Plans to turn the public toilets at Winchelsea Beach into a sauna need further discussion after a two hour debate at Rother District Council. The toilets are one of 12 the council wants to lease commercially across the district.
The council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee voted by six votes to five to refer the plans for Winchelsea Beach (and Sedlescombe) to full council at a meeting at Bexhill Town Hall on Monday, July 7. The decision does not currently affect plans for Rye’s Gun Garden and Strand toilets to be leased as coffee shops and the building on the Salts to be part converted into a cycle hub. All the commercial plans include keeping a minimum level of toilet provision.
Jacqui Stanford, the chair of Icklesham Parish Council, told the committee IPC had been lobbying to take on the Winchelsea Beach toilets for years. “They were paid for by the taxpayer and are vital for the visitors to the beach and playing fields. There has been no consultation with residents on this plan. The toilets have been in a poor state for years and we have our own plans to replace them – and the ones in the centre of Winchelsea.”
She says the sauna plans will not make money for Rother District Council for some time. “We are being told that as the plan for the Winchelsea Beach toilets are now classed as generating income they cannot now be devolved to us. It will be a long time before they make any money and when it does it will be a very small amount.”
Councillors clarified that any decision to refer the plan to full council only affected the toilets at Winchelsea Beach and Sedlescombe. Cllr Sue Burton said the other ten toilets being leased should not be included. “It’s just those two. 10 leases are in a good position and nobody is opposing them today. Ten are satisfactory.”
The commercial plans were praised by Cllr Si McGurk, who represents Rye and Winchelsea. “There has been a process. We’ve come up with some useful ways of generating income which is the bottom line. We can’t go round the houses with the policy. It is absolutely necessary that we follow this through. I’ve had lots of correspondence in support of our approach. It has been universally positive for the most part.”
You can watch the full debate here.
Image Credits: James Stewart .
With all due respect to Cllr Mc Gurk, to say response has been universally positive is surprising to say the least. No one I’ve spoken to has said anything positive about plans to lease the Strand Quay or Gun Garden toilets as coffee shops with one toilet open to the public during their opening hours. A five minute discussion with any one of the volunteer team at the Heritage Centre would correct that belief. Our experience of dealing with the public when the toilets were fully closed last year clearly tells us there is a huge demand and expectation from the visiting public. The public misconception that the Heritage Centre is a Council operated information centre resulted in some very unpleasant if not abusive complaint directed at us and we are now gearing up to deal with similar once the conversion has taken place. No Rother officer or councillor has even sought our opinion on this and I’m pretty confident other nearby businesses are dreading this ill fated plan.
Well said Simon. Cllr MGurk’s comments are frankly unbelievable as he is a District Councillor for Rye and surely Rye News is an important tool for him in his role. If he does actually read it then we will be more than aware the depth of feeling of residents at losing these toilets. I was shocked on Monday that he told his fellow District Councillors that this decision had been “universally positive” it was jaw dropping. I am also shocked that it is only Sedlescombe and Icklesham Parish Councils fighting this outrageous decision not to consult residents and local businesses. You are correct regarding the Heritage Centre dealing with any future problems just like IPC for we know already how angry locals and visitors get when toilets are shut. In Winchelsea Beach poor visitors caught out find themselves using residents gardens, or the farmers’ fields and no one wants that! I am hoping that commonsense will prevail, but who knows…..
Hi Simon, I was referring to people who had contacted me about the toilet plans. I’ve heard from local business owners and residents about the plans. Some individuals have been very anti this is true but most of my correspondence has been in support. I spoke in favour of giving freeholds to Parish and Town Councils when the council originally debated this several months ago but this wasn’t supported by the council. My point now is that we can’t delay the decision forever and need to move on and ensure local businesses can plan with confidence, this series of delays isn’t good for anyone. Please let’s not forget there is a governance process to see through where applications for leases will be assessed and scrutinised and businesses are required to maintain publicly accessible toilets as a crucial part of the agreement.
As I understand it there are no minimum requirements for the lessees opening hours during which they are obliged to keep a toilet open, will these include disabled facilities, will they be mixed gender, who will monitor cleaning routines and repairs ? So many questions. Thank you for agreeing to meet with us – we will be in touch
The pressure on businesses to accommodate the shortfall of toilets in this town is nothing but a disgrace, leasing out toilets as coffee houses will just exacerbate the problem,we are a tourist town with hundreds of visitors each week,and for Rother District Council to hawk out our public toilets is nothing but a disgrace.
John I completely agree – the problem of tourists abusing the facilities in pubs / cafes which are meant for paying customers is already a big problem, this will just encourage it.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this plan by RDC. Rye does not need another coffee or tea shop. This will place additional pressures on current businesses. But more importantly, the town requires these toilets to be kept fully open in order to serve the large number of visitors that come here. I think the council should explore pay toilets. This is quite common in many countries on the continent and requiring a small fee might (but only might) also discourage vandalism whilst bringing in desperately needed funds. Selling off or having long term leases of publicly owned assets is rarely a good idea, diminishing future options. I suggest a £1 fee per entry visit would be fair (or if a card machine, £1.50) thus allowing people with families not to necessarily have to pay more. And yes, some males may choose not to use them and pee publicly, but then one can’t always have a perfect system.
When I am out and about or visiting places I am pleased to come across public toilets for the necessary comfort stops but I can’t imagine any circumstances where I would be similarly delighted to find a sauna instead. What are Rother planners thinking. Toilets are a necessity for everyone, saunas are a luxury for a select few!
I’m afraid that my initial response to the proposed sauna on this site was of laughter: how could anyone seriously deem this a feasible plan? With our population growing and the huge amount of visitors that will hopefully bring revenue to the area, public toilets will ALWAYS be in need. Imagine the scene, a car full of children and adults have made the long and arduous journey to Winchelsea, probably over-heated and in need of the loo. “Mummy, I need a wee!”
“Sorry darling, no toilets…but we can have a relaxing sauna instead”. It’s about time the councils stopped seeing £ signs in the derelict sites and stepped up to making them usable again.
As a volunteer at Rye Heritage Centre I would like to reiterate Simon Parson’s comments above. The complaints that volunteers were subjected to when the toilets were closed last winter was intolerable, even when we explained they were nothing to do with us. Cllr McGurk appears to be living in some parallel universe if he thinks there popular support for this sell off, he only needs to read the comments on previous stories on Rye News to see this is not the case. I hope that Rother will at least this time provide suitable signage directing people to open toilets when the Strand toilets are closed.
If a Councillor or Officer from Rother bothered to stand outside the Strand toilets on a busy Saturday they would see that a minimal provision will be wholly insufficient. I hope that the new leaseholder knows what they are letting themselves in for.
I appreciate that Rother is short of money, but having visited Eastbourne this week where the charge to use the toilets on the seafront is £1, I would have thought this would be a much better solution (as has been mentioned many times on Rye News in the past).
Yes John it is not for businesses to provide these facilities. It is for councils like Rother who collect our taxes to provide these facilities. I hope District Councillors are reading all your comments.
I agree with Simon Parsons! I have not heard one person agree with the idea of a Coffee Shop/minimum toilet facility being a sensible solution! The Strand Toilets are in busy part of Rye with many car parks in the area and buses/cars disgorging people there often in dire need of a toilet! Many are elderly or have sat in a vehicle for a few hours and immediately look for toilets. It is a basic human need and as such should be provided by the local authority.
As Simon Parsons says, the Heritage Centre was inundated with disgruntled, desparate, and often abusive visitors in need! Not fair that volunteers should be subject to this. Rye is a Tourist town and needs to keep attracting visitors to the town but the lack of toilets coupled with high Rother Council parking costs will discourage many. Think again Rother councillors. That is the ‘bottom line’ Simon McGurk, sorry! Pun intended!
To be quite honest Lee so far it has been Bexhill Disteict Councillors voting to lease these important toilets off. Cllr Paul Osbourne voted not to do this but was out-voted by councillors who don’t even live in our rural area! Nor will they be affected when it goes wrong. Rother DC will debated this again on Monday evening so watch it online. We are very grateful that BBC radio is following this crazy move by Rother!
At the junction of Pett Level Road with Dogs Hill Road is a very misleading road sign which states: “Toilets 400m” & clearly includes a Disabled symbol. I groan each time we pass the sign, knowing full well its information is wholly untrue. Cruel.
The single disabled facility at Dogs Hill is open and used by all.
Well I had one reply to my article last week on how the toilets could be saved, maybe some others who have commenetd above might like to get intouch and see if we can put together a new idea as to how they can be run.
Pitches for coffee/ brew and butty vans could easily be organised. Keeping the area free from their customer’s litter could form part of the agreement of leasing a pitch too.
As portable loos are not so appealing and there’s a real lack of compost toilets/ bushes to nip behind, sorting and maintaining the existing facilities as decent public loos, is surely a no brainier.
To loo or not to loo..
If one fills up with a brew,
one eventually needs a loo,
God forbid, a number two.
Bubbs2025
I’m bewildered by what I’m reading. A public toilet being considered for turning into a sauna … a sauna at Winchelsea Beach? Surely this must be a late April Fools Day joke!
I agree with all those who are against turning public toilets into anything else. Sanitation arrangements are vital in tourist spots like these — the alternative will be the soiling of any odd corner where natural functions can be seen to in some kind of privacy. For heaven’s sake, what is this insanity?
It will be interesting to see if any leaseholders taking on these toilets cease to exist for whatever reason, will the responsibility fall back on the council to keep them open,until another leaseholder is sought.
I find it disappointing that one of our Rother District Councillors believes that generating income is more important than providing toilets as a public service. I totally agree with Cllr Jacqui Stanford’s comments, understand the frequent enquiries the Heritage Centre deals with and have yet to meet anyone who supports the change of use of these facilities.
I regret that some correspondents may be misinterpreting my views and previous comments. It is important to recognise that public statements, including those made in comment sections, often differ from private conversations. I am disappointed by the reluctance to engage thoughtfully on this complex issue. While I unequivocally support publicly accessible loos, I believe it is essential to avoid oversimplifying the debate into a binary choice. This matter involves balancing budget constraints with the need to support and create opportunities for local businesses. The recent Council meeting highlighted the importance of local democracy, where listening and learning were paramount. I trust that the Cabinet will continue to embrace this approach, remaining receptive and responsive.
How about a visit from Rother District Council to inspect the new refurbished toilet facilities in Bexhill and then visit The toilet facilities in Rye, The ones in Rye are shameful.
James, I emailed three councillors several weeks ago regarding the lack of, or poor condition of toilets in and around Rye and none have had the courtesy to reply. Andrew Mier was extremely helpful and responded immediately to my email and actually visited the toilets concerned and reported back to say that he found that the gents toilets at Station Approach were, at the time of his visit, closed and that gents were using the ladies toilets which had few working locks and lacked toilet paper. The disabled lock (RADAR) was not working and the toilet inaccessible. He assured me “I shall ensure that those who need to know do know”. I do hope that this is the case and await with interest any outcomes. I am happy to furnish you with the email addresses of those councillors who didn’t respond to see whether you have any better luck getting a reply.
For pity’s sake Rother, please get a handle on this. It’s been going on for far too long – I for one are sick of writing in columns such as this. When you become elderly and are perhaps on diuretic medication, then perhaps you will understand better the absolute necessity of the availability of a loo when visiting a town.
I agree that it may not be a statutory responsibility for the Council to provide such facilities, but in common with others I would suggest that such provision is an essential component to the attraction of visitors to our town. It is upon their spending that the success of local business depends – and thus the majority of your revenue from business rates. So Statutory or not, it must be incumbent upon Rother to ensure that such facilities are properly delivered. Perhaps instead of further prevarication, a quick cost/benefit analysis of direct support would be better?