Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: nerc Jan 11 2015, 07:33 PM

Again West Berks off load the toilets to a town council and dont want to support the annual running costs.
I as a local Thatcham resident would more than happy to pay an extra £25.00 per year on my local council tax to ensure that the council keep the toilets open for public use.
Your thoughts and comments?

Posted by: Gazzadp Jan 11 2015, 09:31 PM

Oh dear that might make one or two people on facebook unhappy, as where will the w anchors go instead?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 11 2015, 09:49 PM

I don't know. To make an informed opinion I'd want to know what both WBC and TTC were currently spending my tax on, and I don't know that. With WBC it's difficult because it's a big organisation that isn't particularly open with its accounts so I have only the vaguest idea of how efficient it is. With TTC it should be easier to understand how well they spend the precept, but it wouldn't be fair to assume that TTC spend it as frivolously as NTC.

I agree that in general public toilets are an essential common good which should be maintained at public expense, and if this was being proposed in Newbury I'd be making the usual arguments about the Town Council first saving the more than £250,000 annually that they squitter away on self-serving busy-work. I don't know what the situation is at TTC, but I don't like the idea of paying more tax.

Posted by: x2lls Jan 11 2015, 10:17 PM

Probably more like 25 pence per head.
If all paid an extra £25, I'd expect gold plated taps!!

Posted by: Strafin Jan 11 2015, 11:56 PM

I would imagine it would cost more than £25 a year though.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 12 2015, 07:34 AM

A quick look suggests that £1 on the precept will raise around £10k of revenue,so at a guess I'd say you're talking about an annual increase of £2.50 for the toilets, that's around 3% of the precept.

It's a matter for the Thatcham parishioners to decide if this is appropriate but if it was me I'd want a lot more clarity on where my existing tax is being spent before accepting an increase without complaint.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 12 2015, 11:04 AM

As Simon says, the accounting and reporting processes are so opaque that its hard to make an informed decision. For instance, WBC will be saving money from the operational budgets by not running the toilets. Will that money really be used to make good government imposed cuts in other critical and necessary services? What about the capital cost of the toilet building and the question of rent, does the parish get the building, or does it catch a lease? So there is a good bit of negotiation and staff work to be paid for as well; all of which is really wasted because its between to intimately connected local councils. That may seem dramatic, but it took a year plus to sort the legal bits out when Victoria Park was transferred(ish) to NTC. Staff work isn't free or cheap. Frankly, I have no issue with the local people running and managing their local services, if Thatcham wants public loos, and is willing to pay, then so be it - but then lets get rid of the myth that WBC is a unitary authority. We need some very clear definitions of what a Unitary Authority and what a Parish Council is there to do, and this shouldn't be simply altered to suit short term political expediency.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 12 2015, 01:08 PM

http://www.thatchamtowncouncil.gov.uk/documents/children/Item6-F&GP14April2014.pdf prepared by the council early last year. Total cost appears to be nearer to £60k, which seems like a lot. I guestimate that to be around £6 on the overage precept.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 12 2015, 01:25 PM

That's a good paper which shows exactly what game WBC are playing. Essentially, it's 'take it or leave it' - simply cough up with no questions and do exactly what WE want. Frankly, the charges do seem excessive, arguably that's a full time cleaner. I love the bit where it talks about being 'duty bound to find best value' if the Parish Council dared suggest they would take over....no kids you aren't, sort yourselves out. It's exactly this bureaucratic nonsence that gets local government such a bad name.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 12 2015, 01:47 PM

Yes, it's a well-presented argument, and of the many features that sets TTC appart from NTC is that the briefing paper is made publicly available.

And yes, WBC's negotiating strategy is about as subtle as a mugger in an underpass.

Posted by: motormad Jan 12 2015, 04:16 PM

If they close I'll have to start weeing on the trees again.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jan 12 2015, 04:36 PM

What's wrong with the 3rd rail game.
Shucks, they have made that difficult with overhead power!
ce

Posted by: nerc Jan 12 2015, 05:04 PM

£35,000 per annum for cleaning and staff ?.

The attendant does the cleaning as i understand and receives a salary of £19.000.

Whos ripping who off?.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 12 2015, 05:16 PM

We are ahead of you there CE - why do you think we keep banging on about a bridge over the crossing at Thatcham. Upped the odds too - it's a higher voltage!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 12 2015, 07:16 PM

A good question, and there may indeed be a perfectly good answer, but if I were a Thatcham resident that's where I'd want to start.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 13 2015, 04:25 PM

On costs of less than 100% are actually quite low - this is the cost of employing someone and comprises pension payments, employer's tax commitments and a share of all the management overheads - costs of management staff undertaking overhead activities (HR, H&S etc) including their office space, heating, business rates etc. In the case of a toilet cleaner I guess there aren't many direct overhead costs (ie their office and heating costs).

TTC on costs should differ from WBC's - which may change the running costs.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 13 2015, 04:59 PM

That's a fair point and even more interesting. Can we therefore assume that this cost would consequently become lower if Thatcham took over as their management overhead must be lower than WBCs? The numbers would also suggest this is a full time permanent employee, which from my limited knowledge of that area, seems rather excessive. Arguably, two hours a day would probably suffice; which could then be done on a casual basis - so eliminating most of the rest of the overhead......however, I'm sure all these cost saving possibilities have already been explored at length by the WBC managers.

Even more interesting would be the 'investigation to find out how much the site would be worth'. Trying to turn an ex public lavatory into a chic restaurant might be a viable consideration in Central London if the building had architectural charms or historic merit...but in a Berkshire village? ...still at least it would keep WBC property staff busy busy for a good couple of months.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 13 2015, 07:26 PM

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I remember you arguing strenuously that I was wrong to apportion back-office administration costs to direct service costs in order to arrive at a true market cost of a service (my doing so was one of the reasons NTC declared me to be a Vexation Complainant). Anyhoo, what you say here is right.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 13 2015, 09:51 PM

Of course, there is absolutely no saving whatsoever, the cost is merely transferred from WBC Council Tax to Thatcham Town Council precept (not subject to cap).
Were the block to close WBC would retain the costs, and would also have to cope with the complaints from shopkeepers and citizens re the whiff of urine (or worse) when the populace are caught short on the way home......

Posted by: spartacus Jan 13 2015, 11:01 PM

oh I don't know.... it seems you can never have enough coffee shops... so that would be an ideal site and centrally located with a couple of benches around the war memorial (provided the tramps and Special Brew Brigade allow you to use the area)

Posted by: spartacus Jan 13 2015, 11:13 PM

I don't think the toilet block is open late, so unless you're talking about incontinent old ladies out shopping and squatting in the entrance to Lloyds Bank when they're caught short I think the general populace of Thatcham on their way home from a night in town aren't benefiting from the toilet block anyway. The side alley between the Kingsland Centre car park and the Co-op mini store already reeks of bio-processed lager waste after filtering through the kidneys of the local yoof...

Thankfully it hasn't come to the stage of finding 'solids' in entrance ways in the morning, which was becoming a problem for the Faraday Road businesses with the lorry drivers using that area as a free truck stop

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 13 2015, 11:49 PM

Mums with children?

Posted by: blackdog Jan 14 2015, 01:17 AM

IIRC my argument was that inferring that on costs will simply disappear if a service is abolished is specious. For instance they will still pay a CEO and the Town Hall will cost as much whether or not NTC directly manage allotments or pass them over to self-management schemes.

Similarly, while it might cost WBC £60k to run the Thatcham toilets they will not save £60k by getting shot of them. The loss of one cleaner from the payroll is extremely unlikely to result in a reduction in WBC's HR staffing or the cost of heating the HR office. So everyone left at WBC will cost a couple of quid a year more for HR - unless they downsize far more drastically. To be fair they have downsized a fair bit and are rationalizing (reducing) office space usage - so they are doing something to keep overheads down.

But let's face it the toilet issue is simply one of WBC passing costs from the District Rate (Whitehall controlled) to the parish precept (uncontrolled). Are they doing the same with the Newbury toilets?

Posted by: nerc Jan 14 2015, 06:20 AM

The toilets in Thatcham and Newbury are operated by a contractor who employ the staff. I full time at each site. They also have a part time employee who covers for days off etc.
Thatcham toilets are open from 7.30am until 5.30 pm.
The operative for the Thatcham site says it is his job to ensure the site is kept clean and tidy.
He confirms that he only works approx 3 hours per day manually and spends the rest of his time either sitting in his room/office or doing his home shopping etc.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 14 2015, 06:47 AM

Exactly right - this really isn't a matter of giving communities more say its just an accounting trick and not even a clever one.

Posted by: Mr Brown Jan 22 2015, 07:20 PM

It seems a bit odd to me that Councils can simply swap jobs they don't like. That's hardly right is it. I think we'd all like to try that one at work - get another department to do the jobs you don't like.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 22 2015, 08:20 PM

It is only possible because we, the tax-paying service users, allow it to happen. Our elected representatives are not holding our councils to account on our behalf, and I suggest it's time that the taxpaying public took a more active interest in where their money is being spent and worked collectively to achieve some accountability, much in the way that the tax-payer's alliance operate.

Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 22 2015, 08:11 PM

TTC bought the toilets at a bargain £1 with a bit of fanfare saying that they would be continuing to provide a vital facility for the town which they thought would be worth the expense in maintaining. The ink is hardly dry on that contract and they already want the terms of sale to be changed so that this 'vital facility' can be changed and are complaining that WBC might make them stick to the sale agreement. Would it be right for WBC to allow TTC to profit considerably from the potential sale of this building for a commercial venture when the whole idea was they would be toilets rather than a cafe?

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/15539/Thatcham-public-toilets-saga-continues-.html

Posted by: blackdog Aug 22 2015, 08:47 PM

Change of council, change of policy. I'm not sure why WBC are so worried about the change of use issue - they have control of it via the planning system whether or not the clause is included.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2015, 07:27 AM

This is simply another example demonstrating the crass stupidity of having two Councils with significantly overlapping authority. Even the cost of transferring 'ownership' from one body to the other is expensive and time consuming. Now they are squabbling over detail! We are supposed to have a unitary authority, I suspect most of us would be quite content with that. The only ones who would get upset if the town councils were abolished are those that like to play games and dress up at our expense. My old Dad had an expression he'd use when confronting bad service 'they couldn't run a lavatory' - such irony! Oh well, at least we have an answer now when our local politicians start the crocodile tears and say we need even more cuts.

Posted by: user23 Aug 23 2015, 09:54 AM

Yes, the people of Thatcham elected a new administration to run their town council and therefore they have different priorities.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2015, 12:57 PM

Did they?

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 24 2015, 01:08 PM

Actually, not too far off the mark.

A salary of £19K will attract employers costs in addition to the salary (NI. pension, etc,) and would need to include holiday cover, etc.