º£½ÇÊÓÆµ

Oops.

Our website is temporarily unavailable in your location.

We are working hard to get it back online.

PRIVACY
Opinionopinion

Measuring street grime is a dirty business

 

The giant mountain of rubbish sacks dumped at West Heath Island. Picture: Elizabeth Hall.

It was heralded as a great step forward for local government openness and empowerment for citizens looking to get to grips with the grime on their streets and neighbourhoods.

But not all are happy with the rates published this week. The chart gave most of the city’s 40 wards a red or green mark to show whether they had achieved the cleanliness targets set by the powers that be.

It was expected that a few proud individuals might complain that their areas are being unfairly maligned in the figures – perhaps a well-heeled area grumbling that they were being shown to have a graffiti problem and the impact it might have on house prices.

But it was quite unexpected to hear some complain that their areas have not been rated badly enough – that the streets are dirtier and more blighted than the stats suggest.

Most vocal among these behind the scenes at this week’s full council meeting was Coun Victoria Quinn, outraged that her Sparkbrook ward appears, according to the chart, to have less of a than many other areas like Handsworth Wood, Perry Barr, Longbridge and Tyburn (AKA Castle Vale and Pype Hayes).

Its rating of 8.57 per cent litter (out of 70 sites surveyed) means Sparkbrook is only marginally less clean than Kings Norton and Quinton – areas not normally associated with massive grime problems.

There is, I am told, similar outrage in Aston where the mark was an incredibly low 5.71 per cent – on the fringe of a green mark and almost as clean as Selly Oak and Sutton Trinity wards.

The problem is not that the councillors concerned are complaining their streets are not dirty enough – they simply do not believe the figures reflect the reality their residents face on a daily basis.