General Discussion
They weren't all supposed to be closing - well that was the line we were fed. As is evident, the reality is somewhat different. Reading the story in Gazette it seems the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing when it comes to DTC and TDC.
P'raps someone should contact one of the three Dawlish councillors who represent Dawlish Warren on TDC?
How about this one?
Ward Member for Dawlish Central & North East
|
Name: |
LISA MAYNE |
|
Party: |
Conservative |
|
Ward: |
Dawlish Central & North East |
|
Parishes: |
The Parish of Dawlish (Central and North East Wards) |
|
Address: |
Treetops, Beach Road, Dawlish Warren, EX7 0NF |
|
Telephone: |
01626 865680 |
|
Email: |
|
|
|
I am appalled about the toilets at The Warren. As far as I was concerned it had been agreed to keep the toilets open. Then out of the blue we were told that they had been decommissioned. We were told that TDC were paying for portal loos as if we should be grateful. They did try to get DTC to pay for them. The Teignbridge District Councillors should have voted not to close the toilets.
With all these cuts to toilets, verge cutting, green bin emptying, turning off of street lights, etc and our elected TDC councillors not fighting Dawlish.s corner. Just wondered if we can expect a reduction in our council tax bills next year.
If you live in Cockwood and sign up to the Cockwood Residents Association's (CRA) break away parish, then a reduction in council tax bills might become a reality!
If you don't then take it up with one of the councillors, try Cllr Wrigley, he's also the chair of CRA, maybe he could explain why a reduced council tax for some in his ward is fair and for others in NE and Central Dawlish it is just tough.
I have absolutely no idea what the pro and con arguments are concerning Cockwood breaking away from Dawlish but could well imagine the prospect of a reduction in council tax (if indeed that could be offered) might well persuade some people to vote for such a proposal.
Anyhow don't people already pay different levels of council tax depending on the size and location of the properties they live in? Different Council Tax bands and all that.
In which case different amounts of CT are already being paid by residents throughout the whole of Dawlish irrespective of ward.
Now to return to the original topic of this thread. Anyone contacted Cllr Mayne yet about the Dawlish Warren toilets?
Dawlish CT bands relating to different property sizes, etc are among the highest in Teignbridge, if Cockwood forms an independent parish and has a lower CT (even though it was probably just rhetoric to gain votes), would that mean Dawlish would have a higher CT?
I doubt it'd happen but a Councillor who campaigns for preferential treatment for those in the village where they reside and not for those in the rest of their ward cannot be said to be representing the electorate fairly.
Unless the Cockwood scheme has been shelved, it does need clarification.
It's relevant to the original topic, less tax means less public conveniences in the Dawlish area.
Ok I have kept quiet for a while, which I am sure Mrs C and Dorian (or Dorian's reincarnation) will be pleased about, but..........back to the toilets. The chair of F&GP in the last administration led on this topic and fought hard to keep the Sandy Lane toilets open, used by how many people? The agreement with TDC was to keep half the Warren car park toilets open and the other half of the building was to be a commercial outlet. SO.............if the information given to councillors in the last administration was accurate then the current town councillors can and should take TDC to task and demand they fulfil their agreement.
A suggestion to all - re toilets at Dawlish Warren, Cockwood Residents' Association and anything and everything else.
Why not write to the Dawlish Gazette about your grievances and concerns? I do not know the number of readers the Gazette has but it would be certainly considerably higher than the, I would guess, 50-60 individuals max who read the discussion topics on this website.
Writing a letter not only lets more people know about whatever it is you are concerned about but as it may also generate other letters in response it thereby has the effect of keeping the topic in the public domain and widening the field of knowledge etc of whatever the topic/grievance etc happens to be.
Just a thought.
PS Anyone contacted the local tv stations about this Dawlish Warren toilets business? They might be interested in doing a feature on it given as we are coming up to the main tourist season 'n all.
Just another thought.
For what it's worth (not a lot probably), I 100% agree with what Margaret Swift has written re. the toilets.
I feel sad though that Lynne has decided not to post on here any more, and that she's telling others to do likewise. Oh well...
DTC have taken TDC Councillors to task it is them that should be fighting our corner and it is the community of Dawlish as well as DTC that should be making sure that happens. Lynne's suggestions are spot on. Things are done (decommissioning of toilets) at TDC without consultation or communication, DTC council didn't find out until a couple of weeks ago we did fight it, but we were told it would be too expensive to recommission the toilets hence the portal loos. We have expressed our disgust that this has happened and we have told TDC councillors that they should have fought to keep the toilets open, not vote to close them.
This was at item number 14 on the agenda at the last full council meeting held on 1st July
Oh Margaret, there was no need to have a dig at me or Michael Clayson, that's all in the past. Don't stir up the conflict again, move on.
How much does it cost to run these toilets?
For the information of Margaret - their are a lot more people than perhaps she realises that use the Sandy Lane toilets, I've seen coach drivers, driving instructors, taxi drivers, various white van men, parents of children using the play park, etc etc.
May not be as many as use the ones above but there were valid reasons to keep Sandy Lane, just as there are valid reasons to keep them both.
(BTW I'm not a toilet stalker I just used to drive past there a lot!!)
I didn't say they were not well used I simply asked the question, used by how many? But I suspect when the two are compared the numbers using Dawlish Warren car park toilets far outstrip those using Sandy Lane toilets. For me, both sets of toilets should have been retained but the fight was soundly focused on the Sandy Lane toilets and we are now seeing the consequence of that.
All,
For what it is worth.
I have sent a letter to the Gazette about the toilets at Dawlish Warren . The letter is basically asking for cllrs both past and present, Teignbridge district council ones, and Dawlish town council ones (and remember that there are some who sit on both councils) to also write to the Gazette with their view of what has happened and why. I don't think for one moment that there will be agreement between them but at least it may give the rest of us an insight into how we have arrived at a situation whereby a very busy car park, in the height of the tourist season, has only three portaloos.
Perhaps others of you (and I don't just mean present and ex councillors who read and post on this site) could also express your thoughts via the Gazette's letters' page?
Lynne
Just as a matter of record. With the Sandy Lane toilets, these are going to be reconfigured to 2 plus a disabled facillity, and the remaining part to be available for use as storage or other uses. The Town Council agreed to contribute to the running of the toilets after the reconfiguration, and also to contribute to the cost of the reconfiguration.
With the Warren Car Park toilets the same process was agreed to be an acceptable compromise but with these, Teignbridge agreed to carry out the conversion with the spare space being used commercially (probably bike hire) with the lessee then taking over responsibility for the toilets. The agreement was that Teignbridge would keep the toilets open until the conversion was done, and if there was an issue with this they would come back to the town council. This did not happen. Pressure has been put on Teignbridge from many sides (incl. me) to get something in place. Not ideal, but better than nothing.
We didn't need to focus on the DW toilets as far as we knew they were being kept open until the conversion was done then the toilets would continue to be open alongside the new business. We did what we needed to do for both sets of toilets. Dawlish Councillors did fight hard for both sets of toilets.
@Lynne, brill letter in the gazette today and i hope you get answers to your questions. In my view, the posts from current DTC councillors are correct in their recollection of the situation, so it really is down to TDC and WHO decided that the Dawlish Warren toilets should close entirely. This was never on the cards. To have three portaloos in such a prominent seaside resort is nothing short of an embarrassment and TDC councillors who sanctioned this action should hang their heads in shame and then resign.
This is just another service we are losing and there will be many more as there are lots of cuts to come. But our esteemed leader says we all have to shoulder part of the burden i wonder if the public toilets in central London are being closed??
Our 'esteemed' leader surely meant 'you all have to shoulder all of the burden'. It's going to get a lot worse, they'll cut much deeper.
Serious question and I really don't know the answer.
Are any facilities in Teignmouth or N Abbot being closed?
It seems that £millions are being spent in T'Mouth on the theatre, fish quay etc. but Dawlish and D/Warren can't even have a couple of karsies!
Am I right in thinking we pay more Council Tax per household than both of those places?
Leatash, last few times we've been up to Central London we paid to use public toilets so they are getting extra revenue that way. The only free toilets were private ones like in cafes or museums. Prices ranged from 20p to £1. Even when I was small I remember having to pay to go through a turnstile to get into public toilets in the town I grew up in. Had the same for public toilets in Cumbria a few years ago when we were up there. A nominal charge per use would seem sensible if funds are short and ensures tourists pay towards them as well as locals through their council tax.
HuwMatthews2 Teignmouth toilets have been under threat of closure, the ones under Waitrose that the council insisted the CoOp paid for when they were built, the ones at The Point and the ones in Brunswick. Deals with Teignmouth Town Council have kept these open SO FAR but who knows what will happen next year.
It's strange how you forget things it was of course the norm to pay for toilets 1 old penny and of course thats why we say JUST GOING TO SPEND A PENNY.
For those who for whatever reason may not read the Dawlish Gazette here is the text of the letter
published in this week's edition.
"Reference the article in last week’s Gazette concerning the closure of public toilets at Dawlish Warren outer car park.
I was under the impression that Teignbridge District Council’s plans for these public toilets was that part of the building that housed them should be converted to a bike hire shop with the other part still providing a public convenience.
However, it seems I was wrong as I understand the whole building has now been closed and that TDC have set up three portaloos as a replacement.
Who at TDC decided to close down the toilets? Councillors or officers? And not only who, but also why? Why was it decided to over-rule an agreement I understand had been thrashed out between Dawlish Town Council and Teignbridge District Council to keep some of these toilets open? Is there no record of any of this who and why decision making at TDC? Someone, somewhere at TDC must have agreed to the closure and decommissioning of the toilets . Are we really to believe that there is no paper or computer trail that would give answers to these who and why questions?
Please could one of those representing Dawlish at Teignbridge District Council (ie one of our Dawlish district councillors) write to this paper giving us, the electorate, some answers to both the ‘who’ question and the ‘why’ one.
It would also be of interest to have the views on all of this from both past and present Dawlish town councillors especially those who were involved in the negotiations with TDC leading to the agreement that TDC should keep some of those toilets open"..
Does anyone have any info they can put on here (or e-mail me privately if not) about the tendering process for the bike hire business to be sited at these now defunct toilets?
Like - has the tendering process started? if so, is it still open to tenders or has the closing date come and gone? how many tenders were submitted? when will we know who has been awarded the tender and just exactly what the contract with TDC will involve? Will it still involve the provision of toilets on the site or have all those who have submitted a tender not wanted to know about that side of things?
Click on this link
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=38755&p=0
to have a read of the report concerning the closure of public toilets within the Teignbridge area.
The report is dated 17-9-13 and was considered by the TDC Executive councillors (all Conservatives).
Note that it talks of the importance of adequate, clean and well maintained toilet provision as underpinning
the tourist economy.
Question: so just what does TDC think the Dawlish Warren economy is based on then? Flying pigs?
80. Public Conveniences
They Mayor advised that following Teignbridge Council’s Executive meeting in
September 2013 it had been decided to close 17 toilets within the District
unless local parish and town councils wished to take over the responsibility of
running them. Since that time, Town Councillors had been working quickly to
ensure those toilets that were important to the local community remained
open either as they are or in an amended form. Negotiations had now
reached the stage where a limited provision could continue to be provided at
two toilets; Dawlish Warren and Sandy Lane.
Councillor Clayson stated that there was still further ground to be covered on
the financial negotiations, and it was hoped that a proposal could be brought
to the next Town Council meeting.
Resolved that the verbal update be noted.
From the minutes of Dawlish Town Council meeting held 19-8-14
This link should take you to the planning documents concerning the conversion of the outer car park toilets into a bike hire shop with public convenience provision. http://gis.teignbridge.gov.uk/TeignbridgePlanningOnline/SearchResults.aspx?SearchReference=14/03524
Planning permission was granted earlier this year (2015) subject to various conditions one of which states that:
“The development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans”. (ie public toilet provision)
On page 2 of the committee minutes it says:
“Members considered the proposal, particularly the retention of the public toilet, a welcome facility for both visitors and residents”.
Purely playing devil's advocate here. But the toilets nearer the beach are in my opinion more necessary than those at the outer car park.
I'd happily pee on a communal compost dump, ammonia aids decomposition. Maybe combine loos with the green waste issue. same with solids, it creates bio-gas and fertilizer.
Better than all the faecal matter ending up on the Warren beach.
Otherwise there's always the Conservative Club.
Re the bike hire and toilet provision tender.
for info
I've just sent this to the procurement section of TDC. I'll let you know if I get any response.
http://m.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=44559&p=0
"The outcome of the tendering process is due shortly."
But if the building has been decommissioned and, quote, 'it would be too expensive to reinstate the services' what is the point of the tendering process?
Maybe it's because the tendering process was for half of the building to become the cycle hire outlet? Maybe it's not too expensive to recommission the remaining half?
Too expensive for TDC to reinstate the toilets which would be on a temporary basis only given that the building has p/p to be revamped into something else?
And who will bear the cost of the building being revamped to provide this bike hire/commercial business and toilets? TDC or the business that wins the tender?
And will the toilets, which I believe are to be provided & maintained etc by the bike hire/commercial outlet, be free to use or will the bike hire/business be allowed to charge?
And as the p/p has the usual rider that development has up to three years to start from the date of p/p being given, we could have those portaloos again next summer!
And if the p/p is not enacted within the next three years, then what? It lapses. And then what happens to the building?
Or if the p/p is enacted but the commercial enterprise is not profitable so that the business concerned no longer wishes to be sited there, then what happens to the building and the toilets?
A lot of 'what ifs' I know, but just thought I'd put them in the public domain for others to have a think about.
Who knows what the future holds? Those three temporary portaloos could well end up being a permanent feature every summer.
(Just saying....................)
I think you are right Lynne, this whole project was ill thought through from the start. It still beggars belief that TDC think it is OK to close public toilets in a prime holiday destination used by thousands over the summer period.
@Margaret Swift - i was passing said w.c's this morning and saw a parent, with baby strapped to it's chest. wondering around the building somewhat bemused that all these toilets were closed. who in their right mind wants to take a no 1 or 2 in a plastic box (portaloo) at the height of summer or have to try and change a baby in one.
I hear a lot about the council having no money and having to cut back lot's of services, but I don't see any council staff being made redundant!
@Purrrrrfect - ah yes! shame on me (and, more to the point, others!) for forgetting about the needs of parents with young babies and the need to change nappies.
Where, in Dawlish Warren, is there a baby nappy changing area (not saying there isn't one or even more than one but just can't think off hand where they are).
Addendum: Have now found this, so I guess it refers to the beach side toilets
"Public Toilets
There are RADAR toilets, a public shower and baby-changing facilities.
A drinking water outlet is attached to the side of the toilet facilities building."
From http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=40876&p=0
Cost of the three portaloos per week?
I've had this suggested to me.
£20/wk + VAT for each ordinary portal and £25/wk + VAT for the disabled one.
So £65+VAT per week.
Are those figures about right? Anyone know?
Maybe, but I've seen them advertised for as much as £40 per week serviced for a bog standard (excuse the pun) one.
Our reflect. Do you not realise how much redundancy costs as well?
A quick Google - 2010/11 and 2011/12 financial years - 11 were made redundant at a total cost of £135K. And it's got worse since then!! So, if we were to use your logic and make even more redundant, then the £152K savings from doing what they've done to the outer car park loos would pale into insignificance I'm afraid as even more cuts would be needed to be made.
PS everyone. This is another constructive post on this thread. Please keep it that way. Thank you.
But then the council is saving the salaries and other associated costs of those 11 posts year-on-year, if redundancies don't save money in the long run what's the point?
PS Who made you moderator of this forum?
Well that didn't last long. Some people can't help themselves. I apologise to everyone else on behalf of Burneside, who clearly doesn't think that posts on here should be constructive. Hey-ho.
Would you care to answer my first point?
No need to apologise on my behalf Mrs C. Such arrogance...
With regard to your opinion about long-term savings of redundancies, the point is that ALLEMS wanted redundancies in order to keep those loos open. In other words he wanted people to lose their jobs to save people having to walk 100 yards - what an unpleasant person. He wanted a short-term solution to this challenge; making people redundant, in my opinion, isn't the solution.
If you feel no need to apologise for dragging this thread down, then that says more about you than me. There's really no need for you to maintain this feud, but there you go.
That's true Lynne. However why they would be at the Dawlish Warren outer car park is anyone's guess, unless they had some sort of mobility assistance to get them to the sea front. My point still stands though re the odious suggestion of sacking hardworking people just in order to save the loos - there has to be a better solution to the challenge. In the meantime, good luck to those challenging TDC over their failed promise.
@R Soul - The point of redundancies was in ref to the cutting back of many of the services the councils IS PAID TO DO. If the jobs are NOT being done then those staff are not hard working and are lacking work. I see no reason to maintain a large workforce if the work is not there for them todo at the RATE PAYERS expense. I think it's time you came down of your high horse about what is right and wrong on the people who contribute to this web site.
ALLEMS, what you're failing to digest is that the cutting back of services, thanks to the Tory/LibDem austerity project, means that council staff ARE losing their jobs! You do realise that don't you?
To say that council staff are not hardworking is an outrageous generalisation and so totally wrong.
PS This thread isn't about me, please keep it on-topic. Thank you.
This is boring. OurSoul is contributing to the debate, just because you hate someone doesn't mean you have to diasgree with everything they say. Let it go you people, you're showing yourselves to be no better than what you say OurSoul is.
Those that doubt the impact of the austerity cuts upon local council services might be surprised to read that Monday's Financial Times disagrees with you doubters.
It would help if what you attached was legible, but regardless of that we all have to live within our means, otherwise we will end up like Greece.
Sorry if the photo of the television from my sofa isn't legible. The FT is available to buy today.
I disagree with your analogy. The whole point of this debate is how we go about living within our means. Tax cuts for millionaires and food cuts for hardworking people isn't the answer.
I watched a program a few nights ago where british tax payers money is being used to build toilets in Bangladesh charity starts at home comes to mind.
The analogy is perfectly valid, Mrs C; we have been there before. I am sure you are more than old enough to remember, in 1976, the Labour Chancellor Denis Healey
going cap in hand to the IMF begging for a bailout to save the country from bankruptcy. The conditions of that bailout (as with Greece today) resulted in an emergency
budget imposing swingeing cuts in public expenditure and raising taxes across the board.
If you want 24/7 emergency phones at Boat Cove, technically perfect parking notices which are regularly inspected, maintained public toilets, free green waste collections, funding of Red Rock, integrated social and medical care for the elderly then expect to pay for them. But if you don't want your council tax increasing and you voted Tory to keep your taxes down then don't complain when the cuts affect you.
Yes.
TDC should just have put up a sign pointing to the other toilets instead of ineptly presenting three portaloos as their 'Welcome to Dawlish Warren'. Let's face it, most people who park there are heading in that direction or are heading to one of the pubs.
Burneside. I didn't say that your original analogy held no validity, just that I disagreed with it. I can just about recall those dark days of 40 years ago as I was still at school at the time - but I don't know the ins and outs of what happened then.
Netiquette, you've hit the nail on the head.
TDC should not have closed the loos in the first place! We have all been led to believe that TDC came to an agreement with DTC and that agreement should be honoured. If no such afpgreement was struck then they need to come out and say so to put the record straight.
I don't think anyone is saying they should have been closed but seeing as they have, how they've gone about it is also worthy of comment too. Has anyone on here contacted TDC to find out why they've gone back on the original agreement?
Typical politicians/councillors promise one thing and do the complete opposite !!!! Instead of portaloos why didnt they put in the ones like in Torquay /Unisex all bright shining stainless steel 20p to enter
I think some of us are hoping that our TDC councillors will let us know via the letters' page in the Gazette.
However, an e-mail or two to the appropriate officer(s) at TDC might not go amiss.
Anyone have any suggestions as to which officer(s) to contact?
see my post above dated 17th July @ 09.46 re the tendering process for the bike hire/toilet business.
I've just received this back from TDC
Please see below responses to your questions:
1. The Authority placed an advertisement in the local press and affixed an advertising board to the outside of the toilet block.
2. The advertisement was placed in the local press at the beginning of March for two consecutive weeks.
3. The tendering process has been completed.
4. The deadline for tenders was set for the end of April 2015 which was extended for an additional month at the request of tenderers.
The Authority received three tenders in total.
Don't know about anyone else but I can't see any reply in today's Gazette from any of our district councillors to the letter I had
published last week.
P'raps they are all on holiday - t'is the holiday season after all.
(Wonder if where they are holidaying has portaloos for public toilets?).
As letter in Gazette last week was a quite public request for information I had hoped that one of
our TDC councillors, this week, would have given us some public answers. So on that basis I hadn't e-mailed
any of them.
However, as we seem to have hit another wall of silence from them (yet again!) I have just been debating to myself
how to elicit some answers from someone, somewhere.
So......... I have decided to e-mail the Chief Exec of TDC council and ask her if she could please get some investigations going
into who it was decided, and why it was decided, to close the toilets in the outer car park at the Warren when it seems that Dawlish Town Council
were under the impression that a deal had been done with TDC to keep them functioning this summer.
If I get a response from anyone at TDC I'll be sure to let you all know.
Thanks Lynne. Sorry for assuming you'd already done so. Out of interest, why the CEO rather than your own Councillor? Fingers crossed that this works.
A letter to a councillor is a more direct request for information, at least then you know they have seen it and they should feel dutybound to respond.
I spoke to a councillor who seemed to be as uninformed as you or I - told me it was an Executive decision so I needed to speak to TDC . I have left enquiries with two different departments at TDC. (One of them was Nicola Bulbeck's office - unsurprisingly they were keen to pass it down the line rather than have her deal with it).
As you have already contacted Nicola Bulbeck's office A Frame I'll hold fire on contacting her. Not surprised it got passed down the line
as that is what I would expect to happen. Why contact her? Because being the CEO she is the chief cheese at TDC when it comes to
TDC employees. She would also be in lots of contact with the Leader of the Council, Jeremy Christophers (I was going to copy him into the
e-mail). As this decision to close the toilets irrespective of whatever agreement had been thrashed out between DTC and TDC has been
made either by officers or councillors, then between them NB and JC should be able to provide answers. Do we really have a district
council whereby decisions are made by someone somewhere but there is no record of who made what decisions and why?
Really?!
From the Gazette report when this matter was raised at the last town council meeting.
"Cllr Ros Prowse said her inquiries to Teignbridge Council officers had failed to discover who had ordered the toilets to be decommissioned
which has meant the water was turned off and equipment removed. She said: "I went to Teignbridge Council and demanded to know
why the toilets were closed. Someone, although we haven't got to the bottom of it yet decommissioned them. That was not what our
agreement was".
and this from district councllor Lisa Mayne:
"We were never told who decommissioned them. We were told the portable toilets will cost £2,500 less than recommissioing the existing
ones".
@AFrame - can you let us know what response you get from TDC
As you've already contacted TDC via Nicola Bulbeck I'll contact the district councillors direct and see what, if anything, I get back from them.
I can't do anything before next week but I will submit an FOI requesting all information related to the decision.
Re the tender for the bike shop/commercial premises and toilet provision.
I asked when it would be made known who had won the tender. I have just received this info.
"The successful party has been notified. The contract terms are currently in the process of being
concluded. It is anticipated that this will be finalised later this summer.".
I've spoken to a couple of people within TDC. When the Executive Committee of 6 councillors approved the closure (Sept 2013) the decision wasn't called in. That's when 5 councillors can object to it. As for the agreement with Dawlish Town Council to keep the toilets open, no-one seems to know anything about it, just that the cycle hire business would take the responsibility on. Maybe everyone assumed the tender and conversion of the building would be quicker than it has been.. Can't see anything getting off the ground this summer, presumably the buiding will have to be modified. The letter in the Gazette says it all, it demeans the Warren.
The decision was called in. Cllrs Brodie, Connett, Dewhirst, Fry, Lonsdale, Petherick and Purser called it in.
See TDC Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 8.10.13.
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=39015&p=0
Note that Dawlish Cllr John Petherick was one of those who called in the decision.
I would have said that it looks like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing but the person who signed the call-in notice was the same person who said it wasn't called in. Let's face it, by the time anyone can wade through this bureaucracy those toilets will remain closed and the summer will be over.
Re the call-in. Perhaps the confusion is as follows:
The exec decision was indeed called in by the Cllrs I name above (that is a matter of record).
I was not at that O&S meeting so I did not personally witness which councillors voted in support of the call in re the toilet closures and which did not.
However, I have been told by someone who was there and who did indeed witness who voted which way that the four other Dawlish district
councillors did not support the call-in.
This link will take you to the minutes of that O&S meeting. http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=39144&p=0
So, all the councillors who voted against the call in effectively supported the exec decision to close the toilets. And should it be the case
that amongst those voting against the call in were 4 councillors representing Dawlish then are they not responsible for the toilet closure?
We are slowly losing services and many more will be lost the solution a steep increase in Council Tax that will pay for these services as my Dad used to say you only get what you pay for it's that simple.There are lots of things i would like but cant have and yet we expect the local authority to keep giving when there budgets are under pressure and i also realise they waste money. Like the million pound footpath in the Strand now used as a car park for vehicles delivering to the Strand shops and whats next to go the Leisure centre???
@leatash - a very good point about the million pound footpath, but was the deal that we could have the money for the new paving etc or nothing if we did not want it? as to the local authorities they need to reduce headcount, especially at the management level if they are only providing reduced services.
To cut back on certain services, especially during the holiday season, will only see a reduction in the number of visitors year on year. As the area turns into a run down looking seaside resort with few, if any, ameneties.
On the other hand, if TDC has its way there will always be the Coastal Park SANGS at what is presently Warren Farm. That'll be an amenity.
Well, according to TDC it will be. (wonder if it will have public toilet facilities?)
Oh hang on though. It's meant to stop people visiting the Warren, isn't it.? That is its sole purpose for being. So not an amenity to benefit
the Warren after all then.
Quite the opposite in fact .
The toilets are part of the bycycle tender, the tender included the provision of 2 toilets and their maintenance.
@Andysport -The issue that is in dispute is that councillors at Dawlish Town Council were
under the impression that all the toilets in that block would be kept open this summer pending the award of the
tender and the consequent development of the block into 2/3 toilets and a commercial premises (cycle hire).
However, as we all now know the toilets in that block were not kept open by TDC - indeed I believe
all the fixtures and fittings were removed.
So the issue(s) are; Was there an agreement between DTC and TDC to keep the toilets open this summer? Yes or No?
If Yes, why did TDC not uphold that agreement?
@A Frame - Have you had a response yet from TDC re the e-mail you sent Nicola Bulbeck about this matter?
At the TALC meeting on 30th July (Teignbridge Association of Local Councils) Nichola Bulbeck was quizzed about the Warren toilets by Martin Wrigley and I. Apparently she considers what has happened there as a "success story".
Who has she been listening to, I wonder?
Gary Taylor
@Lynne - it was as my last post - as far as the people i spoke to at tdc are concerned no one knows about any agreement with dawlish town council to keep the toilets open until the completion of the tender.
@Soul of Dawlish - so what was the gist of your conversation with Nicola Bulbeck? Did she explain why she thinks they're a succss story?
@Lynne, i have submitted an foi to both dtc and tdc on this subject, i will let you know what i get back from them. if dtc failed to negotiate keeping the toilets open whilst the tendering process was going on then they have failed the public badly. dawlish warren was the busiest i have ever seen it yesterday and to see people queuing to use three portaloos was nothing short of a disgrace. to close toilets in such a busy prominent seaside resort was nothing short of madness.
Can anyone explain how a business that attracts people into the Dawlish Warren conservation area (cycle hire shop) can even be considered until this SANGS provision is sorted out. It seems there is another case of TDC incompetence brewing here.
I once again raise the question of what is happening to all the money being raised by TDC from the new housing in Dawlish and the highest council tax bills locally. We seem to be getting a bigger population with less infrastructure. Money raised in Dawlish should be spent in Dawlish
Our complaints were regarding the expectation of Dawlish Town Councillors that the toilet block should have remained open (per seasonal requirements)) until the successful conclusion of the tender for the bike hire business and the subsequent conversion and reconfiguration of the block to provide bike hire and toilets.
First, for the avoidance of doubt, a recent potted history...
This from DTC minutes of 3rd June:
Members present voiced their concern at the lack of facilities [at Dawlish Warren]. It was agreed that the Town Council should write to the District Council highlighting their concerns at the problems experienced over the Bank Holiday weekend and seeking agreement for the toilets to be opened during the summer holidays.
This from DTC (Planning Committee - Urgent Items) 11th June:
Members were briefed that the toilets in the outer car park at Dawlish Warren have been closed. It was understood from [previous] discussions of a working party of the Town Council and Teignbridge District Council that the toilets would be altered into a retail 2 outlet and toilet but whilst this was done the toilets would remain open. Members were extremely concerned about the impact of the toilet closure on visitors and traders in Dawlish Warren. It was RESOLVED unanimously that this Committee will send a letter to TDC requesting the toilets at Dawlish Warren should be reopened as soon as possible and contact the district councillors to request their support. If reopening is not feasible for this season an alternative toilet facility should be put in place at the outer car park. Members requested that an update should be provided to the Finance and General Purposes committee at their next meeting.
During the above period it had transpired that Teignbridge had jumped the gun, stripping out fittings and disconnecting the power and water, prior to the summer season.
At the Finance and General Purposes committee meeting of 25th June, members were told by TDC/DTC Councillor Mayne that 3 portable toilets (including 1 for disabled people) would be provided and the the toilet block would remain closed. This would yield a saving for Teignbridge of £2500 versus the refitting and the reconnection of supplies to the permanent toilets.
It was apparent that it was this cost saving and the provision of alternative services along with the expected conclusion of the tender process for the bike hire business that prompted Nichola Bulbeck to describe what has happened at Dawlish Warren as a "success story".
Gary Taylor
I wonder what the cost saving would have been if they'd left them alone and open for the summer season?
I don't understand why it was necessary to cut off power, water and strip out the facilities if someone is taking it over. What would the cost savings have been if it had been left to the business taking over the lease to do the work?
I don't believe that TDC made any significant money on the fixtures and fittings either by re-use or re-sale - it all seems a little churlish to have removed them tbh.
So.......back last year a working party of DTC councillors (names anyone?) was set up to negotiate
with TDC about keeping the DW outer car park toilets open this summer. These councillors (names?)
were led to believe that a deal had been struck with TDC to keep these toilets open this summer pending the
awarding of the commercial premises/toilet provision tender.
BUT. This didn't happen, did it?
So.........here are some questions (which I feel will probably turn out to be rhetorical).
1.Who sat on the working party?
2. Were minutes of this working party’s meetings minuted?
2a) If yes, how can the minutes be accessed?
2b) If not minuted, why not?
3. Just what exactly did DTC councillors believe had been agreed with TDC re the keeping open of the toilets in the DW outer car park this summer? Where is there a written record of this agreement? (see questions in (2) above.
4. If there was an agreement to keep these toilets open then
4a) Why did TDC renege on this agreement?
and
4b) Who made the reneging decision?
You win some and lose some it's all about who has the most cash it's always been the same he put in his tender and his bid failed a little competition is healthy and tend's to lower prices win win for the customer.
If there were to be a suitable retail vacancy occuring at the Warren in the near future perhaps Bob could open a cycle hire/repair outlet from it?
It would give competition to the 'Spend a penny farthing' outlet in the outer car park.
I have sympathy with Bob but as long as the tendering system was fair then thats how it is and it's no good crying over spilt milk it is what it is.
So, did a tender go out for the newly built shop at the Warren? I am not aware that it did but happy to be corrected.
Perhaps the difference is that the newly built shop is privately owned, whereas the toilet block is publicly
owned (by TDC) and whilst both were subject to planning permission (for the new shop to be built in
the first example and for the toilet block to be converted to a commercial outlet/toilet provision in the second example) that the
toilet block ( now to be converted to a commercial premises) is publicly owned means that who runs the commercial outlet
from it, is determined by rules relating to public sector tendering.
I started to read the subject and have cut to the end to leave a comment. Dawlish Town Council negotiated in 2014/15 with Teignbridge to keep the Sandy Lane toilets open through a partial remodelling and payment towards cleaning costs, and Teignbridge accepted that. Those toilets have not yet been altered and are still open and well used.
Dawlish Warren toilets were mentioned in a debate at Town Council and District Councillor Ted Hockin was there and promised to take up with TDC the date of proposed closure and alteration into lesser facilities, with the remainder being converted to a cycle hire base. A Planning application came through in the last session for such alterations.
It was expected that TDC would leave the toilets open during this summer season or until they had an approved tender for a contractor to start work on the alterations. (Not rocket science is it?)
All the Conservative District Councillors voted for the District Council proposals to save money on public toilets. It is they who should be answering your questions and perhaps, above all, Cllr Ted Hockin who also sits on the Dawlish Warren Tourism Group. The Town Councillors had no part in TDC decision-making, but only made representations in response to the consultation paper, and through the local District Councillors.
I have documents sent to me from TDC showing that DTC were informed that the toilets in the outer
car park at D W would be closed wef October 2014.
I understand that it was agreed between DTC and TDC that in order to maintain some kind of future
toilet provision at the outer car park, the toilets would be reconfigured to become a part retail outlet
part toilet provision. In order for this to happen a planning application had first to be submitted for
change of use and then a tender process undertaken in accordance with local authority requirements. Both of those procedures
take time. To my knowledge TDC are still top and tailing the legal aspects of all of this with the
succesful tenderer. Presumably building work will take place on the now defunct toilets sometime in
the oncoming months so that come March/April 2016 the new retail (cycle hire/repair) plus 2-3 toilets
will be ready to go.
PS Forgot to say - (and as all current DTC councillors can verify cos I copied them in), I have e-mailed our
district councillors twice now about this matter. The first time one of the councillors representing
Dawlish South West got back to me saying she believed the Dawlish Warren councillors were
looking into matters.
I left it two weeks. No response.
So I e-mailed the three Dawlish Central and North East councillors (they cover Dawlish
Warren) with all other councillors copied in, again asking about all of this.
No response from any of them but the following morning I received an e-mail from Nicola
Bulbeck (CEO of Teignbridge Council) asking me to contact her. Now, as I hadn't contacted her
it seems one or some or all of those councillors had asked her to deal with the matter (and me!.)
Hence my now having documents and copies of e-mails and all sorts of things courtesy of TDC's Chief Exec.
But have I had any response from any of the 3 councillors representing me and Dawlish Warren
at TDC? What do you think?
I now have all the information from TDC and DTC that I requested under FOI and will do a thorough analysis over the weekend. It was a disgraceful act on the part of TDC to close the toilets and strip out the facilities before due process had been followed and we need to know who was responsible. All the effort and money went into saving Sandy Lane toilets; maybe they are well used, I don't know, but I doubt the numbers come anywhere near those for DW.
Margaret, if you come across any documentation which clearly states that TDC intended to keep the DW outer car park toilets
open this summer you will let the rest of us know, won't you? You may have info (having been on the council when all this was going on) that
I and others do not.
The question that needs answering is: Why did (and do) DTC councillors (including those who also sit on
Teignbridge District Council) have it in their heads that TDC agreed to keep those toilets in the outer car park
at Dawlish Warren open this summer pending their being transformed into a cycle hire/repair business with a 2 -3 toilet provision?
Will do Lynne. I suspect though that it was all inference rather than an explicit documented comment. But even if it was only an implied intention it should have been honoured. I think it is important to know at what precise point TDC took the decision to decommission the toilets, who knew and what did they do about it?
If inferred where is this inference written down?
Was it written down!?
Inference can, and does, lead to misunderstanding and at the moment I think this (mistaken) belief by DTC as to what TDC intended may be
what is causing all this. But I'd love to be proven wrong.
Here is where I think the confusion and misunderstanding lies (but as I said, please do prove me wrong).
* Dawlish Warren: To proceed with a feasibility study over possible options for a business opportunity (e.g. bicycle hire) for this site which will include some continuing form of reduced level of public toilet facilities provided by the new business operator. The existing toilet facilities will close as from 1st October 2014. If the redevelopment does not proceed, further consultation will be undertaken with Dawlish Town Council"
This what A Frame posted on this thread on 30-7-15
I've spoken to a couple of people within TDC. When the Executive Committee of 6 councillors approved the closure (Sept 2013) the decision wasn't called in. That's when 5 councillors can object to it. As for the agreement with Dawlish Town Council to keep the toilets open, no-one seems to know anything about it, just that the cycle hire business would take the responsibility on. Maybe everyone assumed the tender and conversion of the building would be quicker than it has been.. Can't see anything getting off the ground this summer, presumably the buiding will have to be modified.
and then again on 9.8.15 A. Frame posted:
as far as the people i spoke to at tdc are concerned no one knows about any agreement with dawlish town council to keep the toilets open until the completion of the tender
Well if that is the case Lynne then it was very badly handled by DTC working group and the chair of F&GP who led on this project. They let the people and visitors of Dawlish and Dawlish Warren down badly. I will do my research over the weekend and get back to you.
We are still waiting for an explaination as to why Dawlish town councillors were under the impression that the toilets
in the outer car park at Dawlish Warren would stay open this summer until the tendering process with regard to
the cycle hire business had been completed. Where did that collective impression come from?
I would have thought that those DTC councillors who comprised the working party that held talks with TDC officers
about the future of these toilets, would have lots to say on this matter. But what do we get? Silence.
Which then begs the question. Why are they so silent?
The visitors are now going home and it will all be sorted for next year nice new toilets a cycle hire shop and all this will be forgoten. So looking at the big picture does it matter not a jot it's done and dusted and that's life just accept it and lets get onto something more important.
It matters because there has been, and there is still, an immense amount of obfuscation and finger pointing going on concerning this
matter when all could so easily have been much clearer.
And I wouldn't bet that it will all be sorted out by next year.
Has the research mentioned on August 28th taken a bit longer than expected? Or are the knives still being sharpened?
Yes it's a pain having to work over a bank holiday weekend. Especially one when the train service is reduced due to industrial action!
Why did you feel it necessary to add "Or are the knives still being sharpened" at the end of your question? It was pure baiting, intending to cause conflict. So once again you are are the source of trouble on this site. No wonder you have been banned so many times.
An interesting interpretation by you Bernard. Long time no see, it's nice to know that you're still around and making worthwhile contributions to this forum. Keep it up.
That would be a good topic for a debate Bernard. Now that you're back posting on here, maybe you should start a new thread with that as the subject? Instead of you polluting this one?
Okay - for anyone who is interested, my conclusion as to why the toilets at Dawlish Warren outer car park
were closed this year is because that was what TDC Executive Committee decided would happen back
in 2013. That decision was never altered so when the toilets closed in October 2014 they closed forever.
Subsequent to that 2013 TDC decision there were discussions with Dawlish Town Council as to how to keep some toilet provision of some
kind at the outer car park. The agreement was, still is, that the toilets would be reconfigured into a leisure outlet (bike hire
business) which would also provide two or three toilets for public use.
I do not know what members of the Dawlish Town Council Working Party (see my earlier posts above) thought had
been agreed with TDC re the toilet provision this summer. I can find no documentation and so far members of that working
party ain't saying. So I can only surmise that what they belived the agreement was with TDC and what that agreement actually
was, wasn't the same, and somehow along the line the belief became that there would be a toilet provision at the outer
car park this summer (and I don't mean the three portaloos that subsequently turned up).
But that belief was incorrect.
and thems my thoughts.
Have seen a document that says the work is being carried out and that there will be three toilets - 1 x male, 1 x female, 1x disabled.
The toilets and the bike hire business should be open for business by Easter.
I'm surprised that there's been comment on here about the piece in this week's Gazette regarding a GWR grant towards converting a disused building next to DW station into a cycle hire business.
Well, easter come and gone. Took a pop down to see the new cycle hire establisment at the Warren w.c.'s. Oh, what a surprise.
Have just emailed a couple of councillors about this asking them what is going on (or not going on as
seems to be the case).
I have told them that I will let others know their response(s) so if/when I get anything back from them
I will post the replies on here.
This is from our MP's website: "Teignbridge DC have been awarded £30,000 to convert a disused building by the station into a new cycle hire facility for their Explore Dawlish Warren Scheme."
My question is..........which disused building is being talked about?
Its not the building on Dawlish Warren station, is it? Or has that been demolished. Ignore this post if it has.
TDC said some conversion work was done before Easter to facilitate the required toilets but then a grant was forthcoming from GWR which means more buliding works can be undertaken to make it look like a retail shop rather than a converted toilet. They say they hope to have it trading in time for the summer. (Of course they said the same last year). They agreed not having it open for the Big Weekend is a missed opportunity and said a pop up shop might be a solution. If there was access to Powderham fom the Starcross end it would be a great way of getting there.
From what Lynne gleamed (her post 07th april 2016 07:15) TDC was awarded £30k to convert a disused building by the station into a new cycle hire facility. Has the £30k been used refit toilet block in question?
Interesting planning permission that was granted on the 13/02/15 for change of use of public conveniences at the Warren. Same location as the w.c's building in question.
Just had this back from one of the Cllrs.
"As you’ll be aware the creation of the new toilets have been completed and the remainder of the unit is clear. The cycle business will happen but I understand that a substantial grant has just arrived from GWR and this additional funding is going to be used to invest in the building to create a more meaningful shop in the long run but will cause a delay in the short term."
I asked the above because try as I might (and I know others have tried as well) there is a resounding silence
emanating from TDC with regard to the identity of the successful tenderer.
And as is the way of things when there is an absence of information the rumour mill takes over.
I've even heard it said that TDC has awarded the tender to...............wait for it..............TDC!.
(shurely not. Ed)
TDC's seems as much use as a chocolate tea pot when it comes to putting the local people first and being positive in creating a tourist location
visitors will like to come back year after year.
There are less and less places to sit in Dawlish and teignmouth. There seems to be a plan to take out as many places for people to comfortably
sit down. A few examples:- the shelter, taken down, because it spoilt the views from the new Pavilions eyesore, the shelters, opposite the bowling
green in Dawlish (yes, they were unsightly and used by the Dawlish drinking club, but new shelters could have been errected), seating on the front
at Dawlish, as you go under the railway line) taken away and never replaced (although this last one might be GWR's responsibility).
As time goes on I can see less w.c.'s and less public seating/shelters... look how much has been demolished/taken away over the past 20 years!
Another failure of TDC is although planning has been passed for a new cafe at coryton cove it has been deferred for yet another year before any work commences. As some have sugested in the previous posts Dawlish and the Warren are second class at the best of times compared to Teignmouth when spending for tourism and residents.