MK City Council is still set to go from three recycling centres to two, despite the proposed Snelshall replacement site shrinking by almost two thirds.

The city currently has three recycling centres at Newport Pagnell, Bleak Hall and New Bradwell but it plans to replace them with just two – an expanded facility at Wolverton and a new site at Snelshall in Tattenhoe Ward.

However, this week it’s been revealed that the size of the proposed Snelshall site will be reduced from around 2.05 hectares to just 0.69 hectares.

The reason given was simple: the two new sites would be much bigger, with almost as much space between them.

The ward's Conservative councillors are opposed to the new Snellshall tip

placeholder image — The ward's Conservative councillors are opposed to the new Snellshall tip

The three existing sites have a combined area of approximately 16,622 square metres. And the Council originally hoped that Snelshall will be approximately 20,481 square metres and Wolverton would be 10,304 square metres, which would be a combined area of more than 30,000 square metres.

At the time, the council’s own assessment described the proposed “the two new sites are just under double the size of the existing sites” and said they would be able to accommodate forecast waste levels to 2050 and beyond.

Using the council’s published figures, the two proposed sites would now have a combined land area of approximately 17,204 square metres which is only slightly more than the 16,622 square metres provided by the three existing sites.

Tattenhoe ward councillor and Leader of the Milton Keynes Conservative Group Cllr Shazna Muzammil says that the change means the Council will need to demonstrate that the original case for moving from three sites to two sites still works.

She said: “When the council proposed replacing three recycling centres with two, part of the case was that the new sites would be much bigger. The figures at the time showed almost twice the combined land area.

“That is no longer the case. Snelshall was originally envisaged at around 2.05 hectares. The development area now proposed is just 0.69 hectares.”

Cllr Muzammil added: “Site size isn’t the same thing as how much waste a facility can process, so I’m notclaiming that these figures alone tell us the new system cannot work. But the assumptions have changed significantly and residents deserve to see the evidence that it still meets the demand.

“We need to know that if the council closes three recycling centres and replaces them with two, will residents still be able to use it as they are used to, and whether they will get the same or better access, capacity and service?”

Her fellow Conservative Cllr Manish Verma said: “Snelshall is unsuitable due to its close proximity to schools, homes and a meat and poultry processing plant. With a reduced build, the financial case presented with the original proposal can also no longer be valid. Residents and councillors should be presented with all the facts, including the cost proposal especially when material changes like this take place.”

Cllr Muzammil and Cllr Verma are now asking for the council to publish an updated comparison of the two facilities now proposed against the three existing sites, including expected capacity, booking availability, journey times, resilience at busy periods, and provision for future growth along with the updated financial proposal.