Councillor and officer time has been wasted at public’s expense

ICANNOT believe what I read about the Development Committee of councillors overturning a three-year agreed decision 5 to 4 now not to develop the Downs Sea Walls public toilet.

The council officers are absolutely right that an appeal can overturn this nonsensical decision taken.

So councillor and officer time has been wasted at the public’s expense and it appears that more time and costs will be wasted if there is an appeal to this ridiculous uturn. As if we can afford this with council tax forever increasing.

As for the existing public toilet not only is it an eyesore but there is never any water, soap or air drier working. An obvious hygiene issue here so I totally disagee with the Green councillors saying that the toilets are usable. Even a hole in the ground is usable in such circumstances or even behind bushes and this is no joke but a very serious matter. I, and many others, should know as we use the Downs every day for walking and running exercise.

I wonder if these councillors ever use these toilets otherwise they will see the ‘mess’ behind these toilets – no doubt when the toilets are not opened early.

This detracts from the hard work that council employees and many volunteers put in to maintain the Downs for the public’s enjoyment and use.

The other public toilet near the Water Tower is in the same state – I imagine it has not been painted or improved since it was built in Victorian times.

The councillors, at least one or two of them who voted to overturn the agreed development, should look at Eastville Park, which I believe is within their constituency, where the public toilet is another eyesore, albeit with the adjoining cafe now closed.

There is nothing wrong with the initial decision to develop the Downs public toilet with an adjoining cafe – no doubt which would have been properly managed and raising revenue towards the cost of maintaining the Downs.

Obviously not good enough with the excuse that this would be a slippery slope for other such developments. Wrong, as any such applications would have to be approved by the planning officers in the first instance.

We appear to be going backwards and at a cost to the public. It makes you wonder how much councillor and officer time we are paying for going to waste as in this case and getting nowhere in three years. Can someone please get a grip?

David Bonomi

North Bristol