Hyndburn's New Tourist Attraction

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

The article in the Observer still claims they are saving £10,000.

Can one of the Tory councillors please inform us how this saving has been calculated ?

Toilets closure flushed away in Labour plan | Accrington Observer - menmedia.co.uk

I've not had much time to check this thread over the past few days. Can somebody trawl back for me and find where a Tory Councillor has answered my question, I think I've missed it

[accyman]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

I've not had much time to check this thread over the past few days. Can somebody trawl back for me and find where a Tory Councillor has answered my question, I think I've missed it

good idea you didnt hold your breath mate you would be passed out long ago

[garinda]

Originally Posted by gynn

Where? There were declarations of interest at the Council meeting on 18th January, but that was over the question of Wednesday opening and two weeks before the toilets were closed.

No interests were declared at the Cabinet meeting on 8th February, nor the Resources Overview and Scrutiny meeting on 15th February, nor the Council meeting on 1st March.

I'm fairly sure that it was posted on here, that two councillors, Haworth and Britcliffe declared an interest, when there was a meeting regarding the Market Hall.

It's probably somewhere in the Market Hall refurbishment thread, and I think was in regards to the enforced Wednesday opening. So would have been last autumn.

I preume it was posted by an AW member who was present, so perhaps they'll confirm this.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Was the decision about the toilets actually brought up at a council meeting or was it a decision made elsewhere ?

If it was made elsewhere, but discussed at the Scrutiny Committee, then the declaration of interest should have been there. The minutes of the Scrutiny Committee of 15th February are clear that the Peel Street Toilets were discussed.

[shillelagh]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

We have now got a petition going for re-opening ( yes we are still bleating Cllr Haworth ) . There is one in our shop, the newsagents next door and the kiosk on the corner so far.

i just signed it when i was down town .....

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

We have now got a petition going for re-opening ( yes we are still bleating Cllr Haworth ) . There is one in our shop, the newsagents next door and the kiosk on the corner so far.

If you do one on line even I could sign it Dave

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

You may jest, but because I've got Parkinson's disease signing my names a bit of a nightmare. With either hand.

Luckily there's nothing wrong with my voice, and after explaining the whole sorry fiasco, my companion tomorrow will be eager to sign as well.

She might even hold the petition for me, whilst I attempt to scrawl my moniker.

She's a lovely Lass is your Mum G

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

I've not had much time to check this thread over the past few days. Can somebody trawl back for me and find where a Tory Councillor has answered my question, I think I've missed it

Printing those keep the bogs open T-Shirts must be taking up lots of your time Dave

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jaysay

If you do one on line even I could sign it Dave

If the petition's on separate pieces of paper, I'll bring one for you to sign, and get it back to them on Saturday.

I still owe you a pie and a custard.

So two birds, one stone.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by accyman

good idea you didnt hold your breath mate you would be passed out long ago

Ya that's something I don't recommend

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

If the petition's on separate pieces of paper, I'll bring one for you to sign, and get it back to them on Saturday.

I still owe you a pie and a custard.

So two birds, one stone.

Seems alright to me

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by garinda

I'm fairly sure that it was posted on here, that two councillors, Haworth and Britcliffe declared an interest, when there was a meeting regarding the Market Hall.

It's probably somewhere in the Market Hall refurbishment thread, and I think was in regards to the enforced Wednesday opening. So would have been last autumn.

I preume it was posted by an AW member who was present, so perhaps they'll confirm this.

Cllrs Britcliffe and Pam Barton declared an interest in the debate at full council over having a vote on 6-day trading, beyond that nothing that I can recall.

The decision to close the Peel Street toilets was apparently a Cabinet decision, it has never been put to full council for debate. A quick scan of the recent Cabinet minutes should show up if Cllr Britcliffe declared a personal and prejudicial interest although I must admit that I cannot find the reference myself.

Cabinet

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

Cllrs Britcliffe and Pam Barton declared an interest in the debate at full council over having a vote on 6-day trading, beyond that nothing that I can recall.

The decision to close the Peel Street toilets was apparently a Cabinet decision, it has never been put to full council for debate. A quick scan of the recent Cabinet minutes should show up if Cllr Britcliffe declared a personal and prejudicial interest although I must admit that I cannot find the reference myself.

Cabinet

As has been posted before, if the closure was about saving money, a comperative study should have been carried out. Working out if closing the Market Hall or the Peel Street toilets would be most cost effective, before making any decision.

In to the equation they should also have compared which public toilet had the greatest ease of access, especially for those with mobility issues, as well as parents with buggies, and the fact that a whole section of people aren't allowed on to the balcony level of the Market Hall, because of age restrictions.

In the commercial world, a comperative study would have been the very first thing that was carried out, to decide where most savings could be found, with the least inconvenience to the people of the town.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by garinda

In the commercial world, a comperative study would have been the very first thing that was carried out, to decide where most savings could be found, with the least inconvenience to the people of the town.

There have been several decisions taken for which I have failed to find any form of performance standards to determine success or failure. It would be my own first action before taking any commercial decision and has stood me in good stead for 10 years.

Basic scientific principles of things such as market research are something I believe in very strongly before making decisions, particularly with public money, and it is something I will continue advocating when the council eventually shifts away from Conservative control.

Gynn has identified the point regarding a prejudicial interest in making the decision to close the toilets on Peel Street, something which in any situation would be dealt with in a serious manner.

I think it is worth asking.

[Benipete]

Originally Posted by garinda

As has been posted before, if the closure was about saving money, a comperative study should have been carried out. Working out if closing the Market Hall or the Peel Street toilets would be most cost effective, before making any decision.

In to the equation they should also have compared which public toilet had the greatest ease of access, especially for those with mobility issues, as well as parents with buggies, and the fact that a whole section of people aren't allowed on to the balcony level of the Market Hall, because of age restrictions.

In the commercial world, a comperative study would have been the very first thing that was carried out, to decide where most savings could be found, with the least inconvenience to the people of the town.

There you go again putting common sense before commerce.

At least for one interested party.