Councillor Chris Penberthy (Cabinet Member for Housing, Cooperative Development and Communities) introduced the Public Toilets in Plymouth Briefing Report and discussed:

a)     Councillor Penberthy had been asked to undertake two related pieces of work: to review the Council’s public toilet strategy and to develop an asset management strategy, noting that public toilets formed part of the wider corporate estate;

b)    As work progressed, it had become clear that the most useful immediate product was not a detailed stand?alone public toilet strategy for the existing estate, but a clear set of principles to guide decisions about all toilets owned by the Council that were open to the public, whether or not they were classified as “public toilets”;

c)     These principles would be used to inform future planning and development work, including the next Joint Local Plan (JLP), proposals for a new town in the city centre, and other development opportunities, by setting out what the Council meant in practical terms when it said new developments should provide appropriate public toilet facilities and where those should be located;

d)    The briefing note contained high?level information about the current estate but was focused on establishing the key principles that officers and Members could apply consistently when planning, managing and investing in the corporate estate, rather than prescribing detailed changes to individual toilets at this stage;

e)     Having a clear, agreed framework of principles would make it easier to plan maintenance, prioritise investment and advise Members transparently on options and trade?offs;

f)      That the same set of principles was intended to be used across three major areas of work: the Strategic Asset Management Plan, the preparation of the new Local Plan, and work on the “new town” proposals in the city centre, so that decisions about toilets were consistent across planning, regeneration and estate management;

g)     That public toilets were a non?statutory service, funded from the same capital budgets that were required for other critical assets such as sea defences, corporate buildings, operational depots, scheduled monuments, memorials, and other office buildings, and therefore needed to be considered alongside over 1,000 other corporate assets;

h)    The principles proposed included ensuring public toilet provision at key transport interchanges, in areas of high visitor and tourist footfall such as the waterfront and Barbican, and in heavily used green and blue spaces, in order to support the city’s economy, tourism offer and residents’ health and wellbeing;

i)      Footfall data had been mapped against Council?managed public toilets, toilets available to the public in Council buildings and toilets provided by partners’

j)      Where future development created new areas of demand, the principles were intended to support the Council in seeking contributions from developers (for example, securing toilet provision as part of new schemes) rather than relying solely on limited Council capital budgets;

k)     The briefing note emphasised the role of partnership working, including with statutory partners and with organisations whose existing toilets already served as de facto public provision, and that the Council did not need to duplicate such facilities;

l)      While there had been a historic focus on “what to close and how” when budgets were under pressure, Councillor Penberthy was proud that, to date, no public toilets had been closed during his tenure, and that the proposed principles (including a stronger emphasis on key transport hubs) had already resulted in locations such as the St. Budeaux toilets being removed from previous closure lists;

m)   This work was being taken forward as part of the wider Strategic Asset Management Plan, and the intention was to bring the emerging asset management strategy, including the public toilets element, back to scrutiny in stages for comment and review;

Ann Thorp (Facilities Manager, Soft Services) added:

n)    The approach to repairs and maintenance of public toilets in the past had been largely ad-hoc and had not always taken into account wider considerations such as future changes in the local area, other nearby publicly accessible toilets, or anticipated changes to how residents and visitors would use the city;

o)    By embedding the new principles into the Strategic Asset Management Plan, officers would be able to review Council?managed public toilets alongside other publicly accessible toilets (for example, in libraries, museums, leisure centres and partner?managed sites), with a focus on value for money, lifetime cost and fitness for purpose;

p)    Examples such as the former public toilets next to the Museum and Library (now effectively replaced by public access to toilets at The Box) illustrated how, in some locations, the Council could reduce the number of small standalone toilet buildings without reducing overall access to facilities, provided that alternative provision was well publicised and genuinely accessible;

q)    There was ongoing work with partners to collate and publish information on all toilets that were accessible to the public, whether Council?managed or partner?provided, on the Council’s website. The intention was for the “Public Toilets” section of the website to evolve into a comprehensive directory of “toilets that are publicly accessible”;

r)     Once partners had formally agreed to be included, officers would be able to progress improved physical signposting and other communications so that residents and visitors could find facilities quickly when needed.

In response to questions, the Panel discussed:

a)     Frustrations among Members and residents about public toilet condition and availability, and the perception that, despite previous reviews and discussions, there had been little visible improvement on the ground over many years;

b)    Reassurance that while the report focused on principles, those principles were explicitly aimed at supporting the case for keeping toilets open and improving them over time, rather than planning closures because the Council could not afford to maintain them;

c)     Capital budgets for toilets were not ring?fenced, but combined withing the budget for the entire corporate estate, meaning that investment decisions had to balance needs across sea defences, operational depots, civic buildings, scheduled monuments, memorials and other Council assets as well as public toilets;

d)    Feedback from Members that a clearer, more transparent framework could help the public understand how individual toilets were assessed, including criteria, scoring and how decisions were reached about refurbishment, replacement or closure;

e)     Clarification that by applying the principles, the Council could phase investment in a fair and transparent way, and could also identify opportunities to integrate toilets into larger capital schemes;

f)      The example of Central Park, where public toilets, a café and the Life Centre all sat in close proximity, raising questions about whether this remained the most efficient configuration for providing public toilets and whether a more integrated approach might better serve users and reduce costs;

g)     Recognition that some Members and members of the public felt uncomfortable walking into buildings such as The Box purely to use the toilet without making a purchase, and that any strategy relying on “community toilet” or partner?based provision would need to address these cultural and perception issues through clear communication and signposting;

h)    The role of key transport hubs in the new principles, with Members noting that this had already influenced operational decisions (for example, the retention of toilets at St Budeaux as a key transport interchange), and welcoming the shift away from closure?driven lists towards a more proactive approach to where toilets were most needed;

i)      The timetable for the Strategic Asset Management Plan, with Members seeking assurance that scrutiny would be involved before final decisions were taken. It was confirmed that specific asset groups would be brought to scrutiny in stages as principles and options were developed;

j)      The importance of partnership working and existing examples where partner toilets already provided effective public coverage, such as Derriford Hospital and the toilets provided at Tamar Bridge and by the Torpoint Ferry, and the opportunity to replicate that model elsewhere in the city to broaden the reach of a non?statutory service as far as possible.

Action: Officers to continue working with partners to compile and publish comprehensive information on all toilets that were publicly accessible in the city (including partner?provided facilities) on the Council’s website, and to explore improved physical signposting once partner participation had been confirmed.

The Panel agreed:

1. To note the Public Toilets Briefing Report;

2. To note that detailed proposals regarding individual public toilet sites would be brought back to scrutiny as part of the wider Strategic Asset Management Strategy, rather than through a separate, stand?alone public toilet strategy.