Issue - meetings

Options for public toilet provision in the District from 2010/11

Meeting: 30/11/2009 - Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Item 32)

32 Request to Call-in Cabinet Decision - Options for Public Toilet Provision in the District from 2010/2011 - Cabinet Minute 81 PDF 23 KB

The Cabinet decision on Options for Public Toilet Provision in the District from 2010/11 (Minute 81) taken by Cabinet on 10^th November 2009 has been requested to be called in by Councillors Roe, Histed and Bray (Overview and Scrutiny Committee Members) and Councillors Fishwick and Johnson. This request was subsequently agreed by the Chief Executive. The decision has been called-in in accordance with Part 4, Section 5, Sub-section 16 of the Council’s constitution.

Councillors Roger Mace (Chair of Cabinet for Item 81), Jon Barry (Cabinet Member with responsibility for City Council (Direct) Services and Peter Loker (Corporate Director (Community Services) have been invited to attend to outline the basis on which the decision was made.

q Call-in Procedure

q Call-in Notice

q Report to Cabinet

q Cabinet Minute Extract

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members were advised that the Cabinet decision in relation to Options for Public Toilet Provision in the District 2010/2011 – Cabinet Minute 81 – had been Called-in by the following 5 Members.

Councillors Bob Roe, Susan Bray, Val Histed, Sarah Fishwick and Tony Johnson.

Members were informed that the Call-in had been made on the basis that the decision had not been made in accordance with all the principles set out in Article 13 (Decision Making) of the Constitution, in particular:

(a) Proportionality (i.e. the action must be proportionate to the desired outcome)

(d) A presumption in favour of openness

(e) Aims and desired outcomes will be clearly expressed

The Chairman outlined the procedure to be followed and invited Councillor Roe to summarise the reasons for the Call-in.

The Chairman invited Councillor Barry as Cabinet Member with responsibility for City Council (Direct) Services to explain the reasons for the decision of Cabinet. Councillor Mace informed the meeting that he had voted against the decision and advised of his reasoning.

The Chairman invited signatories to the Call-in to ask questions and Councillor Barry and the Head of City Council (Direct) Services responded.

The Chairman invited Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ask questions and Councillor Barry, the Corporate Director (Community Services) and the Head of City Council (Direct) Services responded.

The meeting adjourned at 6.05pm to enable the signatories to prepare a proposal. The meeting reconvened at 6.15pm

On behalf of the signatories it was proposed by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Roe:

(1) “That it be recommended to Cabinet that the decision of the proposed closure of toilets should be deferred for 12 months until such time that the costs have been provided and fully discussed with all the parish councils and a full assessment of any businesses or any other party that may be interested in the community toilet scheme.

(2) That a full report be prepared including all costs and implications and provided to the Overview and Scrutiny Parish Council Funding Task Group prior to them reporting their findings.”

The Chief Executive advised the meeting of the conflicting timescales with the Review and Audit of Parish Funding Task Group due to report in March 2010 and with the agreement of the proposer and her seconder, Councillor Bray withdrew recommendation 2.

It was proposed by Councillor Gilbert, seconded by Councillor Plumb and accepted as a friendly amendment by the proposer and seconder of the original proposition:

“That the decision of the proposed closure of toilets should be deferred for 3 months rather than 12 months.”

Upon being put to the vote 6 Members voted in favour and 1 Member abstained from voting, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition, as amended, to be carried.

Resolved:

That it be recommended to Cabinet that the decision of the proposed closure of toilets should be deferred for 3 months until such time that the costs have been provided and fully discussed with all ... view the full minutes text for item 32

Meeting: 10/11/2009 - Cabinet (Item 81)

81 Options for Public Toilet Provision in the District from 2010/2011 PDF 32 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

Report of Head of City Council (Direct) Services

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

(It was noted that Councillor Langhorn had previously declared a personal interest in this item in view of his role as the Chairman of Caton with Littledale Parish Council.)

The Head of City Council (Direct) Services submitted a report outlining proposals for toilet provision for the district. The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

Option	Pros	Cons
1- Status quo	In the short term maintains existing levels of toilet provision.	The condition of some of our toilets is already poor. Without investment they will further deteriorate to the point where they have to be closed for safety reasons (eg Red Bank Shore). Those toilets that have had capital investment show considerable savings in terms of ongoing maintenance, cost of electricity / water, reduced vandalism etc, compared with some of our older toilets. Maintaining status quo would, in the short term, satisfy some stakeholders. However, it doesn’t create a position from which to take a planned look at toilet provision.
2- Mothball a number of toilets in 2010/11	It is estimated that revenue savings of approximately £100K could be made by mothballing toilets outside of the main visitor areas of Lancaster and Morecambe. £20K of this saving could allocated to a community toilet scheme. If toilets were already mothballed it would make implementation of the scheme much easier.	Would be seen as a kneejerk reaction to the current financial situation as opposed to a strategic decision. Even with £20K allocated to the community toilet scheme there is no guarantee that businesses would sign up. There is even less guarantee that businesses in the areas most affected by the mothballing would sign up. Mothballed toilets would further deteriorate and create further maintenance issues for future years.
3- Adopt the plan in Appendix B for the District’s toilet provision.	A planned approach to toilet provision would allow the Council to plan future investment and service provision. The plan proposes toilets in key locations that should be improved (Carnforth, Glasson, Bull Beck). However, it also identifies toilets in non key locations that should be closed or at the request of the Parish Council be considered for transfer (with an appropriate grant).	Could result in less toilet provision within the District. Requires capital investment to realise full savings.

The officer preferred option is option 3.

It was moved by Councillor Barry:-

“(1) That the plan for future provision of toilets as outlined in appendix B of the report be approved.

(2) That the elements of the plan that do not require capital funding be implemented from April 2010.

(3) That the capital growth required be considered as part of the budget process. Subject to value for money considerations and availability of capital funding, the elements of the plan that require capital funding be implemented as soon as capital funding is available and the plan be subsequently updated accordingly.

(4) That authority to negotiate with Parish ... view the full minutes text for item 81