PUBLIC TOILETS IN ARNSIDE
In September 2010, in a cost-cutting exercise, South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) decided that it would keep open and continue to pay the maintenance costs of only a very small number of the 44 public toilets then in its charge. Others would definitely be closed down. In October, it announced that those in a third, ‘open to offer’ category would close on 31 March 2011 if no one came forward take them over.
To the great surprise of Arnside Parish Council (APC), SLDC decided to retain Arnside’s disabled toilet on the Lower Promenade, but to make the village’s general toilet ‘open to offer’. This in spite of the following facts:
• comments made during SLDC’s consultation process expressed the obvious concerns about closing the only public toilet in a village that is a major tourist destination
• in the final report on the consultation, the Arnside toilet was given a considerably higher priority than Milnthorpe’s (a village with a slightly lower population than Arnside’s and far fewer tourists, but whose toilet is to be retained !)
• it was acknowledged by SLDC itself that ‘The Promenade convenience scored more highly than the disabled’.
By late October even Arnside’s two District Councillors were still unaware of the precise grounds on which the decision not to retain Arnside’s general toilet had been taken. After various representations and unhelpful answers by an SLDC official, it eventually emerged that the crucial factor had been a survey report compiled by Norfolk Property Services early in 2009.
APC did not have sight of the key report until 9 November 2010 and quickly established that critical evidence in it was flawed in a number of precise, tangible respects that significantly understated Arnside’s needs. At a meeting a week or so later, SLDC officials refused point-blank to discuss this matter, stating that ‘no methodology is perfect’. At the same meeting the possibility of building a general toilet on the same site as the disabled one was raised for the first time with APC, although it was stressed that this was not part of SLDC’s original decision and would need special Cabinet approval.
APC later received a written assurance from SLDC’s Chief Executive that he would carefully consider any submission concerning faulty evidence. One month after APC made just such a submission, he replied without making any reference whatever to that matter. Early in 2011, on this basis and a number of others, APC made – through the established channel – an official complaint to SLDC about the unfair treatment that it had received. None of its substantive points were taken up in any way and APC regards the way in which the complaint was dealt with as completely and utterly inadequate. It began taking the complaint to the Ombudsman for local authorities, only to be told that parish councils are unable to follow that route. The local MP, Tim Farron, has confirmed that there is no other body to which APC can take its complaint. He is currently seeking an apology from SLDC’s Chief Executive for the way in which APC has been dealt with. (It is known that a number of other local parish councils are seriously dissatisfied with SLDC’s ‘negotiations’.)
Although eventually SLDC formally agreed to bear the building costs of a new general toilet attached to the disabled one, it was entirely inflexible on the matter of APC paying permanently for its maintenance. Adopting, for no known reason, a new ‘all-or-nothing’ policy, it would not even consider the possibility of APC contributing something less than the full costs. While continuing to attempt to appeal against SLDC’s original decisions, APC finally had no serious alternative but to accept this position. At least, a new facility should be in no need of expensive repairs for some time, and APC will have the option of charging for its use.
On the other hand, all the indications were that taking on responsibility for the existing general toilet could be an extremely expensive business, with no certainty of recouping any of the costs, and with the possibility of significant expenditure on repairs – SLDC’s consultants suggested that a structural survey of the premises was required. In any case, SLDC’s own figure for the annual cost of maintaining the toilet was £18,722. Adding this amount to the parish precept would not only have had the effect of making Arnside residents alone bear the cost of the toilet: it would have involved an increase of some 60% in the precept, with the risk of still further expenditure. APC’s judgement, on behalf of residents, was that this was not a fair and appropriate way forward.
But with the tourist season approaching and SLDC refusing outright to keep the existing toilet open while building the new facility, something had to be done. To avert the position of there being no public toilet at all in the village APC forcefully pointed out that one of SLDC’s varying statements claimed that the disabled toilet would be opened up to everyone when the general one was closed. SLDC had no option but to take this course. When there was no sign of progress of any kind on the new building, APC reluctantly agreed to take on responsibility for the existing toilet strictly as an interim measure, opening it on days of Cross-Bay Walks. Following representations from residents and visitors, it has now agreed to extend this opening to as many weekends as possible during the tourist season. APC has been helped in this respect by the fact that both of Arnside’s District Councillors have agreed that a sum of money which they each have available for such contingencies may be used for this purpose.
APC wishes to emphasise, however, that this is already quite a high-risk strategy financially, in that if any major repairs become necessary during this period Arnside residents will have to bear the costs. The current arrangement, therefore, will in no circumstances extend beyond early-October 2011. SLDC has indicated that it intends to carry out the building work during the winter and APC can take no responsibility whatever for the consequences if this intention is not carried out.
Arnside Parish Council, April 2011
In September 2010, in a cost-cutting exercise, South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) decided that it would keep open and continue to pay the maintenance costs of only a very small number of the 44 public toilets then in its charge. Others would definitely be closed down. In October, it announced that those in a third, ‘open to offer’ category would close on 31 March 2011 if no one came forward take them over.
To the great surprise of Arnside Parish Council (APC), SLDC decided to retain Arnside’s disabled toilet on the Lower Promenade, but to make the village’s general toilet ‘open to offer’. This in spite of the following facts:
• comments made during SLDC’s consultation process expressed the obvious concerns about closing the only public toilet in a village that is a major tourist destination
• in the final report on the consultation, the Arnside toilet was given a considerably higher priority than Milnthorpe’s (a village with a slightly lower population than Arnside’s and far fewer tourists, but whose toilet is to be retained !)
• it was acknowledged by SLDC itself that ‘The Promenade convenience scored more highly than the disabled’.
By late October even Arnside’s two District Councillors were still unaware of the precise grounds on which the decision not to retain Arnside’s general toilet had been taken. After various representations and unhelpful answers by an SLDC official, it eventually emerged that the crucial factor had been a survey report compiled by Norfolk Property Services early in 2009.
APC did not have sight of the key report until 9 November 2010 and quickly established that critical evidence in it was flawed in a number of precise, tangible respects that significantly understated Arnside’s needs. At a meeting a week or so later, SLDC officials refused point-blank to discuss this matter, stating that ‘no methodology is perfect’. At the same meeting the possibility of building a general toilet on the same site as the disabled one was raised for the first time with APC, although it was stressed that this was not part of SLDC’s original decision and would need special Cabinet approval.
APC later received a written assurance from SLDC’s Chief Executive that he would carefully consider any submission concerning faulty evidence. One month after APC made just such a submission, he replied without making any reference whatever to that matter. Early in 2011, on this basis and a number of others, APC made – through the established channel – an official complaint to SLDC about the unfair treatment that it had received. None of its substantive points were taken up in any way and APC regards the way in which the complaint was dealt with as completely and utterly inadequate. It began taking the complaint to the Ombudsman for local authorities, only to be told that parish councils are unable to follow that route. The local MP, Tim Farron, has confirmed that there is no other body to which APC can take its complaint. He is currently seeking an apology from SLDC’s Chief Executive for the way in which APC has been dealt with. (It is known that a number of other local parish councils are seriously dissatisfied with SLDC’s ‘negotiations’.)
Although eventually SLDC formally agreed to bear the building costs of a new general toilet attached to the disabled one, it was entirely inflexible on the matter of APC paying permanently for its maintenance. Adopting, for no known reason, a new ‘all-or-nothing’ policy, it would not even consider the possibility of APC contributing something less than the full costs. While continuing to attempt to appeal against SLDC’s original decisions, APC finally had no serious alternative but to accept this position. At least, a new facility should be in no need of expensive repairs for some time, and APC will have the option of charging for its use.
On the other hand, all the indications were that taking on responsibility for the existing general toilet could be an extremely expensive business, with no certainty of recouping any of the costs, and with the possibility of significant expenditure on repairs – SLDC’s consultants suggested that a structural survey of the premises was required. In any case, SLDC’s own figure for the annual cost of maintaining the toilet was £18,722. Adding this amount to the parish precept would not only have had the effect of making Arnside residents alone bear the cost of the toilet: it would have involved an increase of some 60% in the precept, with the risk of still further expenditure. APC’s judgement, on behalf of residents, was that this was not a fair and appropriate way forward.
But with the tourist season approaching and SLDC refusing outright to keep the existing toilet open while building the new facility, something had to be done. To avert the position of there being no public toilet at all in the village APC forcefully pointed out that one of SLDC’s varying statements claimed that the disabled toilet would be opened up to everyone when the general one was closed. SLDC had no option but to take this course. When there was no sign of progress of any kind on the new building, APC reluctantly agreed to take on responsibility for the existing toilet strictly as an interim measure, opening it on days of Cross-Bay Walks. Following representations from residents and visitors, it has now agreed to extend this opening to as many weekends as possible during the tourist season. APC has been helped in this respect by the fact that both of Arnside’s District Councillors have agreed that a sum of money which they each have available for such contingencies may be used for this purpose.
APC wishes to emphasise, however, that this is already quite a high-risk strategy financially, in that if any major repairs become necessary during this period Arnside residents will have to bear the costs. The current arrangement, therefore, will in no circumstances extend beyond early-October 2011. SLDC has indicated that it intends to carry out the building work during the winter and APC can take no responsibility whatever for the consequences if this intention is not carried out.
Arnside Parish Council, April 2011
