Loo plan against human rights

In response to the article RE saving money on the provision of public toilets [‘Looking to save a penny on public loos’, Gazette, October 7], I believe the arrogance of the council leader Ben Fitter-harding stating that the public toilets are not a statutory service provided by the council is abhorrent.

The need for a basic human function to be provided whilst people are out is paramount to public hygiene and personal comfort.

Whitstable hosts thousands of visitors during the year and the public toilets are essential to families, people with medical problems and expectant mothers. Will Mr Fitter-harding expect the people in need to use the beach or streets and alleys?

I suggest the council looks at other ways of saving £50,000 on this essential service. Whitstable appears to be the poor relation, whilst Herne Bay has perfectly clean and plentiful public toilets, used by many. I urge the council committee to rethink this policy, which undermines our human rights. The expectation that local businesses would allow the public to use their own facilities, clean and service them, is a daydream.

The committee needs to consider bringing the cleaning service back in-house, as it used to be. The contractor providing the cleaning services will always increase its charges in the new year. Anyone who has been “caught short” whilst out and about will know the embarrassment and discomfort this can cause.

I think this policy needs to be flushed down the toilet.

Edward Thomas

Long-standing Whitstable resident

■ How I agree with both Linda Hill and Anita Whitley on the above subject [Letters, October 14]. However, this is nothing new with Ben Fitter-harding. You can still only report a missed bin collection for a single property (even if the whole street has been missed because no collection has taken place).

As a neighbour found out recently, if your paper insert bin goes missing from your recycle bin, you can purchase a replacement which has no lid, so shredded paper blows everywhere.

It would be helpful if Ben Fitter-harding sorted out the small matters of importance to the residents before starting yet another project, although an upgrade to our public toilets is long overdue.

With regard to the claimed £50,000 he intends to save, it is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the money already spent on the Canterbury West Station multi-story car park (helping to increase pollution in that area), or the purchase of the Whitefriars shopping complex.

As everyone knows, provision of good quality public toilets with free access are far more

‘With the sewage works overwhelmed what is Southern Water to do [...] Release to sea is obviously of concern but the alternative is manholes popping open and sewage pouring out - it’s not much of a choice is it?

important to the general public (visitors and tourists) who visit Canterbury, than the proposed revamp being planned for the area at present used by the market traders at a cost far exceeding the £50,000 he hopes to save from his toilet project. David Spencer

Dering Close, Bridge

I am horrified to think the council might close public toilets. This will deter anyone going to the towns and seaside.

I am sure they could save more money by paying less to their managers who obviously don’t know how to manage budgets.

They should be making sure these facilities are kept cleaned and properly sanitised. This should be a statutory service.

Are we going back to the dark ages when people used to urinate in the street? Also there are people especially the elderly and disabled and mothers with babies and small children who also need access to them. Margaret Rowley

Address supplied