Agenda item

To consider a report by the Scrutiny Coordinator (copy attached) the purpose of which is to seek the Committee, in accordance with the Council’s Call-In Procedure Rules, to review the decision taken by Cabinet on 29^th April 2025.

 

10.15am – 11.15am

The Scrutiny Co-ordinator welcomed Councillor Barry Mellor Lead Member for Environment & Transport to the meeting and explained that he had been invited to attend specifically to answer members’ questions relating to the decision.  The Scrutiny Co-ordinator introduced the report (previously circulated) and outlined to the Committee the procedure that would be followed to hear the reasons why the decision had been called-in for scrutiny and determine whether it merited being referred back to Cabinet for re-consideration.  She explained that if, at the end of its deliberations, the Committee did decide to refer the decision back to Cabinet seeking it to review its original decision, it needed to formulate a clear recommendation for Cabinet to consider and explain clearly the rationale behind the recommendation.

 

Members who were signatories to the call-in were called upon to give statements on the reasons why they had invoked the call-in procedure to seek a review of the Cabinet decision taken on 29^th April 2025, relating to the Public Conveniences Savings Proposal – Local Needs Assessment and Draft Local Toilet Strategy.  The signatories being Councillors Andrea Tomlin, David Williams, Karen Edwards, Hugh Evans, and Huw Hilditch-Roberts.  It was clarified that originally Councillor Christopher Evans’ name had been listed as the fifth signatory but, by virtue of his e-mail received on 9th May 2025, Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts had become the fifth signatory.

 

Councillor Andrea Tomlin, as the lead signatory, was invited to present the reasons why they had called the decision in for scrutiny. She thanked the Chair for allowing her to speak and advised that the reasons for the call in were as detailed in Annex A to the report.  She outlined the reasons why each element contained within the decision should be reviewed as follows –

 

1.            (a)  ‘That Cabinet approves the local needs assessment.’

Cabinet should revisit this decision as they felt it was based on a flawed report. The assessment declare that Dyserth had no need at all for public toilets. This was clearly incorrect as anyone who was familiar with the village was aware of its popularity.  Furthermore, Dyserth had not even been subject to an ‘assessment of needs by community and visitor population’ on the basis that the system used to collect tourism data has no data available for Dyserth.  Therefore, Denbighshire County Council (DCC) had deemed it to be ‘unlikely to have a serious seasonal need for public toilets.’ The current Cabinet consisted of 6 members from Rhyl and Prestatyn who should be fully aware of Dyserth’s popularity as a visitor destination and its attractions; the waterfall; walks; river; public houses and eateries, along with the popular annual duck race. The other three Cabinet members should also surely be aware of these too.

Whilst seasonal visitor numbers had been identified for Rhuddlan and St Asaph, they too were deemed not to meet the threshold of need for a public toilet at. As signatories they felt it was wholly unfathomable and unacceptable to accept an assessment report recommending the removal of such vital and much used facilities, based only on a desktop report, with what seemed to be a serious lack of any local knowledge.

2.            (b)  ‘That Cabinet approves the draft local toilet strategy.’

Cabinet’s approval of this strategy should be revisited as it stated that it would ‘focus on identified need only’, thus implying that that identified local needs assessment was accepted as correct, which in the signatories’ opinion it was not as explained under (a).  It the Strategy was based on the ‘flawed’ local needs assessment it would leave Rhuddlan and Dyserth as well as St. Asaph without the much needed public conveniences.  The signatories to the call-in were of the view that no area of the county should be precluded from this strategy.

3.         (c) ‘That Cabinet endorses, the proposed next step for each Public Convenience facility.’

Cabinet should revisit their endorsement of the next steps for each public convenience facility as the proposal includes the closure of Rhyl’s Botanical Gardens public conveniences which are a vital and much used facility in this public space in Rhyl.  These next steps include the removal of all public conveniences in Dyserth, Rhuddlan and St Asaph and offers no alternatives, or replacement suggestions for the pods that are closed or planned to close at the very busy bus and train stations in Rhyl and Prestatyn, both towns which have identified in the assessment as having needs for more public conveniences, not fewer.

(d)   ‘That Cabinet confirms that it has read and understood and taken account of the well-being impact assessment.’

Cabinet should be asked to revisit its understanding of overall well-being. The well-being impact assessment clearly states, that of the seven well-being goals, only one (14%) is positive, and that one states that the proposed changes and closures will have no negative impact upon biodiversity, the ecosystem or the carbon footprint – the latter being based on fewer attendances needed by staff in vehicles. It is clearly documented in any report on the need for public conveniences from any source, that the link between well-being and good availability of public conveniences is vital.

(e)      ‘Delegate authority for the Lead Member, Highways and Environment to agree any changes required before publishing the Local Toilet Strategy.’

Cabinet should be recommended that no powers relating to any aspect of this important matter should be delegated solely to one Member.

Much of the report to Communities Scrutiny in March was based on an ongoing grant funding application coming to fruition, but the outcome that that bid had failed was known of Cabinet, so a different scenario to that put forward by Communities Scrutiny was now under discussion.  The signatories have concerns with regards to staff welfare and well-being due to not knowing whether they will have a job in the coming months. It is clear from consultation responses that  the vast majority of people were against any public convenience closures.

Anecdotal evidence pointed to the facts that tax-paying local businesses were, in the main, unwilling to pick up the Council’s moral and humane responsibility in relation to the provision of public conveniences.  Cabinet was making an error of judgement if they thought businesses would provide this service.

The Authority itself had a county-wide sector of workers out in the community, who did not have a work base, and therefore relied on the Council to provide them with this basic need while undertaking their daily duties, workers such as District Nurses, carers, delivery drivers, couriers, taxi drivers, refuse collectors, Streetscene and highways workers. They should be able to rely on the Council to provide them with these required facilities.

Whilst it was cited and relied upon throughout the Cabinet discussion that toilet provision is a non-statutory or discretionary service, the signatories wished to request that Cabinet be recommended to be bold and not rely on what it legally had to provide but deem its tax-paying residents, businesses and visitors deserving of keeping the public toilets already available and that they remained open and maintained by the Council.  As signatories to the call-in they were seeking Cabinet to admit that this particular budget saving proposal was unachievable, and that the needs and desires of residents, businesses, and visitors be placed first and foremost, with the budget gap being filled from making efficiencies or cutting wastage elsewhere.

The Chair thanked Councillor Tomlin for introducing the call-in and explaining in detail the signatories’ reasons for calling-in the decision for review.  The co-signatories were then invited to provide a brief summary of their reasons for supporting the request to call the decision in for scrutiny.

Councillor David Williams thanked Councillor Tomlin for the points raised and for highlighting his community of Dyserth. He viewed the conclusion of no need of toilets in Dyserth as insulting, he understood that there was no legal obligation for the Council to have public conveniences, however, the Council had a moral obligation to provide these conveniences. He was firmly of the view that the Council needed to assist people to go out and not confine them to their homes. He highlighted the fact that council tax was being increased services were being reduced.  The Council needed to restore some credibility and not close the public conveniences.

 

Councillor Karen Edwards confirmed that she agreed with all the comments outlined in the call-in request and raised by those who had spoken thus far. Whilst the minutes of the Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting which undertook pre-decision scrutiny of the proposals were yet to be ratified the draft minutes, which were available on the Council’s website, clearly stated that the Committee had recommended that further talks be undertaken with the city, town, and community councils to support those facilities. The Committee did not support the closure of the toilets. Councillor Edwards highlighted the communication aspect with local city, town, and community councils on the subject drawing attention to the communication with her local town council in Llangollen. At a meeting to discuss the matter several months earlier members of the town council were informed they would receive weekly updates regarding the availability of possible funding streams  to help keep the public conveniences open.  However, no communication had been received by the town council for 6 months.  Councillor Edwards voiced her concerns on the inequalities that would arise if city, town, and community councils across the authority were expected to raise their precepts to keep the public conveniences open.  She cited Llangollen as an example, a small town of circa 4,000 residents which would need to raise its precept by approximately 38% in order to retain its public conveniences.

 

Councillor Hugh Evans confirmed that he fully supported the request to the call the decision in for review.  The main reason he disagreed with the decision taken by Cabinet, was that it was not in agreement with the results of the public consultation carried out.  As a local authority Denbighshire tried to encourage and support tourism, closing public conveniences would be counter-productive to its ambitions for the tourism industry. Public conveniences in other local authority areas across Wales were not closing, even in very rural areas. He felt uneasy with the proposed approach of asking for the private sector’s assistance in providing a service which should be provided by the public sector.  The WG wanted all public bodies to have regard to the goals in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, the proposed closure of some public conveniences would undermine everyone’s well-being, but particularly the most vulnerable.  It would also damage the Council’s reputation.  He felt that the Cabinet needed to demonstrate strong leadership by prioritising this key service, the funding gap relating to the provision of this service was not substantial and efficiencies could be sought within the authority to ensure the public conveniences could be kept open.

 

Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts advised that he agreed with all previous comments raised.  He emphasised that the local authority needed to look after the most vulnerable in its communities, by closing these public conveniences it would not be fulfilling its duties. He felt that politics was taking precedence over people.

 

The Lead Member and officers were then invited to respond to the points raised.

 

Councillor Barry Mellor, Lead Member for Environment & Transport, responded that no one wanted to close any public conveniences.   Cabinet was required to look at the broader picture regarding the budget.  The Council was required by law to set a balanced budget, public finances were extremely scare, and all decisions were challenging, but a pragmatic approach was being taken. It was important to emphasise that not all public conveniences were being closed, in fact those which would be retained would be refurbished.

 

The Corporate Director:  Environment & Economy and the Head of Highways & Environmental Services responded to points which were raised during the call in –

·         regarding the public conveniences, the approach taken in developing this proposal was a council-wide approach.  The method of engagement was the standard method, and the aim had been to try and keep as many public conveniences open as possible.

·         with respect to the validity of the data used as part of the development of the proposal and Strategy - the Scarborough Tourism Economic Activity Monitor (STEAM) – this was a well-established and nationally adopted tourism economic impact modelling tool which was widely used across the UK.  STEAM data was included with all the data collated during the consultation period. The public consultation exercise had been undertaken on a county-wide basis and the proposal was to keep as many public conveniences open as possible.

·         the Rhyl Botanical Gardens public conveniences , were in operation between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. They were closed from 3pm onwards due to the vandalism that regularly occurred and the associated cost implications to the local authority.  Since the proposal to permanently close these public conveniences had been approved the Botanical Gardens Group, and St Asaph City Council and Rhuddlan Town Council had approached the Council seeking further discussions.  Discussions were now ongoing with the local communities on the matter. The pod public conveniences were however outdated, and the parts needed to repair them were no longer available. Therefore, once they were out of order they were closed and could not be reopened.

·         the negative conclusions of the Well-being Impact Assessment on the Strategy and proposals were considered in full and acknowledged by Cabinet when the decision was taken.  Cabinet took the decision in full knowledge of these conclusions.

 

The Chair invited Committee members and observers to raise any points relating to the call in –

 

·         Members highlighted proposed savings and highlighted that they seemed fairly small for this service compared to the overall amount of savings the Council required to achieve. Officers clarified that savings totalling £11m were required across the Council.  This savings proposal in conjunction with others across all services contributed towards the £11m that needed to be found.  If the savings were not achieved with this particular proposal, they would need to be found elsewhere.

·         Concerns were raised with respect the impact the closure of public conveniences would have on rural residents, some of whom were elderly and vulnerable people who travelled to the larger villages and towns for shopping and socialising.  These residents required accessible public conveniences and planned their journeys accordingly.  The proposed closures could increase the isolation amongst these residents and potentially increase their dependency on statutory services.

·         communication and a perceived lack of communication and regular communication was raised. Officers emphasised that they had communicated as much as they could. They had expected the Brilliant Basics Fund, to which the unsuccessful bid for funding was made, to communicate regularly with the Council with regards to progress with their application.  Unfortunately, this had not happened and therefore officers were not in a position to update members or other stakeholders on matters.  With respect to the points raised regarding Llangollen Town Council, officers clarified that they had agreed to weekly updates, however, there were no substantive updates to give. They acknowledged that they should have communicated this to those involved and would learn from it. Nevertheless, there was a constant dialogue with city, town, and community councils regarding communication and consultation, but unfortunately some town and community councils were not as active in reciprocating their communication with the Council.

·         The Head of Finance & Audit (Section 151 Officer) drew members’ attention to the costs and savings detailed within section six of the Cabinet report, which was discussed at Cabinet:  She reiterated and emphasised that the current estimated cost of managing all the public conveniences earmarked for potential retention in Appendix 6 [to the report] was circa £272,000. The current income from those sites was circa £57,000, this therefore created a net budget cost of circa £215,000. Given that the budget for the provision of public conveniences was £70,000, a budget pressure of around £150,000 would still remain. However, that budget pressure was based on current costs and income. It did not include any increased income from charging for all public conveniences in future and from increasing the price of entry.

·         members felt that keeping public conveniences open was vital as it was a crucial service to so many, especially those with health concerns and issues.

·         officers that there were ongoing discussions with Dyserth Community Council, who had indicated that it did not want to take over the responsibility of providing the public conveniences to look at all alternatives for providing public conveniences in the area.  Assurances were provided that no public conveniences would be closed whilst discussions were ongoing.  Similarly, discussions had recently commenced with the groups operating in the Botanical Gardens in Rhyl with a view to findings solutions to retain the public conveniences there for the future,

·         regarding the potential closure of the toilets in St. Asaph if this would go ahead it would not reflect well on the area or the county council for its only city not to have public conveniences.  In addition, both St Asaph and Rhuddlan had already raised their precepts to enable them to contribute towards the cost of keeping their libraries open for longer periods.  For them to have to do the same again to keep their public conveniences open seemed extremely unfair on their residents.

·         Officers advised that the Council could not continue to deliver the same level of services without realising savings elsewhere.  The costs of delivering statutory services were constantly increasing, therefore in order to pay for those services and meet its legal obligations the Council had to achieve savings within its non-statutory services in order to deliver a balanced budget.

 

At the conclusion of the debate both the Lead Signatory to the call-in and the Lead Member were given an opportunity to summarise their viewpoints before the Committee deliberated on the merits of referring the decision back to Cabinet for review or not.

 

Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed that the Committee refer the decision back to Cabinet seeking it to reconsider its decision to close existing Denbighshire County Council-operated public conveniences and instead retain the services by funding the required cost figure from a dedicated 0.27% increase in the Council Tax base for 2026/27.  This would represent an average cost of no more that £4.83 per year per Band D household. In response to this proposal the Head of Finance & Audit (Section 151 Officer) outlined her concerns with the use of Council Tax to deal with a single service issue as it could set a precedent to deal with budget issues in silos rather than the budget in its entirety.  Councillor Parry thanked officers for their advice, however he proposed to keep the wording as it was. 

 

Following consideration of all the views raised and questions answered during the discussion Committee members were in agreement with all the points raised in the ‘Notice of Call-in’ (Appendix 1 to the report).  In addition, the Committee noted its reservations in relation to the following:

·           the impact the proposed closure of public conveniences in popular tourist and visitor destinations, such as Dyserth, Rhuddlan and St. Asaph would have on the lives and well-being of local residents and communities.

·           having regards to the conclusions of the Well-being Impact Assessment (WBIA), the effect the decision to close public conveniences would have on the Council’s reputation amongst residents, businesses, and other stakeholders.

·      the impact the decision would have on staff working within the public conveniences service and those staff who used the public conveniences whilst delivering vital services to residents and communities.

·      the frequency of communication with elected members and other stakeholders in relation to proposed service delivery changes.

 

At the conclusion of its deliberations the Committee voted on the recommendation proposed by Councillor Parry and seconded by Councillor David Williams.  By a majority vote the Committee, agreed to refer the decision back to Cabinet seeking it to review its original decision and in doing so to have regard to the reasons outlined in the ‘Notice of Call-In’ (Appendix 1 to the report) and the above reservations.  In referring the decision back for review members requested that Cabinet and officers make every effort to keep all communication channels open with city, town, and community councils, as well as with other stakeholders with the objective of securing dignified access to all to quality public conveniences across the county.  In addition, in referring the decision back for review on the grounds stated members acknowledged that there were cost implications to the Council of retaining the current level of public conveniences and meeting future needs.  Therefore, it was:

 

Resolved:  that Cabinet reconsider its decision to close existing Denbighshire County Council operated public conveniences, and instead retains these services by funding the required cost figure from a dedicated 0.27% increase in the Council Tax base for 2026/27.  This represents an average cost of no more that £4.83 per year per Band D household, which Partnerships Scrutiny Committee believes is a fair and proportionate investment in protecting health, dignity and accessibility for all residents and visitors across the county.