Issue - meetings

A petition has been received containing over 500 valid signatures

stating the following:

We the undersigned object to the scrapping of public toilets from the council’s redevelopment in Park Street. We call on Cambridge City Council to amend its plans so that it continues to provide this basic public service at this location.

A petition had been received containing over 500 valid signatures stating the following:

We the undersigned object to the scrapping of public toilets from the council’s redevelopment in Park Street. We call on Cambridge City Council to amend its plans so that it continues to provide this basic public service at this location.

Councillor Porrer presented and spoke in support of the petition and made the following points:

i.             Public amenities were critical in our busy city.

ii.            A petition had been submitted for the reinstatement of the Park Street car park toilets as part of the proposed development. This was following repeated requests to the ruling group to reinstate public toilets as part of the Park Street development.

iii.          She was not criticising the Planning Committee decision, she understood why that decision was made on the application as submitted. This was a criticism of the ruling group who were creating a beautiful new building with no toilets.

iv.          She could not understand why profit was being put before public amenity. This was a council development which did not provide the thing that most people would want to see there.  

v.           There were two keys issues: 1) there would be fewer public toilets in Cambridge because of this decision. The Quayside toilet upgrade would not increase provision. People travelling to Cambridge in cars possibly with carers and people with bicycles and cargo bikes would expect to find facilities on site. 2) One of the few disabled accessible toilets in the city centre was being removed. This was raised at the Council Disability Consultative Forum. The minutes to the meeting stated this was a major issue for disabled users and should be re-examined.

vi.          She understood that Quayside toilets would be developed and include changing places provision, which was welcomed however this was not providing additional facilities and was a reduction in the overall toilet provision.

vii.         It was 400m to walk from Park Street to Quayside but the briefing note provided at the council meeting stated this was 380m. 50m was the maximum blue badge holders would be expected to walk.

viii.       £100,000 was proposed to be spent on a changing places toilet at Quayside, yet Quayside was probably the least accessible location in the centre for anyone with a disability.

ix.          She noted there were hardly any disabled parking spaces close by. The three closest disabled parking places at Round Church Street were being taken away and located in the car park.  Suggested the funding proposed for Quayside toilets should be used to provide a changing places toilet in the Park Street development so that people could access this from their cars.

x.           She had been contacted by various residents who talked about hidden disabilities; toilets were essential in the city centre.

xi.          At the Park Street Liaison Group it was discussed that the development could not have cycle parking and public toilets. She was not asking to reduce the amount of cycle parking. She had previously fought to have outside cycle parking which had not been included in the planning application back in May 2019. Parking spaces should be removed and replaced by public toilet provision.

xii.         The Council’s supplementary planning document talked about walking and cycling being a priority in Cambridge and yet this development was providing the opposite. This was not a grade II listed building where development would be restricted, the council had complete autonomy about what was provided. She understood there would be a cost and that income would be lost from the loss of parking spaces. It was a cost that should be borne and should have been included at the outset.

xiii.       Asked for the public toilet provision to be reinstated as part of the development.

Councillors debated the issues raised for the allocated 15 minutes.

The Leader made the following comments in response to the debate:

i.             Councillors had been part of the liaison group and no comments had been made for how the toilet facilities could be accommodated.

ii.            Not all car parks in the city had public toilets.

iii.          Toilets which were built within car parks were vandalised. There were no staff on site in the car parks so they could not be protected. Public toilets in car parks were isolated.

iv.          For a city the size of Cambridge, there were far more public toilets than in other cities.

v.           Questioned whether councillors had visited other public toilets in the area. Quayside toilets were secure, staffed and in a visible public place.

vi.          Discussions had taken place with Camcycle regarding cycle parking provision at the Park Street development.  There was a full floor for cycle parking.

vii.         The size of Park Street car park would be cut by a third.

viii.       All car parks would be assessed in the future to see whether the current capacity was required.

ix.          Public toilets were not open late at night.

x.           £100,000 was being invested in a quality changing places toilet because there were few across the city.  There was one in the Lion Yard.

xi.          £10 million would be invested in affordable housing as a result of the Park Street development.

It was proposed that the issue should be referred back to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee this was lost by 14 votes to 23.