Friday, 10 December 2010

Public inconvenience

Stockport Council have recently announced that, as a cost-saving measure, they are going to close all of their remaining ten public toilets (and this in a borough that twenty years ago had over thirty). This apparently will save the princely sum of £105,000 a year. However, this doesn’t mean that people will be left with no choice but to relieve themselves in the streets, as they are supposedly replacing the closed toilets with a community toilet scheme.

This involves opening up toilets in council buildings and – for the payment of an annual fee – those in business premises like pubs and cafés, to use by the general public. Clearly, if facilities are there, it makes sense to make them available, and in areas where public toilet usage is likely to be low it can be a “win-win” situation in expanding provision at minimal cost. I’m certainly not against it per se. It could also be a good idea for many rural pubs.

However, it really is no substitute for providing proper public toilets in busy town centres where there is plenty of pedestrian traffic. It is notable that the web page has no entries for Stockport town centre. (In practice, I know you can always pop into Wetherspoons where there is one, but a timid female pensioner might not know that, or have the confidence to)

One problem is that business hours may not correspond with those when there is a demand for toilets. Few pubs open before 11 am (and many not before noon), yet in a shopping centre you would expect a toilet to be available once the shops were open. Also, for such a scheme to be effective, it needs flag signs on lampposts saying “Dog & Duck – Toilet Available to the Public” to bring it to people’s attention (something I have seen in the Perth & Kinross district of Scotland). Window stickers are not enough.

If you were a licensee, you might think that £600 a year was a useful source of extra income in hard times. But you are effectively surrendering the right to control who comes in your pub and use your facilities, and allowing all and sundry to troop through your bars without buying anything. Once one or two unsavoury incidents have taken place you might start to question whether it’s worthwhile. If my pub was in a location with a lot of footfall past the door, I’d be wanting more like £6,000 than £600. I can’t, for example, see the Chestergate Tavern being happy to become the official toilet for Stockport Bus Station.

While the provision of public toilets by councils isn’t a statutory obligation, it is extremely important to allow people to live civilised lives and maintain a degree of dignity, and regrettably this move is all too typical of the tendency of councils to cut back services provided to the public while continuing to featherbed internal administrative departments, and all the time seek to blame it on government rather than their own inefficiencies and warped priorities. I have written before of the “bladder leash” restricting the movements of the elderly, pregnant women, diabetics and people with a wide range of medical conditions, and this is now being applied to Stockport.

In terms of the council’s overall budget, £105,000 is a drop in the ocean, and less than the salaries of numerous senior officers. You have to wonder how many people are still on the council’s books doing non-jobs like Smoking Enforcement Officer and Five-a-Day Co-ordinator who wouldn’t be missed in the slightest if their services were dispensed with.

The lack of toilets may also be a factor encouraging people to use shopping centres like Cheadle Royal or Handforth Dean rather than traditional district centres, thus acting directly against the council’s declared objective to get people to “shop local”. (Extortionate parking charges are another factor, of course) And don’t shop owners in those district centres have a legitimate expectation that their business rates will pay for public toilets as well as pavements and street lighting?

Surely in this age of information freely available via the Internet it should be possible to create a unified database of all public toilets showing their location, opening hours and cost (if any). The Aussies can manage it, so why can’t we? It could even be provided as an “app” for smartphones. In the days when there was a reasonable assumption that public toilets would be available in most locations, there might have been little need for this, but now they are becoming increasingly few and far between it would provide a valuable service for tourists and indeed anyone spending more than a short time out of their house or workplace.

And yes, I know it could also be used to facilitate “cottaging”, but to use that as an excuse not to provide toilets at all really is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If cottaging is a problem, it needs to be dealt with on its own terms without disadvantaging legitimate users of public toilets.


  1. As someone who falls into the 'leashed' group, I found this website. And depressing viewing it is too.

  2. The cost-effective slide back into the dark ages gathers yet more pace.

    Phone boxes, post offices, toilets, libraries, pubs, police stations...

    Wonderful savings to increase the heart rate and the salaries of even the most unemotional of council officials.

    Of which there are clearly many.

  3. The newspaper stand claim cuts will send Leeds back to the 1930s. I worry even more for Stockport

  4. Community Toilet schemes are in place all around the country, and Stockport's is going well. We now have many more public toilets than just a few years ago, with further planned for the near future.

    You're right to point out that there are pros and cons to this scheme, as with any. The scheme is sufficiently wide-spread that there's a good report produced by MPs (in the last parliament, I think) that welcomes the community toilet schemes and points out some of the challenges to be met.

    Cllr Iain Roberts, Stockport Council

  5. Thanks to Cllr Roberts for responding to this. As I said, I'm not against community toilet schemes as such, although I don't see them as being suitable for busy town and city centres.

    The three key issues that need to be addressed are:

    1. Provision of flag-type signing, so all passers-by are aware that a particular establishment is a member of the scheme. They may not need it then, but they might need it at another time
    2. Opening hours - 11am is too late to be opening toilets. Maybe pubs could be paid a bit more to make their facilities available from 9 or 9.30am
    3. Differential payments - establishments in areas of heavy footfall should be entitled to higher payments.

    Participation in the toilet scheme could also be made a condition of giving planning permission for future developments.

  6. What about indoor community smoking rooms.

  7. Ah, Stockport, you have to shit in the street. What an advertisement for civilization...

  8. I suppose this means that Stockport really is taking the piss!

  9. As an ex-publican I think having the inherent right to refuse entry is an extremely important public order necessity.

  10. Isn't every visitor to lovely stockport welcome to piss on the viaduct?


Comments, especially on older posts, may require prior approval. See here for details of my comment policy.