SPRING cleaning is in full swing as searches for decluttering peak on March 20, with many households looking to dispose of unwanted furniture and large items. However, new research has revealed that the cost of bulky waste collection varies significantly across Wales.

According to a study by Cardiff-based waste management experts BusinessWaste.co.uk, Ceredigion County Council has the highest bulky waste charges in Wales, with a minimum collection fee of £61. This fee covers up to six items, with an additional charge of £61 for a further six items.

At the other end of the scale, Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council offers the lowest minimum charge at just £6.70.

Where does Pembrokeshire rank?

Pembrokeshire County Council ranks 17th out of 22 Welsh councils in terms of bulky waste charges, making it one of the more affordable options. The council charges £21.30, covering up to ten items per collection—more items than most councils in Wales.

Despite the relatively low cost, Pembrokeshire does not offer any discounts or concessions for those on benefits, pension credits, or other financial support schemes. However, fridge collection is included at no additional cost.

How do other councils compare?

The study ranked the top ten most expensive councils in Wales, with Ceredigion leading, followed by Wrexham (£57.50) and the Isle of Anglesey (£46). At the opposite end, Cardiff has one of the lowest rates (£12.50), while Carmarthenshire sits in 13th place with a charge of £25.

Wales versus the UK

On a national level, Wales has the sixth highest average bulky waste collection charge at £29.84. The South East of England is the most expensive region, with an average charge of £44.81, while Northern Ireland is the cheapest, averaging just £5.97.

Key findings from the report:

• No Welsh councils offer a free collection service.
• Pembrokeshire’s ranking in the UK is 256th out of 382 councils, placing it in the bottom 33% for bulky waste charges.
• Fridge collections are free across all Welsh councils.
• Carmarthenshire ranks 227th in the UK, with a £25 charge covering up to three items.

A spokesperson for BusinessWaste.co.uk said: “Bulky waste collection is a vital service for households looking to dispose of large items responsibly, but the costs vary widely across the UK. While some councils offer reasonable rates, others charge significantly higher fees, which can deter responsible waste disposal.”

For the full report, visit: www.businesswaste.co.uk.

“CHIN MUSIC” has two meanings. One refers to idle talk. The other is a brushback throw in baseball or cricket, aimed at unsettling the batter. Both describe Rich Hall’s comedy—sharp, quick, and intimidating, yet effortlessly off-the-cuff. If you’ve never seen him live, now’s your chance—he’s coming to the Torch Theatre, and he never disappoints. Ever.

A master of stand-up, music, and improvisation, Rich Hall has been a comedy heavyweight for decades. The American comedian first rose to fame in the 1980s as a sketch performer, appearing on shows such as Fridays, Not Necessarily the News, and Saturday Night Live. In the UK, he’s a familiar face on QI, Live at the Apollo, and Have I Got News for You. He’s also a prolific writer, having penned articles for The Guardian and The Sunday Times, as well as starring in his own BBC Radio 4 series, Rich Hall’s (US Election) Breakdown.

“We always love a good night of comedy, full of belly laughs here at the Torch Theatre,” said Jordan Dickin from the venue’s marketing team. “Following a very long winter, a night of comedy is just what’s needed to brush away the cobwebs—and Rich Hall is the man to do just that.”

Rich Hall will take to the stage at the Torch Theatre on Thursday, April 17, at 8:00pm. This will be his only performance in West Wales during his 2025 tour.

Tickets: £18
STRICTLY 14+ (contains strong language and adult content)
Book now: www.torchtheatre.co.uk or call the Box Office on (01646) 695267.

SOUTH WALES POLICE is facing growing scrutiny after refusing to disclose the identity of an officer who misused force computer systems over two years, leaking sensitive information to members of the public.

The officer, known only as ‘Officer F,’ received a criminal caution for illegally accessing police data but was not prosecuted. His identity was also kept secret during a misconduct hearing, despite similar cases in which officers have been publicly named and prosecuted. The force claims anonymity was granted due to concerns about the health and well-being of a child unrelated to the officer’s actions, but legal precedents suggest this does not justify withholding the name.

The Herald has pressed South Wales Police for further transparency, asking how the decision aligns with open justice principles. The force has cited Regulation 59 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 as the basis for its decision, stating that the misconduct hearing was held in public but with the officer’s identity protected. However, past legal rulings, including Khuja v Times Newspapers (2017), have reinforced that distress or reputational damage alone is not sufficient grounds for anonymity in such cases.

Other police officers guilty of similar misconduct have been named and prosecuted. Former South Wales Police Inspector Joseph Jones was jailed for two months for misusing police records, while ex-North Wales PC Andrew Nuttall was sentenced to unpaid work for similar offences. Unlike them, Officer F’s identity remains protected, raising concerns about consistency and transparency in the handling of police misconduct.

Paul Fisher, Head of News at South Wales Police, responded to The Herald’s request for Officer F’s identity, stating that no media challenges were made before or during the hearing. However, the force has not clarified whether press organisations were proactively informed that anonymity was being considered, ensuring they had a fair opportunity to challenge the decision.

The Herald, alongside Wales Online, has written to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner Emma Wools to challenge the decision. Both organisations believe in the right to report and the importance of holding those in authority accountable.

This case raises fundamental questions about public confidence in policing. Open justice ensures that those who misuse their positions of power can be scrutinised by the press and the public. Without proper transparency, the public cannot be assured that police officers who abuse their authority will face meaningful consequences.