The web Upton website
|
|
The web Upton website |
|
Malvern Gazette 31st March 2006
U-turn bid in closure of loos PUBLIC toilets in Malvern, Upton and Tenbury could remain open if Malvern Hills District Council reverses a decision. A group of councillors led by Mary Wilkinson has called in a decision to close the toilets and a new vote will be taken at a special meeting on Monday (April 3). The last time a vote was taken on the closures, 13 councillors voted for and 13 against. Council chairman Val Myatt's casting vote was in favour of closure. Powick ward councillor Stephen Watkins was the only Liberal Democrat member to vote against the proposal. If councillors vote again for closure, the toilets in Victoria Road, Malvern, would be demolished and the area resurfaced to provide additional parking. Those in Edith Walk, Malvern, will be offered commercially or demolished and the toilets in High Street, Upton, offered for sale or mothballed until the town holds special events. The public meeting will at Priory Lodge Hall, Avenue Road, Malvern, at 7pm. Letters An easy answer If the cost of maintenance is £30,000, the simplest way to find that amount is to lose one middle or senior member of staff. If the chief executive fights such a proposal, let the Lib-Dem cabinet exert their authority and dispose of him. Brian J Meadows, The Ryders, Ashperton What we pay for Has Coun Raine misunderstood a councillor's function? I thought we elected councillors to represent us, and to make sure the council does in fact provide us with the services we want, in the way we want them to be provided. Perhaps Coun Raine can tell us what he thinks the council is for, and what he thinks a councillor's function is? Chris Dell, Aston Bank, Tenbury Wells Logical thinking So now we know that the problem with the public toilets is not the cost but the overheads. This seems curious since, if management of the toilets were put out for tender by private sector contractors, they would quote the same whether they were responding to town or district councils. This leads to some logical and contradictory lines of thought. His suggestion the toilets would costs less if they were managed by the town councils should be examined to see what else could be transferred from district to town councils with consequent savings. The problem would be that, as services were transferred out of the district council, their overheads would have to be borne by fewer activities, making them more expensive. Perhaps we could transfer everything, leaving the district council to manage only their overheads. On the other hand, if more toilets were built the overheads could be spread further, making them cost less. Could it be that, with this logic in mind, some activities are taken up by the district council to spread the overhead costs thinner? A novel idea has just occurred to me. How about reducing the overheads and keeping the toilets open. BASIL DEWING, Priory Road, Great Malvern |