YORKSHIRE DALES NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY ITEM 10 CHARGING FOR THE USE OF AUTHORITY OWNED PUBLIC TOILETS

Transcription

1 YORKSHIRE DALES NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY ITEM 10 Date: 31 March 2015 Report: CHARGING FOR THE USE OF AUTHORITY OWNED PUBLIC TOILETS Purpose of the report 1. To seek Members approval to trial for two years, at Authority-owned public toilets, charging for the use of the public toilets and voluntary donation boxes. RECOMMENDATION 2. That Members agree to: a. charge a 20p levy for use of the public toilets at Grassington, put in a voluntary donation box at Aysgarth Falls public toilets; and use the results to decide whether to roll out charging and/or donation boxes for toilets at other Authority-owned public toilets; b. allocate 9,500 from the Authority s Opportunities Fund ( 9,000 to install turnstile type barriers and 500 for a donation box). Strategic Planning Framework 3. The information and recommendation(s) contained in this report are consistent with the Authority s statutory purposes and its approved strategic planning framework: Corporate Plan objectives 35. Plan and manage all aspects of the Authority s business so as to make the most effective use of our resources. Background 4. The Authority is facing a challenging financial position. There is a strong possibility that there will be further reduction to its core government grant between 2015/ /18. New income streams need to be found if the current range and quality of services provided are to be maintained. At the Policy Development Forum, on 16 December 2014, Members discussed ideas for raising additional income. Members asked that further work on some of the ideas be undertaken for consideration at a full Authority meeting. This included the possibility of charging for the use of Authority owned public toilets.

2 Customer satisfaction and costs of providing the service 5. The Authority operates 10 public toilet blocks in its pay and display car parks across the National Park. The public hold these facilities in high esteem. The customer satisfaction survey, undertaken as part of the Authority s review of its toilet programme in 2012, found that across all sites 98% of those using the toilets were satisfied with the facilities. This is an extraordinary figure. There was a significant variation in the usage of the facilities between residents and visitors. Over 20% of those who used the toilets at Buckden, Aysgarth and Linton were residents, whereas residents only account for 8% usage in Grassington and 4% at Hawes. 6. Having invested in refurbishment of these toilets, their condition and status is recognised in the annual Loo of the Year assessment. Four of the Authority s toilets are rated as platinum standard (i.e. excellent), and six as gold, with none at the silver or bronze levels. This is particularly important for the visitor economy because the Authority s toilets and car parks are often the first impression visitors have of the area. 7. The cost of running these public toilets was reviewed in April 2012 and as a consequence, additional annual savings of 28k were identified. However, the cost of running them is still significant and accounts for 100k of the 250k expenditure of the Car Parks and Toilets programme in the 2015/16 (draft) budget, set against a projected income from car park ticket sales of 530k. (This does not include staff time spent by the Rangers Service, the Maintenance Officer and the Estates Manager on maintenance and refurbishments). Options 8. The Toilets and Car Parks work programme is in the Authority s lowest category of programmes where progress will be limited or the bare minimum necessary to meet a statutory duty. Budget constraints mean that difficult decisions have to be taken with regard to the future and standard, of Authority programmes, based on their priority. To that end there are two options that need to be considered at the present time: I. Leave the current arrangements unchanged accepting that those paying for use of Authority car parks across the whole National Park, are also paying towards the cost of providing the public toilets at these sites; II. Seek to generate income directly from those using the toilets to help pay for the facilities. Not everyone using the toilets is paying the car park fee. 9. During the Authority s public consultation on possible cuts, in March 2011, in which respondents were asked to rate the relative importance of its services, 70% of all respondents indicated Toilets as being either 4, 5 or 6 on a scale of importance (1 being not important and 6 being very important). Toilets were ranked 9th overall in relative importance out of 27 services then being provided by the Authority. Based on this, and what is happening elsewhere with public toilets closing due to budget pressures, charging for use of Authority-owned public toilets, or at least seeking a donation, could help to off-set running costs. There may be more support for this approach than expected. For example, South Lakeland District Council s 2010 consultation on public toilets (see Appendix 1) found that in answer to the question

3 Would you support the idea of paying to use public toilets if this helped to keep some open and ensures they are kept clean and well maintained in the future? 86% of visitors (and 72% of residents) supported the introduction of pay to use schemes. 10. Many local authorities, including the Lake District National Park Authority, have introduced a charge for use of their public toilets. While others, such as Carven District Council, have introduced donation boxes. Their experiences show that the introduction of charging is likely to effect user numbers (Appendix 1). Looking at these experiences some have concluded that charging of any sort reduces usage by up to 50%, some quote the same reduction but only for higher charges of 50p, and others that a 20p charge resulted only in a 25% fall. The effect depends on the nature of the site and the type of users. 11. In essence, there are several factors that should be taken into account to determine if the investment needed to introduce charging is worth the income likely to be generated. Appendix 2 outlines these various factors. It also seeks to model the likely income from the Authority s toilets, based on current annual usage of the adjacent car park. The proposal 12. The information in the table in Appendix 2 can be modelled in a number of ways, but clearly Grassington toilets offer the best opportunity for income generation through charging. The figures in Appendix 2 are believed to be conservative. These figures take no account of people who use these public toilets, but park elsewhere or arrive on foot or bike nor of the many people who arrive at the site on coaches and buses. 13. Grassington is by far the Authority s largest and most used site, and is on the edge of a busy village with a number of cafes. It has many visitors who arrive by means other than private car, or park elsewhere and use the public toilets. As such it will be a good site to test the effect of introducing charging for toilets in the National Park, both in relation to income generation, usage and any impact (positive or negative) on the local community. 14. The installation of pay-to-enter barriers on both the gents and ladies toilets, for Grassington, should cost in the region of 8,900 (based on Lake District National Park Authority figures). If turnstiles or paddle-gates were introduced and a charge of 20p made for entry, an income of 4.5k or more should be made per annum. Payback would be achieved in two years, assuming a drop in usage of around 50%. A charge would not be made for the disabled toilet facilities; entry to these is controlled by RADAR key. An Equalities Impact Assessment has been completed for this proposal and no adverse impact with respect to equality has been identified. 15. Anything that could be perceived to put Grassington businesses at a disadvantage, or cause problems for the local community will, understandably, not go down well. However, it s suggested that charging is undertaken on a trial basis, and part of the trial will be to assess the overall impact on the village and the local community. It is suggested that this be done in conjunction with Grassington Parish Council.

4 16. Alongside this proposal it is also suggested that a donation box is trialled at the Authority s toilets at Aysgarth Falls. It is suggested that a wall mounted secure box is likely to cost about 500. As with the Grassington proposal this also needs to be properly assessed, on a cost/benefit basis, before consideration is given to rolling this option out to other facilities. It is suggested that a trail of both options runs for two years. Conclusion 17. Members are familiar with the challenging financial position in which the Authority now finds itself. This means it now has to make some difficult decisions with regard to income generation. Over recent years having invested in refurbishment of its toilets, the Authority is justly proud of their condition and status, as shown by the loo of the year awards. They give visitors an excellent first impression of the area. The question is how to maintain this service in a time of decreasing resources? 18. One option is to introduce a charge for those who use these toilets, to off-set some of the cost of running them, similar to that introduced elsewhere in the region. A review of how this has worked for other authorities has been undertaken, and the findings are mixed. It is suggested that charging for Authority toilets be trialled at Grassington to properly assess the cost versus usage, as well as its effects on the community. At the same time a donation box should be trialled at Aysgarth Falls toilets. Kathryn Beardmore Director of Park Services 3 March 2015 Background documents: Budget 2011/12; Authority 29 March 2011 Review of Authority Toilet Facilities; Audit & Review Committee, 10 April 2012 Recommended Capital Programme 2014/ /18; Lake District National Park Authority, 11 December 2013 Review of the Pubic Convenience Service; Scarborough Borough Council, Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee, 24 March 2014 The Prioritisation of National Park Authority work programmes from 2015/16 onwards; Authority, 23 September 2014 Draft Budget 2015/16; Finance & Resources Committee, 10 February 2015

5 Appendix 1 Charging for public toilet use: examples from other local authorities Scarborough Current charge is 40p at one site, but plan to reduce this to 20p but to charge at more sites. When the relatively high charge of 40p was first introduced, they found that usage fell by around 60%. Their estimate of set-up costs is between 3,500 and 7,000 per access unit (two needed per toilet facility) Consider that the introduction of charging is viable at those public toilets capable of generating an annual income of 1800 a year or more. [Review of the public convenience service; Scarborough Borough Council Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee, 24 March 2014] Eden District Council Introduced a charge of 20p (and paddlegates) at their Pooley Bridge (Ullswater) toilets in April 2014; collection fee 1k PA or 10% (whichever the greater). The anticipated income was 25k a year, but the projection for the full year had been revised to 10k after 9 months, although there was also a reduction in damage (e.g. graffiti and vandalism), with a consequent reduction in maintenance costs. The difference in expected and actual receipts was put down to a number of factors, including that it is possible for two people to enter through the paddle gates at once, that some people will not pay to use public conveniences, that local businesses have opened their toilets for use by the public, and that possibly the original footfall figures (used to model anticipated income) were out of date. [Public Toilets; Scrutiny Coordinating Board, Eden DC, 14 January 2015] Craven District Council Now only operate 3 public toilets, with honesty boxes in two of these. Lake District NPA Introduced charges at high-usage sites in June 2014, at 20p installed turnstiles (not paddlegates). The estimated gross income by end of 2014/15 was 55k. No details of changes in footfall as a result of charges. The actual income from sites is dependent on whether other toilet facilities are available nearby. For example, Hawkshead car park (one of the highest for revenue) has generated much less income from the toilets over the first nine months than expected. South Lakeland District Council Consultation in 2010 found that, in answer to the question Would you support the idea of paying to use public toilets if this helped to keep some open and ensures they are kept clean and well maintained in the future? 86% of visitors (and 72% of residents) supported the introduction of pay to use schemes. 52% of respondents supported a charge of 20p, 18% were prepared to pay up to 50p (682 responses). [Talk Toilets Consultation Statement, SLDC May 2010]. NB SLDC do not actually charge for any toilets, this decision has been left to the discretion of the new owners after transfer. York City Council Have introduced a charge of 40p as part of a major refurbishment and maintenance programme contract (the contractor keeps the charges to offset part of their maintenance costs).

6 Appendix 2 Charging cost and income There are several factors that should be taken into account to determine if the investment needed to introduce charging is worth the income likely to be generated: The volume of use the public toilets receive This varies considerably from site to site across the National Park and will depend on the size of the car park, whether there are alternative toilets, and/or other visitor attractions nearby. The Customer Satisfaction survey (2013) shows, on average, 70% of respondents went to the toilet during their visit to the National Park. The scale of the fee introduced As with most things there is a balance between the scale of fee and usage. Visitors are known to be less price conscious than residents when it comes to toilet charges. The cost of collecting the fee This includes the initial capital investment to install the infrastructure to collect the fee, the on-going cost of cash collection, (assumed to be 30 per collection for 52 weeks, per site in the table below), and the VAT payable on the income received. Maintenance costs Charging is likely to lead to less use, the actual extent will depend on the ease of finding an alternative, so is site dependent. Less use means less cost of consumables (toilet rolls, water, cleaning materials) and wear and tear. However there are also likely to be new maintenance requirements sorting out jammed paddlegates, for example. The Table below look at each aspect (except maintenance) in relation to the Authority s car parks and toilets. Ticket sales from the on-site car parks are used as a proxy to estimate the number of people using the toilets because the actual numbers are unknown. Table: Approximate annual user volumes and possible income vehicles (No of car park tickets sold 1/1/14 to 31/12/14) 1 people per vehicle (number of tickets x2) toilet use (70% people based on survey) Gross income ( ) at 20p/visit (incl. VAT) Net income ( excl. VAT, less cash collection costs of 1,560/site) Net income ( ) as column E, but if toilet usage drops by 50% Aysgarth 36,226 72,452 50,716 10,143 6,893 2,666 Buckden 7,646 15,292 10,704 2, Loss making Clapham 9,934 19,868 13,908 2, Loss making Grassington 51, ,266 72,286 14,457 10,488 4,464 Hawes 19,107 38,214 26,750 5,350 2, Horton 10,577 21,154 14,808 2, Loss making Kettlewell 12,607 25,214 17,650 3,530 1,382 Loss making Linton 3,157 6,314 4, Loss making Loss making Malham 23,493 46,986 32,890 6,578 3,922 1,181 Stainforth 2,174 4,348 3, Loss making Loss making 1 based on period from 1/1/14 to 31/12/14 as first full year when Cale Web automated ticket counts available.