01/09/2026
Before Cardiff Council gets tougher on our rubbish, it should examine its own record. Sent in by City Critic Dave Jones.
Nobody should defend fly-tipping. Dumping mattresses, sofas or bags of household waste in streets and lanes is selfish, illegal and unfair to everyone who has to live with the consequences. Cardiff Council is therefore perfectly entitled to pursue those who deliberately break the law.
What it should not do is discuss the city's waste problem as though the council itself has played no part in shaping the system residents now have to navigate.
Councillor Ed Stubbs, the cabinet member responsible for waste, has made clear that Cardiff Council intends to take a tougher approach, with the number of officers able to search waste for evidence that could lead to enforcement action increasing from 12 to 80. That does not mean 68 new “bin inspectors” have been hired, and it would be misleading to describe it that way, but it does show that enforcement is becoming a much more prominent part of the council's response.
That is where residents are entitled to ask some difficult questions.
Over little more than a decade, Cardiff has significantly changed the way household waste is dealt with. Some of those changes were driven by legitimate environmental aims and recycling requirements across Wales, but they have also made lawful disposal more restrictive and, in some cases, more expensive.
Cardiff Council's own records show that a decision was taken in 2014/15 to reduce the city's household waste recycling centres from four to two, with Waun Gron and Wedal Road sites among those closed. Earlier budget papers estimated that changes to the recycling-centre network, opening hours and working practices could save more than £300,000.
Today Cardiff's principal household recycling centres are at Lamby Way and Bessemer Close. Residents must book before visiting, the council currently limits visits to 26 a year, and neither site can be accessed on foot or by bicycle. The council may regard that as efficient, but efficiency for the authority does not automatically mean convenience for the resident trying to dispose of legitimate household waste.
The squeeze also happened at the kerbside. In 2015 Cardiff approved replacing standard 240-litre black wheelie bins with 140-litre bins for affected households, reducing residual-waste capacity by more than 40 per cent. The council was explicit that restricting residual waste was intended to help increase recycling.
General waste is now collected every two weeks. Extra bags left beside a full bin are not normally collected, and the council warns that enforcement action can follow. Households seeking additional capacity must demonstrate a qualifying need and show that they are properly using recycling and food-waste services.
Again, there is an environmental rationale behind that policy. If residents are given less capacity for non-recyclable rubbish, the intention is that more material will be separated for recycling. But there is still a legitimate question about how far a council can keep restricting the lawful disposal route before it must properly assess whether those restrictions create unintended consequences.
Bulky waste makes that question even more relevant. Cardiff currently charges a £5 non-refundable booking fee, plus £15 for one or two items, £30 for three or four, and £45 for five or six.
None of this excuses somebody who dumps an old sofa in a street rather than disposing of it properly. The person committing the offence remains responsible. But charging for legitimate disposal plainly makes that route more expensive, and it is entirely reasonable to ask whether cost and accessibility should form part of the council's assessment of illegal dumping.
The historical figures also deserve careful attention. Cardiff recorded 3,905 fly-tipping incidents in 2014/15, rising to 6,241 in 2015/16 and 7,993 in 2016/17. More recently, the total stood at 5,931 in 2023/24 and 5,593 in 2024/25.
Those numbers do not prove that smaller bins, recycling-centre closures or bulky-waste charges caused fly-tipping, and it would be irresponsible to claim that they do. Cardiff Council itself has previously acknowledged that changes in reporting and waste restrictions make simple cause-and-effect comparisons difficult.
But that does not let the council off the hook. Fly-tipping remains a significant problem after more than a decade of redesigning the city's waste system, so residents are entitled to ask what work has been done to assess whether the council's own policies contribute to the conditions in which illegal dumping occurs.
There is also the issue of public litter bins. Freedom of Information figures show that 37 have been removed across Cardiff since 2023. Stubbs has explained that some had become magnets for fly-tipping, some were difficult for crews to reach and others were removed where alternatives were nearby. Those explanations may be perfectly reasonable in individual cases, but the wider picture still matters.
Residents now live in a city with two main household recycling centres, smaller standard residual bins than many once had, fortnightly general-waste collections, restrictions on excess rubbish, charges for bulky collections and fewer public litter bins than in 2023. It is against that background that enforcement is now being intensified.
There is also an economic side to the waste system that residents are entitled to understand. Cardiff Council's own financial papers show that recyclable materials are sold into reprocessing markets and that the authority budgets for income from those materials. The council has also looked at brokerage arrangements intended to improve income and reduce the costs associated with recycling.
That does not mean Cardiff Council is making a net profit from household waste. Collection vehicles, staff, treatment facilities and disposal contracts all cost substantial sums. But it does mean the modern waste system has a commercial dimension as well as an environmental one, and residents themselves are a vital part of that system because they separate the material at source.
Residual waste also goes through the Prosiect Gwyrdd energy-from-waste arrangement at Trident Park, where waste is used to generate electricity and other materials, including metals, are recovered. Again, this should not be misrepresented as a direct cash windfall for Cardiff Council, but it does demonstrate that household waste is no longer simply collected and buried. It moves through a system of material recovery, recycling, contracts and energy generation.
Despite all these changes, Cardiff is still under pressure to improve its recycling performance. The council's own Path to 70% programme exists because recent performance has remained below the statutory 70 per cent target.
Cardiff does face genuine challenges, including dense urban housing, flats, houses in multiple occupation and a large transient and student population. The council has also introduced improvements in some areas, including additional recycling streams and changes to specialist collections. Those facts should be acknowledged.
But they do not remove the central issue. For years, residents have been expected to adapt their behaviour to help Cardiff meet its recycling obligations. They have sorted more material, accepted smaller residual bins, lived with fortnightly general-waste collections, faced restrictions on excess rubbish and paid separately for some bulky collections. At the same time, council tax has continued to rise, including another increase for 2026/27.
Council tax pays for far more than waste collection, of course, but residents paying an increasingly expensive local tax are entitled to judge whether one of the council's most visible frontline services has become easier or harder to use.
That is why Stubbs' tougher enforcement message risks sounding tone-deaf if it is not accompanied by equal scrutiny of the system itself.
Many of the decisions that created Cardiff's current waste regime predate his present portfolio, and it would be unfair to suggest otherwise. But he is now the politician responsible for the service and therefore the one who must defend the balance between enforcement and accessibility.
If Cardiff wants stronger fines, it should make the case. If it has evidence against serious fly-tippers, it should act on it. But enforcement must not become a substitute for examining whether the lawful disposal system remains fair, proportionate and practical.
The council should be prepared to explain whether two household recycling centres remain sufficient for a growing capital city, how the impact of removing public bins is assessed, how much income is generated from recyclable materials and whether the cost and accessibility of legitimate disposal are considered when analysing fly-tipping.
Those questions do not excuse a single offender. They simply recognise that responsibility works both ways.
Residents have responsibilities over their waste, but Cardiff Council has responsibilities too. It must provide a system that people can realistically use, not merely one designed to steer them towards statutory targets and punish them when they get it wrong.
So yes, get tough on the people who deliberately trash Cardiff. But before Cardiff Council looks more closely through residents' rubbish, it should take a much closer look at the system it has spent the last decade creating.
City Critic, Dave Jones.
