It’s not often that we take useful tips from the Welsh, but I have heard that one of their ideas which seems to be working well is charging 50p for using the public lavatories. Rye is first and foremost a tourist town. Don’t get me wrong, we live here as ordinary citizens and adore it, but the majority of its income comes from the influx of visitors and tourists, who come hopefully to have a very nice time, and spend their hard earned money in our shops and eateries and other places of interest.
But, and it is an enormous but, we only have two public toilet facilities that I am aware of in the entire town. One down on the Salts, which is not really in the heart of the action, and one by the railway station, which I gather is not great on the cleanliness front.
We do have more lavatories, but they are CLOSED. Why? There are some in Gun Garden, centre of the tourist route…CLOSED. And more down on the Strand, where everyone goes to shop for antiques etc., CLOSED.
As a woman I have been through many stages in my life when I needed facilities, and I needed them now! As a child with a tiny bladder they were important. As a pregnant woman it became imperative … now. And as an older woman, it is also key to an enjoyable and relaxed time.
But no, we have to scrabble around for loos, go and have yet another coffee or drink so that we can beg a loo from the cafes. Two of you with three children, and a simple morning coffee / drink for five people puts you back a small fortune, with buns attached. It is such a bad decision, presumably made by a mere male, who as we all know do not have our gynaecological pressures on their bladders, and anyway can very often slink away into a leafy corner, in a way that a woman simply cannot.
So if we made the facilities pay for themselves and their cleaners, I think everyone would be happy. I mean, what’s 50p!!
Image Credits: Col Everett .
This just leaves me with feelings of utter despair. Why does Rother think it appropriate to shoot Rye in the foot in this way? Money of course, but the cliché about having to speculate to appreciate holds good here. What a terrible experience for visitors in need, and what a terribly negative reputational issue for Rye.
My current home town has closed all of its public toilets, but it’s not a holiday destination and residents know where to go in case of an emergency, eg coffee shops and pubs, etc. Even so, certain walls and external pillars on some buildings and other outdoor public locations are already showing signs of the consequences of what happens when people are “taken short”.
The consequences of a coach-load of U3A members on a day out to the town, many of whom will be in need of some relief when they arrive at the end of their journey, just doesn’t bear thinking about. What a terrible welcome. I’m sure that private enterprise could provide a solution and operate the facilities, charging perhaps 50 pence a time.
Let’s stick it to Rother who, time and again, seems to treat Rye as a poor relation and not the jewel in the crown.
This disastrous action is causing misery for those that urgently need these facilities. It could result in the elderly becoming housebound, or restricting drinking before going anywhere, beach visits for example will be curtailed, or people will be forced to relieve themselves wherever they can. Winchelsea has a disabled toilet that is still open, thankfully. Could their example be followed elsewhere? Although a 50p charge is a good idea, theft would be a problem unless money boxes were emptied regularly. Is there a petition for this or other action that can be taken?
Lights were on recently in the bolted and barred Gun Gardens toilets. Saving neither electricity or water. Just inconvenient.
Over the years Rother DC has closed toilet facilities over the area, mainly where visitors come, all, as a cost cutting measure.
Rye is a historic location which is visited by many from far and wide helping the economy, giving employment.
Many of the visitors to Rye come via coaches, and have travelled from far and wide it is essential for those visitors to have toilets, or for mothers to have facilities for their children.
I realise that Rother and County have their priorities, but the personal comfort of their residents and their welfare should be first on their lists.
As a local business owner close by to the closed toilets on the Strand, we are getting fed up of constantly being asked by people to use our toilets. I understand that it is not the fault of the public who have nowhere else to go but it is unfair that it has become our problem.
When I asked the Rother about this, amongst the waffle was a link directing me to their FAQ’s in which it is stated that “proximity to other facilities (including publicly accessible toilets not operated by the council such as those in public buildings, bars, and eateries)” is taken into consideration.
With that in mind, I have started directing people to the local library which to my knowledge is a publicy funded premises unlike ours.
To not offer sufficient public toilets in a tourist town is a disgrace.
Charging for the use of public toilets works well in other countries and it pays for the upkeep, they are kept clean and with working hand dryers etc. It could work here too, and I would definitely be in favour.
If RDC refuse to reopen the toilets then Rye Town Council MUST takeover.
Public conveniences are not a luxury in a heavily visited tourist town. They are critical to the economy and prospects of Rye.
SOMEONE ACT NOW.
totally agree where are the public supposed to go…..in the street?
I don’t think Rye is being targeted. This is a national problem, and, as a doctor, I have to say that if our local authorities do not address public cleanliness, there is no point in having them, whatever else they may do.
“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats it’s most vulnerable members.” -Mahatma Ghandi.
So right in every respect, Col, except perhaps one. Whilst fully accepting the special needs of women, I’d respectfully point out that there’s nothing acceptable or convenient about the lack of facilities, or the shocking state of the ones that do exist, for “mere males”. I would guess there’s a business for someone to contract with RDC to take over the facilities – all 4, keep them properly, and supplementing income by applying a client charge?
We should be building more loos and improving the ones we’ve got, not closing them. I’m not really in favor of charging for use, though, for many reasons. So what’s the alternative? Sponsorship? Advertising on the cubicle walls by local businesses? Or perhaps, as I’m sure I heard someone propose at the last Rye Town Council meeting, using the income from parking to maintain toilets. Whatever the solution, I agree that it’s an urgent matter. For some people, really urgent.
Most UK public toilets are so disgusting that the circumstance has to be terminally dire for me to use one. A childhood memory is of visiting WCs during continental holidays and first being intimidated by the usually dragon-like attendant demanding money but then amazed by the cleanliness – and often soap and towels. Let someone charge and run decent toilets.
For a lot of people circumstances are just that. Particularly if they are elderly or are prescribed diuretics for medical reasons. Any toilet is preferable to no toilet, but to pay for good facilities would be seen as worth every “penny” to those in need.
Come now Col, we are a quarter of the way through the 21st century. Women have absolutely as much right, and from a perusal of the news, absolutely as much ability as men, to conceive and carry out ill thought decisions. Closing the public conveniences in a town as busy and popular as Rye was a ridiculous decision, whether made by man, woman or other, and whoever made the decision shouldn’t be allowed near making a decision more important than ordering the office paper clips.
By the way, on your point of ‘outdoor relief,’ as a mere man approaching 70, it’s not something I’ve ever done. However, from dog walking it has been clear that women can often find a convenient bush and give what for to the adjacent ground cover.
I’m all for equal rights and responsibilities.
“I mean, what’s 50p?” .. 50p for a pee? Ladies will be more likely forced to pay it. Most men will find a hedge. And on a day out, people tend to go more than once.
When I contacted Rother as invited to do so on the notice appended to the closed facility that I was desperate to use, I received the following response from Sophie Voller, Business Support Officer (which rather says it all):
“Rother District Council has no current plans to reopen any of the closed sites as our consultation indicates that we have the toilets with the strongest support open.
We will continue working with our Town and Parish Councils to help ensure that, where public toilet provision is important to the local community, these services can be provided in a more sustainable way”
So it seems that we have a done deal with no avenue of recourse left open to the electorate. Rother don’t want to know, but are open to somebody else taking over their responsibility in this area.
So what options are actually open to us?
Provision of toilets for public use (at whatever cost) is not a statutory duty for local government. ANY are a bonus. Almost everywhere has loos provided for customers. Unless staffed, loos become ‘unsavoury’ – will charging the real price for clean loos attract visitors? – Or custom for the area?
Rother District Council cause problems. Sophie Voller states ‘where public toilet provision is important to the local community’.
The locals know where available toilets are, it is visitors who arrive by bus, train, coach and car who may well have need of a toilet on arrival. The lack of provision of facilities in and around Rye is simply not acceptable.
Should Rye Town Council or parish councils have toilets in their area the maintenance costs are included in their precepts when they submit their requirements to RDC. The cost of provision is levied on local council tax payers whether RDC or local councils are the provider.
RDC then announce that they have only increased their take by 4.99% following government guidelines.
Clean toilets may not attract custom , filthy facilities will certainly deter repeat visits.