Container Deposit Scheme a clanking hell for apartment residents in St Kilda

A Controversy Over Noise and Disruption: The Battle Over a Reverse Vending Machine in St Kilda

In the quiet neighborhood of St Kilda, a seemingly innocuous addition to the community has sparked a heated controversy. A reverse vending machine (RVM), part of Victoria’s Container Deposit Scheme, was installed at 1 Belford Street without warning, leaving residents frustrated and seeking solutions. The machine, which collects recyclable bottles and cans, has become a source of noise and disruption for those living nearby. For seven months, residents have voiced their concerns to Return-It, the operator of the machine, as well as to local authorities, including VicReturn, Port Phillip Council, and state and federal MPs. Despite their efforts, the issue remains unresolved, with the machine continuing to operate in its current location.

The Impact on Residents: Noise and Disruption

The installation of the RVM has significantly impacted the daily lives of residents, particularly those living in close proximity to the machine. Shirin Jacobs, a mother to a seven-week-old baby, shared her experience, describing how the noise from the machine disrupts her child’s sleep. “It’s really, really loud,” she said, adding that the sound of emptying bottles startles her daughter and wakes her up. Even after Return-It adjusted its pickup times to start at 8 a.m. instead of earlier hours, the disruption remains a problem for many. The machine’s operation, combined with its location near residential buildings, has made it difficult for residents to enjoy their homes in peace. The lack of prior consultation has only added to the frustration, with many feeling blindsided by the machine’s arrival.

A Commitment to Minimizing Impact, but No Clear Solution

In response to the complaints, Return-It has emphasized its commitment to minimizing the impact of the RVM on the local community. A spokesperson stated that the company adheres to the General Environmental Duty, which requires businesses to reduce environmental and amenity impacts. According to the spokesperson, Return-It has been deemed compliant with these requirements by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) following previous assessments. However, the company has not provided a clear answer on whether it will relocate the machine, leaving residents uncertain about the future.

The idea of moving the RVM to the Palais Theatre Car Park, located 450 meters away, was initially proposed by Return-It but was rejected by council officers. A council spokeswoman explained that the Palais land is not zoned for use as a “recycling depot,” and Return-It cited concerns about potential future developments and the need for Crown land approval, which would not align with the scheme’s timelines. While Port Phillip Council has expressed empathy for the affected residents and is exploring alternative locations, it ultimately has no control over the private company’s operations.

Passing the Buck: Frustration with Authorities

The lack of progress in resolving the issue has led to growing frustration among residents, who feel that politicians and agencies are “passing the buck.” Rocco Sorace, one of the affected residents, expressed his exasperation, saying, “Surely there’s a solution. Imagine if their bedroom was right next to one?” His comments highlight the sense of injustice felt by many, who believe that their concerns are not being taken seriously. State MP Nina Taylor referred questions to the Environment Minister, Steve Dimopoulos, while federal MP Josh Burns did not respond to requests for comment. The spokesperson for Minister Dimopoulos defended the current arrangement, stating that the site provides an important service to the community, with over 420,000 containers returned since its operation began. However, this response has done little to alleviate the concerns of those most affected by the machine’s presence.

The Search for a Resolution

As the debate continues, the Port Phillip Council has reiterated its commitment to finding a resolution. Mayor Louise Crawford stated that the council is continuing to assess potential locations and advocate for the concerns of residents. However, any relocation would require the landlord of the current site to agree to terminate the existing lease agreement. Return-It has refused to disclose details of the lease, citing commercial confidentiality. This lack of transparency has further fueled frustration among residents, who are calling for greater accountability and action.

In conclusion, the controversy over the reverse vending machine in St Kilda highlights the challenges of balancing environmental initiatives with the needs of local communities. While the machine plays an important role in promoting recycling, its placement and operation have caused significant disruption to nearby residents. The ongoing debate serves as a reminder of the importance of consultation and collaboration in addressing community concerns. For now, residents remain hopeful that a solution will be found, one that respects both the environmental benefits of the scheme and the quality of life of those affected.