Agenda item

The EAB considered a report regarding a review which sought to explore Options 3 and 4 of the approved mandate in respect of public conveniences (PCs).  Option 3 consisted of the potential discontinuation of grant funding totalling £14,000 paid by this Council to Ash and Shere Parish Councils towards the operation of their toilet facilities.  Option 4 focused on a mixed approach of the closure or passing on to other organisations of a limited number of toilets owned by the Council aligned with a redistribution of work.  The Council aimed to achieve a revenue savings target of £65,000 per annum and reduce future capital investments in respect of refurbishments of PCs.  The report emphasised that the Council had no legal duty to provide PCs which were a discretionary service.

The Budget Survey 2021, untaken by SMSR Research, had invited residents to consider Council services in terms of importance, priority and spending.  The Survey found that public facilities ranked 9^th for all 3 categories, out of the 12 noted services provided by the Council.

In terms of costings, the report outlined all types of current expenditure associated with the PCs which totalled £293,000.  The £65,000 savings target would largely result from making one of the toilet cleaner roles redundant and offering redeployment to a new role avoiding redundancy costs.  It was envisaged that the closure or passing on of 4 of the highest cost toilet facilities from the long list of 8 PCs included in the report would be required to reduce the current toilet cleaning workload to enable the deletion of one cleaner post and would achieve expenditure savings of £51,000.

The report recommended that, in order to achieve the necessary expenditure savings the Council specified a preference for the closure or passing to another organisation of the PCs at Allen House, Bedford Road, Ripley and Woodbridge Road which would allow the Council to reduce the total workload sufficiently to make one of the toilet cleaner roles redundant.  The discontinuation of grant funding to Ash and Shere Parish Councils was also recommended.  Following consideration by the Executive in early January, the proposals would be subject to a public consultation commencing in mid January after which, depending upon the results, the final arrangements would be submitted to the Corporate Management Team for approval with a view to implementation by the end of the current financial year in order to realise the savings in the following financial year.

Associated risks, Equality Impact Assessments, external stakeholders, and the next steps and milestones were also addressed in the report.

Ripley, Ash and Send Parish Councils had been consulted in respect of the proposals and the responses from Ripley and Send Parish Councils were appended to the report.  Subsequent to the publication of the agenda, a response from Ash Parish Council had also been received.  Ash had highlighted that, amongst others, its PCs served many business operatives including Council staff, Post Office employees and delivery drivers in addition to children utilising the recreation ground.  The Parish Council was concerned that the discontinuation of the associated grant would place pressure on its budget.  The late response from Ash could be shared with the EAB which could submit related comments for consideration.  The chairman of the South West Surrey Disability Empowerment Network had also commented in respect of the proposals.

The following points arose from related questions, comments and discussion for forwarding to the Executive:

1.           The selection of PCs suggested for closure did not reflect their individual operating costs but sought to enable the reduction of the overall workload to enable the redundancy and redeployment of one staff member.  Any alternative scenario would be to change the toilets currently identified for closure.

2.           It was confirmed that the PCs in Ash and Shere were owned by the relevant Parish Councils which benefited from a Council grant to operate the facilities whilst the toilets in Ripley were owned by this Council.

3.           Spend in respect of PC utilities consisted of water and electricity etc.

4.           Although the EAB was reluctant to endorse the closure of any PCs, particularly in the light of the Council’s application for city status, it acknowledged that, due to the Council’s current financial situation, this was necessary.  In addition to the cost of cleaning operatives, it was suggested that proposals for closure should take account of future maintenance and refurbishment costs to give a clear picture in respect of future revenue and capital costs.

5.           In terms of the future use of the PC premises suggested for closure, this varied according to the individual circumstances.  The toilets at Allen House were subject to Business Rates and therefore the removal of the building would be pursued in the event of closure to avoid that cost.  The Bedford Road toilets could be converted to a storage facility for use by the Parking Team whilst it was hoped that Ripley Parish Council would take over the operation of the PCs in that village.  The Woodbridge Road toilets were utilised by patrons of the nearby cricket club and café and there was a possibility of transferring the facility to either one or jointly to both of those organisations to continue as a toilet facility, possibly with a modest annual contribution from the Council to keep them available for public use.  The same approach could apply to the tennis club in the vicinity of the Onslow Recreation Ground PCs.  There were listed free of charge publicly available toilets without any obligation to make a purchase in the area at the petrol filling stations and National Trust site in the Woodbridge Road area.  It was suggested that these alternative facilities be highlighted in the associated public consultation.

6.           The addition of the Farnham Road car park toilets, which were primarily used by commuters, to the possible closure short list was mooted as the facility was in a poor condition and there were alternative facilities nearby at the railway station and in the town centre.

7.           It was suggested that the relevant PCs should be refurbished and modernised prior to transferring responsibility for their maintenance in order to render them a more attractive and economical prospect to maintain.  Shere Parish Council had expressed concerns regarding the condition of the local PCs in the event of losing the grant from this Council.  However, the toilets at Ripley had been recently refurbished and they could be opened only in the event of sizeable public events in the area when there was a demand for them to ease any burden on the Parish Council.  The EAB was advised that, as capital expenditure was met from future revenue, investment in PCs that would not remain in the Council’s estate would place a future revenue burden on the Council.  

8.           Concern was expressed in relation to the impact on Ash Parish Council of the cessation of its grant and it was requested that the Parish Council be allowed more time to give further consideration to the proposal and that its views and any subsequent consultation responses were addressed prior to a final decision in this regard.  Although it was possible for the Parish Council to raise funds to compensate for the loss of the grant by raising its precept, this would have a negative impact on local Council Taxpayers.

9.           Although concerns regarding the health and hygiene aspects of closing PCs and the related impact on the Council’s Street Cleansing Team were raised, officers advised that this risk was relatively low as there was alternative provision near to the toilets selected for closure.

10.        Engaging with local businesses with toilet facilities to secure their unconditional use by the public was suggested as a benefit to both parties by providing toilets and increasing footfall may enhance trade and sales.

11.        There was a possibility of Experience Guildford assuming the operation of the toilets in Tunsgate and it was felt that this should be explored further.

12.        There was limited interest by organisations to utilise PCs for advertising and sponsorship purposes.

13.        Other than the pop-up urinal in North Street, Bedford Road offered the only 24 hour public toilet facility in Guildford and although the opening hours of an alternative facility could be extended to a 24 hour provision if the Bedford Road PCs were closed, usage figures indicated that there was limited demand after 6:00 pm.  A negative factor of extended opening hours was increased operating costs and a greater level of vandalism.

14.        Although some councils operated a community toilet scheme, this could place a burden on the local authorities concerned as they would need to administer the scheme and inspect by the toilets to ensure that they met the required standards.  Operating such a scheme would place a burden on Council staff.  A similar alternative was the sponsored ‘Use Our Loos’ campaign operated by the British Toilet Association whereby participating businesses’ toilet facilities were mapped and made publicly available free of charge without any compulsion to make purchases.  The Council’s website would list available toilets and link residents to the mapping scheme in the event that this approach as adopted.  Signposting to the campaign should be undertaken if it was pursued.  The Parish Councils in question could be assisted to submit bids to the Surrey Community Fund for funding.