Bembridge parish councillor, Gill Rogers, has been looking into the Isle of Wight council’s (IWC) justifications for proposing to close 32 of the 67 public toilets on the Island. She has dug up some very interesting facts which she was happy to share with VB readers. Ed
How sad that the Island is being split in to two tiers, the haves and the have nots.
Whilst it is understood that the IWC have some very hard decisions to make and “we must all feel the pain” it appears that the decision making process with regard to public conveniences discriminates against rural areas.
Criteria flawed
Statistics used in the process in some cases appear to be flawed with unfair weightings given to towns to the detriment of their rural neighbours.
The IWC have used five criteria to assist them in the decision making process, that of principal town, principal beach, principal park, water usage and distances between conveniences.
Each of the criteria can receive a maximum marking of five, which gives a weighting of 25 points. However the marking is such that in some towns they can receive a triple marking for meeting the principal town, beach and park criteria. Hardly fair.
Errors in the stats
A number of errors have been picked up in the statistical data and if correct information had been used, some of those facilities on the safe list would not be there, whilst other facilities due for closure would.
The Island Council have they say used the criteria set down by the British Toilet Association (BTA) in deciding principal town status, many local authorities are members of this association but the IWC is not. Further investigation on the BTA website shows that they are fighting to keep public toilets open not close them.
The Island is a tourist location, we promote walking holidays, cycling and much more and yet it none of these facts have been taken on board by the Local Authority.
Spotlight on villages
A quick look at three villages (and apologies to those that are affected and not mentioned) raises concerns.
Godshill – A main tourist area of the Island yet the only public toilet is down for closure. Water usage gives this facility the highest rating. Coach parties flock to the area and tourists are vital to the economy of the village. Perhaps instead of triple rating those facilities in towns the Island Council should have looked at areas as a whole. One could argue that Godshill should have been considered on merit rather than statistics used.
Brighstone – This village, winner of the Best Village for many years has one public toilet, situated on the edge of its playing fields. It must be said not as well used as other areas, but if we consider the pride the residents have in their village then closure of this facility is wrong.
I have never visited Brighstone without seeing someone out litter picking. The village residents organise many events during the year, the Christmas Tree Fair, Village Show and many other functions to promote their village. They put back far more into the Island than they get out, yet are to be disadvantaged.
Bembridge – A large village with 130 businesses, a large hotel and various holiday centres with a population approaching 5,000.
The village has around 7km of coastline yet with the plans being proposed no public toilets. During the summer months the population can easily swell to 12,000.
Closure against officer’s recommendation?
The RNLI station is based at Lane End and recently officers from the IWC recognised the need for public toilets at this location, yet now they are to close. This will mean that the thousands of school children that visit this site for educational purposes will no longer be able to visit due to regulations.
The IWC promotes seaside safety yet the valuable work the RNLI undertake will need to cease. The nearest public toilet will be at Yaverland, a ten minute drive away, where water usage over the years is less than at the Lane End facility, which one is the more valuable?
Current criteria discriminates
It would be unfair to the IWC to go into where there are mistakes in their Statistical Ranking Document, this will be addressed with them directly, but to make decisions on unfair rankings and incorrect analysis without taking into account how these decisions will affect the social fabric of the Island is wrong.
Andy Sutton, when leader of the council, said that all towns and parishes on the Island would be treated fairly and equitably, this process is neither fair nor equitable.
Residents hit with double taxation
Residents in those areas that might take on public toilets are facing double taxation. They are being charged in their council tax for all those places that keep their facilities and again through their precept to protect facilities in their villages. This is neither fair nor equitable and those members of the Island Council who are advocating this should reconsider.
It also saddens me that if town and parish councils had spoken one voice and put on a united front against the cuts we might be a lot more positive about the outcome of the consultation.
Image: Paukrus under CC BY-SA 2.0
