Idea to shut loos must be panned

Is councillor Ben Fitter-harding on a one-man mission to destroy Canterbury and the surrounding towns and villages?

Not content with wanting to build 17,000 extra homes on farmland and green spaces around the city, presiding over the decrepit state of the city centre, allowing student accommodation to be built instead of homes for local people, he now has the wonderful idea that we could close some of the remaining minimum amount of public toilets we have.

We need more public toilets not less. Has he not seen the queue for the toilets outside the ones close to the Harbour in Whitstable - literally queuing around the block. Why should private businesses be responsible for allowing the public to use their facilities when public toilets should be available - we all know how bad things got during lockdown when no public toilets were open.

Linda Hill

Norton Avenue, Herne

Ben Fitter-harding justifies his review of public toilets by saying that provision is not a statutory requirement. While the acknowledgement that local public toilets are, in many cases, in poor condition is long overdue, provision needs improving, not

diminishing.

The fact is, all people need toilets. Lack of facilities leads to public health risks at both an individual and population level. For many people with health conditions (Crohn’s disease, IBS, diabetes, bladder infections, to name a few), the need for a toilet can be urgent. For menstruating women, for many older people and for families, discomfort, embarrassment and, frankly, accidents, may result if toilets are closed.

I suggest Mr Fitter-harding looks at readily accessible articles online that describe the way public toilet provision in the UK directly improved access to public space for women, older people and people with medical needs. For that reason, reducing such provision is discriminatory.

The experience of other local authorities is that closing toilets leads to reduced footfall in a town - supermarkets and shopping centres provide toilets, and ordering online bypasses the problem. The town suffers.

The paltry sum of £50,000 which Mr Fitter-harding is trying to save represents annual council tax from probably fewer than 50 households in an area with an ever-increasing population, and in order to save this small sum he appears prepared to make parts of our area off-limits for many already vulnerable people. And this in an ageing population. Anita Whitley

Address supplied