury Litter Prevention Plan 2025–2030 had identified older cradle-top bins that were no longer fit for purpose.
Council said wind and scavenging animals could scatter rubbish from the bins, while some were being used illegally for household and commercial waste. Others narrowed footpaths or were near alternative disposal facilities.
It also said the cost of collecting scattered litter and managing contamination at those locations outweighed the benefit of retaining the bins.
On October 15, the Gazette sent Council five groups of questions seeking the audit, Bin Infrastructure Business Case, approval records, removal locations and dates, financial calculations and evidence of community impacts.
The enquiry also sought details of how Council reached its finding of “little to no increase in litter”, including who inspected the sites, whether inspections occurred before or after cleaning, and whether they covered weekends and busy visitor periods.
Council’s written response said it had “extensively addressed” the matter through social media, its website, the podcast and the litter prevention plan.
It said the plan was exhibited for public feedback in March and April 2025 before being adopted in May that year.
The response did not directly answer the five groups of questions or supply the requested supporting documents.
In the October 16 podcast, Mr Barton described the removals as planned work arising from the litter prevention plan, with the objective of reducing litter.
He said open bins allowed rubbish to blow out and enabled birds, including cockatoos and corellas, to pull material from them.
That explanation sets out Council’s environmental rationale. However, the discussion did not quantify any financial savings, explain how litter was measured or identify the locations where reductions had been recorded.
Further detail appears in a Council briefing reproduced on Deputy Mayor Nathan Zamprogno’s website.
The briefing records an early-2026 network of 473 public bins, including 88 cradle bins. It lists the removal without replacement of 36 cradle bins, one timber enclosure and one Sulo bin 38 bins in total, or about eight per cent of the network.
That differs from the September public statement’s description of all 38 removed bins as cradle-top bins.
The briefing also identifies insufficient funding to replace every cradle bin, servicing costs, manual-handling risks and network efficiency among the considerations.
These explanations indicate financial and operational factors formed part of the decision, but the material provided does not establish the expected annual savings or whether reducing expenditure was the principal objective.
The Gazette also asked Council to clarify why its release referred to $500,000 in EPA funding while the briefing cited $400,000, and how much was allocated specifically to bin removal and replacement. The written response did not resolve that discrepancy.
Questions also remain about walking distances to remaining bins, accessibility, spare capacity and whether rubbish disposal or cleaning costs have shifted to nearby businesses.
Council has previously said bins remain in town centres and other high-use areas, with no intention to remove further bins unless replacements are planned. Future installations would depend on demonstrated need.
Publication of the audit, financial assessment and monitoring records would allow residents to assess whether the smaller bin network is delivering the environmental benefits Council describes while maintaining an adequate public service.
