Agenda item

Context:

To update members on the provision of public conveniences at various sites within the County and seek feedback from members on options for the future provision of public conveniences.

          Key Issues:

In 2010 the Strong Communities Select Committee undertook a detailed review of the provision of public conveniences. This informed a strategy for the future provision of public conveniences and as a result new arrangements were implemented including some closures but also transfer of responsibility to other providers (community and town councils).

Since then some further adjustments to service provision have been arrived at through greater collaboration with town councils and mandated in the MCC budgets for 14/15 and 15/16.

This has resulted in the majority of public conveniences remaining open to the public but the method of management and provision varying between towns and villages.

Appendix 1 lists those toilets where MCC retains an ‘interest’ and approved proposals for their future provision, including details of current revenue and capital costs associated with possible transfer as well as a commentary on capital receipts opportunities.

Those toilets that remain the responsibility and cost to MCC after the proposals already approved are:

Abergavenny: Whitehorse Lane, Castle Street, Brewery Yard and Bus station

Monmouth:        Blestium Street (Cattle market)

Usk:                   Maryport Street car park and Usk Island

Tintern:              Beaufort Cottage

Member Scrutiny:

• A Member asked how many people took up the £1200 grant offered by MCC to support Community and Town Councils that provide public conveniences. It was answered that 2 enquired, but none were taken up.

• It was also clarified that the grant of £1200 was per Community Council (irrespective of number of toilets).

• A Member questioned the suitability of using Leisure Centre toilets. An Officer pointed out that this was not a viable solution if this was the only provision. The suggestion was that a number of public building would be made available.

• A Member questioned if retails units in Abergavenny Town Centre had been asked to provide facilities. An Officer mentioned that potentially discussions could be made with Weatherspoons if White Horse Lane toilets were closed,

• A question was asked that if public buildings such as Shire Hall, museums, one stop shops were opened up, would these building be an option or would they need to be upgraded. An Officer answered that due to capital and revenue funding any improvements would need to be done at no cost, otherwise this would not be a viable solution. Ideally private businesses would come on board.

• The Committee asked if Abergavenny Town Council had paid MCC any funds toward the toilets in the last 5 years. It was confirmed that Abergavenny Town Council paid 50% of revenue, cleaning and maintenance costs for White Horse Lane.

• A Member asked if Abergavenny Town Council was being engaged positively. It was advised that several meetings at taken place regarding local services and MCC were optimistic about the transfer of services.

• A Member felt that it was imperative that Abergavenny had toilet provision at all points of arrival into the town. Discussed also was potentially charging for provision.

• A member commented that the toilets in Shire Hall were often over capacity, due to events taking place at the venue, it was felt that it was not in the volunteer staff’s remit to maintain the toilets and all efforts should be made to direct members pf the public to use the toilets at Agincourt Street.

• A member asked that Caldicot Castle Toilets managed by Enterprise, were properly audited.

• In regard to the sale and disposal of assets (Raglan toilets) which were sold for £7000. A member asked if more than one person was approached regarding the sale and why the decision was made not to take the toilets to public auction without notifying Members. The Officer the decision was made by the Estates and Legal Department.

• A Member questioned the £20, 000 limit Chief Officers had to sign off disposal of assets. An Officer replied that under the Scheme of Delegation the limits at which Chief Officers, Chief Executive and Cabinet could make decisions was clearly set out.

• A Member requested that if Council assets were being disposed of Ward members should be made aware.