Rother Council Leaders To Reconsider Public Toilet Plans

Rother District Council plans to lease out public toilets have been called-in for fresh consideration.

Following a full council meeting on Monday (July 14), Rother cabinet members will be required to reconsider plans to begin leasing out public toilet buildings at Winchelsea Beach and Gammons Way Car Park in Sedlescombe.

Cabinet members authorised officers to lease out the two buildings last month, alongside 10 other public conveniences around the district.

Each of the 12 buildings — most of which are currently closed for the majority of the year — are expected to be rented out to private businesses. These businesses are expected to reconfigure the premises for an alternative use (mostly coffee shops), while also being required to provide publicly-accessible toilets as part of their leases.

Minutes from the cabinet meeting, which took place on June 16, note how the overall proposals are intended to “invigorate tired buildings, boost the economy, create jobs, provide essential facilities … [and] generate an income stream for the council.”

While discussion of the proposals took place in private session due to commercial confidentiality, papers from the cabinet meeting show how the Gammons Ways toilets were set to be transformed into a nail bar, while the facilities at Winchelsea Beach could be partly converted into a sauna.

These two proposals had proven to be controversial, however, as Icklesham and Sedlescombe’s parish councils had each previously expressed an interest in taking over the freeholds of the buildings and continuing to run them solely as public toilets.

Concerns from the parish councils prompted call-in requests from local councillors, which were considered by Rother District Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee on July 7.

During the scrutiny meeting, representatives of both parish councils set out concerns about how the process had unfolded, particularly in terms of the district council’s communication on the process and what they considered to be a lack of public consultation on the plans.

After hearing from the parish councils, the scrutiny committee referred the matter to the full council for further debate.

In doing so, committee members expressed several concerns about how the decision had been reached.

These concerns included: how the district council communicated with the parish councils; the level of public consultation; and the consideration given to impact of the proposals on the toilets’ opening hours.

The full council meeting, which took place on Monday (July 14), opened with council leader Doug Oliver proposing a motion to bring the matter back to cabinet for further consideration.

Cllr Beverley Coupar (Ind), one of the Sedlescombe ward councillors who lodged the initial call-in requests, put forward an alternative proposal: for the matter to be deferred, with further consideration to take place at a future full council meeting.

After procedural wrangling, Cllr Coupar’s proposal was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The council voted on another proposal, to refer the matter back to cabinet while also “suggesting” the two controversial buildings be removed from the leasing programme.

This “suggestion” originated from an amendment tabled by Conservative councillor Carl Maynard — Sedlescombe’s other ward member.

Earlier in the meeting, Cllr Maynard said:

“What we haven’t heard tonight chairman is any cabinet member saying ‘we’ve made the wrong decision’. That to me is very worrying.”

He added:

“Let’s take it right down to common sense; a parish council is equipped to look after things in the public domain within their parish in a very, very efficient way, as Cllr [Jonathan] Vine-Hall [Chairman of Sedlescombe Parish Council] said when he spoke at the scrutiny committee.

“It is very clear, chairman, that the common sense decision that we can make is to allow both of those parish councils to take on those public conveniences.”

Several other councillors expressed similar sentiments during the debate.

In response to these comments, Cllr Oliver said:

“We have listened. I’ve listened to scrutiny,

"I’ve listened to comments from councillors, I’ve made contact with people and the idea is that it will come back to cabinet in order that we can review and take stock as to what the decision is.

“That is a fairly fair process, it will take place within five days of today.”

He added:

“You can take it from me; I have listened with my colleagues on cabinet and we will respond accordingly.

“There has got to be a little bit of trust in this. I think we are fully acquainted of where we need to be and we now need to take this forward in the right way.”

Other cabinet councillors, meanwhile, stressed they were not “predetermined” in their decision-making either way.

As a result of the council’s decision, the cabinet is now due to reconsider the matter on Monday, July 21.

Speaking after the full council meeting a spokeswoman for Sedlescombe Parish Council said:

“We are confident the cabinet will make the right decision in reversing their earlier decision on this matter having listened to both ward members, the chairs of the parish councils and the residents of both villages and every other member of Rother District Council.

“We hope this will pave the way for Rother to pass them to the parishes to be held in public ownership in perpetuity.”