It was noted that the meeting had been summoned in accordance with Section 100A (6) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. A decision was required urgently by virtue that any recommendation from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for Cabinet to reconsider would have budgetary implications and would need to be considered by Cabinet prior to Budget Council on 4th March, 2009.
Members were advised that the Cabinet decision in relation to the Public Toilet Review – Cabinet Minute 140, had been Called-in by the following 5 Members:
Councillors Val Histed, Susan Bray, Bob Roe, Jean Dent and Sarah Fishwick.
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)
(b) Due consultation and the taking of professional advice from Officers
(c) Respect for human rights.
The Chairman acknowledged the receipt of a number of letters relating to the decision of Cabinet to close the public toilets and informed the meeting that these had been circulated to Members of the Committee.
The Chairman outlined the procedure to be followed and invited Councillor Bray to summarise the reasons for the Call-in.
The Chairman invited Councillor Bryning as Leader of the Council to explain the reasons for the decision of Cabinet.
The Leader informed the meeting that if the Overview and Scrutiny Committee resolved to refer the decision back to Cabinet, it was his intention to propose that the public toilets remain open with the exception of those at Regent Road and those adjacent to the Dome as there were alternative facilities in those areas.
The Chairman addressed the Committee in view of comments made by the Leader.
It was proposed by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Bray:
“That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommend to Cabinet that the toilets remain open with the exception of Regent Road and those adjacent to the Dome.”
By way of an amendment which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, it was proposed by Councillor Sherlock and seconded by Councillor Plumb:
“That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommend to Cabinet that the Parish Councils be consulted as to whether they would be prepared to take over the toilets in the long term.”
Upon being put to the vote Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposals, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposals carried.
By way of further amendment it was proposed by Councillor Heath and seconded by Councillor Towers:
“That the Council continues to look into the possibility of providing alternative or additional public toilets through a community scheme, such as the Richmond Scheme.”
Upon being put to the vote 4 Members voted in favour of the proposal and 5 Members against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.
Resolved:
(1) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommend to Cabinet that the toilets remain open with the exception of Regent Road and those adjacent to the Dome.
(2) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommend to Cabinet that the Parish Councils be consulted as to whether they would be prepared to take over the toilets in the long term.”
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)
It was noted that the meeting had been summoned in accordance with Section 100A (6) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. A decision was required urgently by virtue that any recommendation from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for Cabinet to reconsider the decision would have budgetary implications and would need to be considered by Cabinet prior to Budget Council on 4th March, 2009.
Cabinet considered the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, held prior to the meeting of Cabinet. The Committee had requested consideration of the referral which was as a result of the Call-in of Cabinet’s decision regarding the Public Toilet Review (Cabinet Minute 140 refers). Members were provided with the report and minute of the Cabinet meeting held on 17th February 2009, when the original decision had been made.
It was moved by Councillor Bryning and seconded by Councillor Blamire:-
“(1) That the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be agreed and that savings be made from the following budgets:
£12,000 savings from the mothballing of the 2 public toilets located at Regent Road and those adjacent to the Dome, Morecambe.
£11,000 additional savings from the Communications and Marketing Review, resulting in total savings of £41,000 in Year 1 and £61,000 for Years 2 and beyond. (To be achieved by including Your District Matters in the totality of the expenditure as part of the review.).
£31,000 of growth to be removed, in relation to the recurring item for Schools Recycling of £7,000 per year, and the one-off item for undertaking a Review of Parish Financial Arrangements.
By way of amendment it was moved by Councillor Fletcher and accepted by the mover and seconder of the original proposition as a friendly amendment: -
“That with regard to the Community Toilet Scheme the Council continues to discuss proposals for the use of toilets with local businesses.”
By way of further amendment it was moved by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Charles: -
“That the recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny be referred to Budget Council.”
Upon being put to the vote 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted in favour of the amendment, 3 Members (Councillors Blamire, Bryning and Fletcher) voted against and 4 Members abstained from voting (Councillors Archer, Burns, Gilbert and Kerr), whereupon the Chairman declared the amendment lost.
Members then voted on the substantive motion, as amended, as follows.
Resolved:
(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Blamire, Bryning, Burns, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 2 Members (Charles and Mace) voted against).
(1) That the toilets remain open with the exception of Regent Road and those adjacent to the Dome, Morecambe and that savings be made from the following budgets:
£12,000 savings from the mothballing of the 2 public toilets located at Regent Road and those adjacent to the Dome, Morecambe.
£11,000 additional savings from the Communications and Marketing Review, resulting in total savings of £41,000 in Year 1 and £61,000 for Years 2 and beyond. (To be achieved by including Your District Matters in the totality of the expenditure as part of the review.).
£31,000 of growth to be removed, in relation to the recurring item for Schools Recycling of £7,000 per year, and the one-off item for undertaking a Review of Parish Financial Arrangements.
(2) That the Parish and Town Councils be consulted as to whether they would be prepared to take over the toilets in the long term.
(3) That with regard to the Community Toilet Scheme the Council continues to discuss proposals for the use of toilets with local businesses.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Corporate Director (Community Services).
Head of City Council (Direct) Services.
Reasons for making the decision:
The decision was made in line with the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It enables Cabinet’s revised recommendations on the schedule of Savings and Growth proposals to be considered at Budget Council on 4th March, 2009. With regard to savings it was noted that if the savings from the overall budget for Communications and Marketing Review are agreed by Council, this would be achieved by including Your District Matters in the totality of the expenditure as part of the review.
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)
The Corporate Director (Community Services) submitted a report to provide options for toilet provision in 2009/10. In order to provide options that would have a budgetary impact in 2009/10 the report listed 14 toilets where there was immediate scope for review:-
|
West End (Regent Road) Morecambe |
|
Toilets adjacent to the Dome- Morecambe |
|
Heysham Village |
|
Sunderland point |
|
Glasson Dock |
|
Cockerham |
|
Silverdale |
|
Warton |
|
Red bank shore |
|
Carnforth |
|
Bolton Le Sands |
|
Hest Bank |
|
Bull Beck |
|
Victoria Institute- Caton (cleaned by Council) |
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:
|
Option |
Pros |
Cons
|
|
1- status quo |
Retains existing levels of toilet provision. |
· Does nothing to meet requirements of MTFS. · Many of the toilets where City Council are in need of major repair, suffer from ongoing vandalism and are in exposed locations. |
|
2- Mothball 14 toilets as listed in para 2.2 -from April 1 2009, with capital changes in para 2.4 |
· Provides a £100,000 per year saving to revenue budget. · Provides a £100,000 general capital budget, for future works (including any demolition). · Mothballing toilets allows for medium term / long term consideration of their future. · Allows other bodies the opportunity to consider taking over the ongoing running of the facility. · Many of these toilets are in need of major repair, suffer from ongoing vandalism and are in exposed locations. |
· Represents a significant service reduction and will be unpopular with many. · Mothballed public buildings are unsightly and can attract vandalism. · Although the facility is mothballed it will still incur some service / maintenance charges. · If at a future date the decision is taken to reopen or demolish the mothballed toilets there will obviously be further financial implications to consider, and these might not be fully covered by the £100K capital provision. |
|
3- Mothball some toilets of the toilets in the list in para 2.2- from April 1 2009, with capital changes in para 2.4 |
· Would provide some savings to revenue budget. · As above. · Reduced service reduction. |
· The mothballing proposal of 14 toilets has been designed to generate the maximum saving from the resources that are used (eg staff, transport etc). Leaving some open would greatly reduce the saving as it would not be as efficient (ie. staff and a vehicle still have to be allocated to cleaning a reduced amount of toilets). · If at a future date the decision is taken to reopen or demolish the mothballed toilets again there will obviously be further financial implications to consider. |
|
4- Community Toilet Pilot - from April 2009 |
· Retains levels of service provision. · Cheaper to run (Pilot, but assume £20,000 per annum). · Provides toilets that are clean, safe, located within managed buildings and available when people need them. · Will impact positively on the businesses that participate through an annual contribution, publicity and signage. · Using 2009/2010 as pilot year allows for time to assess effectiveness and then make recommendations for 2010/2011 |
· Businesses may not be willing to participate. |
Because of the need to make savings the officer preferred option is option 2 (mothball 14 toilets as listed in para 2.2) combined with option 4 (Community Toilet Pilot). The effective date for this would be 1st April 2009.
It was moved by Councillor Barry and seconded by Councillor Archer:-
“(1) That, with the exception of Bull Beck, the 13 toilets listed in the report (para 2.2) are ‘mothballed’ with effect from 1st April 2009 and the draft revenue budget is updated accordingly.
(2) That the £26,000 savings options for Bull Beck are put into the budget process for consideration.
(3) That the draft capital programme is updated to reflect the proposed changes highlighted in paragraph 2.4 of this report.
(4) That a ‘Community Toilet’ scheme is put in place from April 2009 and that £20,000 is allocated to this in 2009/10.
(5) That a further report is brought to Cabinet in 2009/10 to make further recommendations for the medium / long term future of these toilets and to make recommendations for the future of the ‘Community Toilet’ scheme. In the meantime, if Parish Councils express an interest in acquiring toilets in their Parish, Cabinet would support this.”
By way of an addendum to recommendation (1) regarding Bull Beck toilets, which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, Councillor Gilbert proposed:
“(1b) That officers explore, as far as possible, ways to reduce expenditure on Bull Beck toilets including the possibility of renewing the septic tank and looking at the possibility of locking the enclosure at night to reduce vandalism.”
By way of amendment, Councillor Mace proposed and Councillor Charles seconded:
“(6) That discussions be commenced with Parish Councils to investigate the long term future of and funding of the public toilets situated in Parished Areas of the District, and that the outcome of these discussions be reported to Cabinet.”
2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted in favour of the amendment and 7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted against, whereupon the Chairman declared the amendment lost.
Members then voted on the substantive motion:-
Resolved:
(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 2 Members (Charles and Mace) voted against).
(1) That, with the exception of Bull Beck, the 13 toilets listed in the report (para 2.2) are ‘mothballed’ with effect from 1st April 2009 and the draft revenue budget is updated accordingly.
(1b) That officers explore, as far as possible, ways to reduce expenditure on Bull Beck toilets including the possibility of renewing the septic tank and looking at the possibility of locking the enclosure at night to reduce vandalism.
(2) That the £26,000 savings options for Bull Beck are put into the budget process for consideration.
(3) That the draft capital programme is updated to reflect the proposed changes highlighted in paragraph 2.4 of this report.
(4) That a ‘Community Toilet’ scheme is put in place from April 2009 and that £20,000 is allocated to this in 2009/10.
(5) That a further report is brought to Cabinet in 2009/10 to make further recommendations for the medium / long term future of these toilets and to make recommendations for the future of the ‘Community Toilet’ scheme. In the meantime, if Parish Councils express an interest in acquiring toilets in their Parish, Cabinet would support this.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Corporate Director (Community Services)
Head of City Council (Direct) Services
Reasons for making the decision:
The decision takes account of the “Community Toilet” example of best practice whilst also providing budgetary savings.