Memorandum Submitted by Healthmatic Ltd
CONVENIENT OR NOT?
Local councils, whether; County; District; Borough;
Town; Parish; or City; have all had to consider the viability
of their Public Convenience provision. With an aging population,
and a wish to be fully inclusive many toileting challenged people
are enjoying the streets of their local area, or visiting others.
The question is how to provide facilities that encourage people
to visit, shop, stay and return. ENCAMS in their knowledge bank
on the subject clearly considers the drive that good provision
offers to visitors to go to one location over another based on
Convenience provision. Shopping centres, individual shops, and
all manner of attractions understand this and concentrate a good
degree of fire power on the provision of loos for their public.
Quite simply it brings them alternate revenue that outweighs the
minimal cost of provision. Councils sometimes understand this
and sometimes do not. There are clear examples of BID (Business
Improvement Districts) levying members to provide improved facilities
of this nature simply because the Council does not.
It is not discretionary for a shop—they
have to provide facilities for their staff, even a building site
with more than 3 workers has to provide a loo so why not a Town?
Bus drivers, Binmen, Postal Workers, the Police, and all manner
of public servants (commercial or otherwise) need to go when they
are out—they either find somewhere, break the law, or return
to base—I wonder how much money that costs the public purse?
What can a Council do?
1. Where they have poorly used loos near
community facilities offer the upkeep with revenue to the Community
Hall, the Parish, the Town etc| A COMMUNITY RUN FACILTY ATTRACTS
NO NDR. (that has to be unfair)
2. They can update and charge for the facility
typically 20p but as high as 50p and a £1 is charged in some
facilities, this discourages vandalism and allows for a good quality
service. In some cases Councils mix the charge, high in tourist
areas, less or free off the beaten track. Charging can be offset
by redemption tickets for money off a cup of tea at a local café
for example this "adverticket" approach is common in
charging car parks.
3. In the installation of new facilities,
sorely needed in some town centres, support in financial terms
can be found, not just from charging but by offering revenue opportunities
by attaching a kiosk, looking for support from bus companies,
local shops and restaurants, or market organisers where some of
the money they charge can be set aside to subsidise provision.
Playing around with budgets can also help Police Facilities almost
like to old Police Box might help us keep our Bobbies on the beat.
There are some authorities who link the two, (East Hants), where
a small satellite "Station" is attached to one of their
loos. Providing relief for the officers, more security, internet
access and even a local interview room with arrest and hold facilities,
very necessary with PCSOs for example.
4. In order to satisfy accessibility and
diversity issues Councils should provide DDA facilities in the
same way that shops have to make their premises accessible to
all ranges of the public. Changing Room is a good example of helping
the less able enjoy a more comfortable day out knowing that any
soiling issues can be dealt with without embarrassment (here the
purely non commercial aspect here makes it a duty of Councils
as private provision would probably not be forthcoming unless
planning required it).
The above are just a few pointers there are
many more;
Cost Cutting;
Direct access Semi automatic loos by attended
facilities to be in use during off peak periods therefore cutting
back the required hours staff need to attend the loos to say 1130hrs
to 1730 the time when most people need to use the loos (and so
many that a single unit would not cope).
Attendant could be doubled with Parking Officers
so they look in and clean as they patrol though this would offer
someone the two least popular jobs in a town!
Contracting out can also provide cost cutting situations,
often certain towns have attendants where they are not needed
due to poor usage or could be replaced by self cleaning or remotely
attended loos. Encouraging the public to report problems or notify
the Council can be made easy through mobile phones if an easily
accessible number is given why not let the public, who use the
loos let you know how they are fairing—it makes sense.
Charity run loos—yes charge on the door
but make it clear that the money goes to a GOOD CAUSE this can
cut vandalism and gets real involvement in this service from the
public. If the charity provided workers to clean them as well
then this money could go to charity as well.
Better still speak to an adviser who deals with
loos across the country and they can identify more of the opportunities
mentioned here. The BTA is a great starting place for advice.
COST OF
PROVISION
Firstly attendants
Most attendants are relatively inexpensive as
members of the workforce earning around £6.50 per hour the
cost of a 10 hour day seven days a week is around £29,000
and you will need three staff or so to cover that. Pay rates will
vary. (The best suggestion is to as above keep opening of the
main uint down to six hours and use alternate unattended solutions
for off peak. A good attendant in a well used loo will if charged
collect enough to pay for the employee.
Secondly Automatics
These Loos clean themselves after a specified
number of uses, they detect multiple occupancy (which can mean
trouble) an not close the door, they are DDA compliant in most
cases, they open and close remotely, they will even send messages
back to HQ as to whether they are in use, out of a consumable
or just simply out of order. They would be described as robotically
attended. Often these open for 24 hours and are run maintained
and cleaned by a third party.
Cost typically £70K plus connections to
the services and then a maintenance cost of up to £15K per
annum less if there is a cluster of loos close together (as low
as £8K p.a.). The 20p revenue covers the utilities costs
this can be kept by the Council or increasingly the third party
may pay the services costs in exchange for the money. VAT is payable
on the entry money to a public convenience if it is run by a commercial
body but not if it is run by the Council!
Thirdly Semi Automatics
Just like the Automatics these are "direct
access" ie the door opens onto the street. These can be made
a little more welcoming with a windowed door and customer locking
which does take some of the worry out of the public perception.
But some anti vandal and cleaning function is lost which can make
them more vulnerable and less likely to be open 24hours.
Cost for an in- build (one placed in an existing
building) is around £33K per cubicle and it decreases depending
on the number being put in. A stand alone version would be nearer
£45K plus connection to services. Bringing services to a
loo can be as high as £30K depending on the proximity to
the sewer, water and electric supplies.
Fourthly Traditional Unattended
Often the least expensive in the short term
the provision of a lobby and cubicles much like the ones most
of us experience in school or offices means that people may congregate
in the loo to do things other than the reason for which it is
provided this increases costs through vandalism and can make them
"no go" areas for the public in more ways than one.
In a quiet location near local facilities and shops they can do
a fine job with limited interruption but a band of anti social
"users" can quickly ruin a previously good level of
provision. It comes and goes. These can cost a varying amount
but a standard block of a ladies and gents and a DDA say four
ladies cubicles, one gents and a DDA would be around £140K
plus service connection depending on size and construction.
Typical examples of provision
Four Semi automatic cubicles will cost £110K
inbuilt and if placed well will deliver in excess of £1,200
per month revenue if well used (up to £2,400 easily). The
more use the less chance of vandalism as a busy loo is too busy
not to be caught in!
Per use cost in a good loo is about 2.3 Pence
for consumables (loo paper soap etc..)
14p covers the general on demand services Water
and electricity—automatic lighting and heating should be
used.
NDR and such extra capital costs (cost of finance
etc|) depend on how the service is set up. Look at any budget
to determine the costs. Any Council publishes their costs. Average
cleaning is around £8-10K per loo, £1000 on consumables,
£1,000 on NDR, and capital charges, Building Repairs, and
other costs will vary.
One example of a City is as follows use the
broad content but it lets you know what it costs an how this is
included;
Thank you for your interest in assisting the
Council move forward to provide high quality public toilets that
people feel safe and confident to use, that are clean and well
maintained and that are managed in the most cost effective way.
In direct answer to your questions.
1. Please find attached list of public toilets
provided by the Council.
You said you have already found the map on our webpage
providing opening times, cleaning schedule and whether they have
disabled person and/or baby change facilities.
2. Our overall budget for 2008-09 is £621,040.
Of that employees costs are £220,240 which equates to nine
full time equivalent staff. £38,900 is allocated for supplies
and services with £1,900 is for transport. The rest is made
up of utility costs, rent, rates (£27,679), etc; capital
financing; and indirect costs.
3. We do not have any Town or Parish Councils.
4. We do not have exact usage figures but
I use water usage, where known, to estimate usage. This information
is included on the attachment. Where I do have water usage, I
have provided educated guess.
5. Charging has been agreed by the Council
at all modernised, non attended public toilets. We have six units
at present with two more presently being modernised. Please see
web map for location. Charging is not something the Council is
adverse to, however, where we have toilets on recreation grounds,
particularly adjacent to paddling pools and children's play areas,
the Council has said it will not impose a charge.
6. All elements of anti-social behaviour
associated with public toilets is present to some degree at all
facilities. However, I guess like most places, some ASB is more
prevalent at particular locations. The city centre toilets are
targeted for rough sleeping and drug taking. Several toilets are
targeted for sexual activity, particularly male with male.
Vandalism goes in spates, particularly at toilets
on recreation grounds, which tend to be older, traditional style,
male and female facilities with communal areas. After school and
school holiday times are when many facilities are particularly
vulnerable.
7. The Council has recently reaffirmed its
commitment not to close any public toilets.
8. The present budget is for nine full time
equivalent posts. I do not have detailed information about length
of service, etc at this present time.
9. For opening times, please see web map.
We have one fully attended unit in the city centre (Lion Yard)
and we also have an attendant at the Silver Street facilities
during summer months because this one is in a popular tourist
area (beside a main punting hire area) and is also main day tourist
coach set down and pick-up location.
10. As regards reports to Committee. Over
the past few years there have been several. Please see links included
in attached document.
The overall objective of this exercise is to
achieve savings. We have already looked at achieving best price
for electricity, incorporating water usage reduction measures
where-ever possible and also ensuring we are not paying rates
on remises we shouldn't be. We have also incorporated cycling
for attendants between city centre units.
PUBLIC CONVENIENCES PROVIDED BY CAMBRIDGE
CITY COUNCIL
| | Location
| Address | Usage
| Water usage over last 12 months |
Type |
| 1 | Arbury Court | Arbury Road
| Low use | 97m3 | Being rebuilt to have 3 cubicles on street
|
| 2 | Barnwell Road | Barnwell Road,
| Low use | 60m3 | Small male/female unit on street
|
| 3 | Cherry Hinton Hall | Cherry Hinton Road
| Medium use (heavy during festival) | 375m3
| Medium sized male female unit on park. Disable separate
|
| 4 | Cherry Hinton Rec | High Street Cherry Hinton
| Low use | 185m3 | Modernised 3 cubicle unit on street.
|
| 5 | Chesterton Rec. | Church Road Chesterton
| Low Use | Through pavilion |
Small male/female/disable unit on park |
| 6 | Chesterton Road | Chesterton Road
| Medium Use | 653m3 | Being rebuilt with 3 cubicles on street
|
| 7 | Coleridge Rec. | Coleridge Road
| Low use | Through pavilion |
Small male/female/disable unit on park |
| 8 | Gonville Place | Gonville Place
| Medium Use | 382m3 | Modernised 5 cubicles on park
|
| 10 | Jesus Green | Chesterton Road
| Medium use | Through pavilion
| Small male/female/disabled unit on park |
| 11 | Kings Hedges Rec. | Buchan Street
| Low use | Through Community Centre
| Medium male/female/disable on park |
| 12 | Lammas Land | Newnham
| Medium/Heavy use | Through parks building
| Modernised 5 cubicle on park |
| 13 | Lion Yard | Lion Yard
| Very heavy use | 1585m3 (Estimate)
| Modernised male/female two disable unit in city centre
|
| 14 | Mill Road | Mill Road
| Medium use | 145m3 | Modernised 4 cubicle unit on street
|
| 15 | Nightingale Rec. | Nightingale Avenue
| Medium use | 974m3 | Small male/female/disable on park
|
| 16 | Park Street Car Park |
Park Street | Medium Use | Through car park
| Modernised 5 cubicle on street—busy |
| 17 | Quayside | Quayside
| Medium Use | Not directly supplied
| Medium male/female/disable on street—busy
|
| 18 | Romsey Rec. | Hemingford Road
| Low use | 199m3 | Very small male/female on park
|
| 19 | Silver Street | Silver Street,
| Medium/Heavy Use | 1111m3 |
Male/female on street (underground) unit Disable—busy
|
| 20 | Victoria Avenue | Victoria Ave
| Medium Use | 177m3 (rain water captured)
| Modernised 4 cubicle on street—busy |
Low Use = under 30,000 per annum: Medium Use = under 100,000 pa:
Heavy Use = over 100,000 pa
Maybe we should set up a league of PC providers and look
at number of users and cost per user and get a working party of
local authorities to determine best practise costs and strategies.
The BTA facilitates some of the best practise sharing but is not
Govt Funded. A working party drawn from 20-50 local authorities
would help all understand the costs and comparative benefits of
provision.
N Lanarkshire has awful facilities and attendants in each
how seem o watch TV most of the time.
Glasgow is seeking to shave £600K from its provision
budget by dropping a large number of FTEs (Full Time Equivalents)
Westminster charge 50p in some locations and their revenue
runs into Millions.
Pop up loos are being installed to provide urination stops
for night time revellers all over London, particularly, Westminster
and Lambeth.
Many prospective unitary authorities are cascading loo provision
to Parish and Town Councils to keep the service local.
Most Councils have performance targets for their loos provision
but there is no cost comparison or average on which to base any
performance data so their reports mean little. Maybe an inspection
team an "Ofloo" body should be established—who
knows.
Hope this is of use there is so much more where this came
from we run 250 loos for 72 individual local authorities so we
pretty well come across every issue but so does everyone in the
club.
| 
