Proposed charges for using Brighton and Hove’s busiest public toilets will affect those in greatest need, according to critics of the plan.
A 50p charge could be levied at five seafront toilets – Dalton’s Bastion, the Colonnade, Shelter Hall and West Pier Arches, in Brighton, and King’s Esplanade, in Hove.
Representatives of the Youth Council and Older People’s Council said that fees would affect all manner of people, especially those who needed to use toilets more often or more urgently.
The council’s own “equality impact assessment” of the proposal said: “It may have a disproportionate impact on disabled people, children, older people, homeless people and general accessibility.”
It also said: “The proposal will affect the community as a whole as well as visitors to Brighton and Hove – all potential public toilet users.”
Youth Council member Jasmine Oquosa-Withers said: “How was this flat rate justified for everyone as it will disproportionately affect people with protected characteristics, pregnancy, menopause, menstruation and any sort of medical reason for people to go to the toilet more?”
Older People’s Council representative Bernadette Kent said that the organisation had an active campaign to keep public toilets open.
She said: “What are you doing? Look at what you’re saying. You are actually preventing your own residents from being able to use the centre. Please think about it.”
The proposed 50p charge is expected to raise £70,000 in revenue for Brighton and Hove City Council although money would also have to spent installing gates and a connected way to pay.
Miss Oquosa-Withers asked for details of how much the proposals would cost and how much they would save the council at a meeting at Hove Town Hall.
The council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee was told yesterday (Thursday 19 February) that the fine details were currently unavailable and the business case was not yet complete.
Members were promised that they would receive further details in writing and told that all other council-operated toilets would remain free of charge.
If the plan goes ahead, the council could publicise other nearby free toilets including those in libraries and encourage businesses to join community toilet schemes such as “Use Our Loo”.
The Labour deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor said that, since taking office in 2023, his party’s administration had reopened and refurbished 13 public toilets.
Councillor Taylor said: “There’s a limited proposal that looks at the really high-volume city centre toilets that of course are accessed by residents but are also accessed by high volumes of visitors and tourists.
“So there is a potential to have a small charge to cover some of the costs on that which will incur some potential capital investment to be able to do the charging.”
He said that the council could consider a residents’ pass and agreed to look into what could be done to support older people and residents.
The matter is expected to be decided at the annual budget council meeting which is due to start at 4.30pm next Thursday (26 February) at Hove Town Hall. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
Homeless people piss and shit in the streets so won’t affect them. If you walk around anywhere near oriental place the streets flow with excrement its disgusting.
Pathetic BHCC are taking the piss.
It’s all about the cash.
Their attitude if F#(k the public.
I for one will just piss on the beach if the toilet charge.
A Labour government ladies and gentlemen. Just like the national gov, they go after those who can least afford it.
Remind us who closed them all down in the first place?
If you’re implying the Greens Benjamin, Greens proposed closing toilets in their Jan 2023 budget when they were faced with Tory cuts to local budget cuts, but they found the money elsewhere and took the proposal out of their own budget, so the loos didn’t close then (despite what Labour councillors have since claimed).
Figures around the number of toilets in the city has been pretty static for many years, although there have been seasonal changes, and some closed for periods of time due to refurbishment and anti-social behaviour problems.
I wasn’t proposing the Greens on this occasion, Cathy, but you hit on a very important point, pragmatically – they needed to be funded from somewhere.
I’ve had a bit of time to think about this further, and the answer I’m coming to is funding them through a tourist tax in the long-term. Tourists are very good for local business, but very expensive for local authorities. That needs balancing.
But can spend 250k on some sad looking, now dead trees? 70k is nothing, whats the point? It will all go on admin!
Toilets should be free full stop. We pay plenty of council tax which has gone up year on year. My wages haven’t! It’s ok for men who wee anywhere, and that’s what will happen again. But women of all ages require bathrooms. You taxed period products and took years to resolve. Now you are taxing us to go in a facility.
Think Council Tax is going up again in April 4.99 %
Eastbourne already does this
I watched this discussion online. I think visitors to Brighton absolutely should pay a charge to maintain the toilets, with the caveat that residents have free access.
Your argument is nuts Benjamin. Are you saying that a disabled person from Eastbourne on a low income would need to pay to use the toilet or otherwise risk soiling themselves if they were unable to pay, whereas a disabled person from Kemptown on a low income (who in theory may be more likely to make it back home before soiling themselves) should be treated differently?
There is a public health angle to public toilet access and the government should be giving local councils the funding they need so that public toilets are free to use so that people are not discriminated against by class, disability or background. To put barriers in place which make accessing a toilet harder for some people is discriminatory.
It’s shocking that the council is considering this move, and any Labour councillor who votes it through should be ashamed of themselves and what their party has become to even consider it.
Yes, just because someone is disabled, it is unfair to then assume they are unable to plan ahead, and then assume they are unable to pay a nominal coinage to use that facility, and also I’d question why would someone travel from X with absolutely no money.
Your counterargument, respectfully, falls apart if you treat someone with a disability as an adult human being.
I’m also not opposed to having just a flat nominal rate in the high footfall areas, because that also encourages the plastic bag theory – rescued ASB and disrespectful use.
Alternatively, if there was a way to sustain these buildings by mitigating their costs on a different way, say via implementing a tourist tax in line with plenty of other tourist destinations, that’d make sense and perhaps avoid this conversation altogether.
It’s about dignity. Many hidden disabilities and health conditions impacting on people’s need to access a toilet. Pitting one group of people over another because of where they live doesn’t detract from the basic point that people should not have barriers to using a public toilet. They should be free to access, recognised as necessary for public health reasons, and paid for via taxation.
The council has the money to pay for the toilets, it’s a political choice Labour councillors are making to not fund them over other budget decisions.
Yes their budget is under strain, but that’s a combination of years of Tory cuts and ongoing Labour austerity which means the current government is continuing to not give local councils enough money to pay for services which should be funded. It’s why Labour councillors like Jackie O’Quinn are leaving their party as they can’t stomach being whipped by the ones who are quite happy to push these cuts through instead of criticising their Labour government for their failures.
We have enough “life admin” already. I can’t believe we’re seriously discussing even more beaurocracy just to prove entitlement to use a toilet?
Yes, we can all plan ahead, make sure we have the right coins, a charged phone, that we’ve registered on “the app” and proved our identity, entered our passcode, bla, bla, bla, but sometimes we all forget things, leave our wallet/money at home, let our phones go dead, and it shouldn’t isolate us from basic services like a toilet.
Some things should be funded for all, via general taxation, and free at the point of use. That’s the principle of the NHS, surely that also applies to public toilets?
It’s an emotionally resonant point, but that doesn’t negate the need to run these things sustainably. NHS, your example, does this as well. I agree with you though, I’d pay a little more tax to fund public toilets. Socialism!
So if they raise £70k per annum, how much of that will be used to clear up the consequential mess that will be created because people won’t pay the charge?
Brighton council are hopeless
They waste money on stupid ideas ie Old Shoreham rd ,stapley rd olive rd junction which is now worse for some reason.
Then started charging for public toilets…
Laughable
Obviously the roads come out of a bigger budget to waste
I would have thought that the cost of setting up and running such a system along with any concessional arrangements would far outweigh the income generated. Who is going to be walking around the seafront carrying a stash of “just in case” 50p pieces or a swipe card anyway? Would our councillors like to step into the real world for a change please?
Yes.
Then desperate people will jump the barriers as they feel bad about peeing in the street. Regulars will glue the locks/break the barriers.
Then comes enforcement and another way to criminalise poverty
Wasteful, uncivilised and inhumane
Shall we put this into perspective? We are talking about 50p here, hardly a fortune to help maintain a facility is it. It’s not as though you are going to want to use it every 30 minutes unless you have a serious intestinal problem!
Which you seemingly don’t.
Other people do tho.
1 in 3 men over 65 has bladder problems.
1 in 5 people experience irritable bowel syndrome at some point
1 in 8 people experience faecal incontinence at some pointy
Let’s also not forget the impact on menstruating women, in particular those at both ends of the age cycle, when menstruation can be more irregular, sudden, and mean significant bleeding which results in the need to access public toilets quickly.
Charging people who have health issues prompting them to need to use the toilet is not OK Jules. Hope you don’t find yourself if the position of having a bowel condition at some point during your life.
“Free public toilets. A Labour council will provide free public toilets which are vital to public health and wellbeing.
They are important to residents, local businesses and our tourist economy.”
From the Brighton Labour 2023 Manifesto for anyone following that sort of thing.
Good point – more backtracking from Labour councillors.
In addition to the manifesto pledge Labour made in 2023, a quick google shows that their leader Bella Sankey also said back then that charging for toilets would have a “disproportionate impact this will have on the elderly, pregnant women those struggling to make ends meet” She referred to closing and charging toilets as “a false economy that will do long-term damage to public health.”
Nothing has changed about the impact charging will have, so was she lying when she made her Jan 2023 comments, or does she just not care now about the disproportionate impact her plans to charge for toilet use will have on the elderly, pregnant women and those struggling to make ends meet”
Don’t worry you will be able to go to the toilet in the new cycle lanes !
The proposal by Brighton and Hove City Council to introduce a modest 50p charge at its busiest seafront toilets is a reasonable and pragmatic response to ongoing financial pressures. Councils across the country are facing stretched budgets, rising maintenance costs and increasing demand for essential services. In that context, asking for a small contribution from those using the highest-traffic facilities—many of whom are visitors and tourists—is hardly unreasonable.
It is important to keep the proposal in proportion. The charge would apply only to five of the busiest locations, while all other council-operated toilets would remain free. This is not the wholesale privatisation of public conveniences that critics imply, but a targeted measure designed to protect and sustain provision. Indeed, the council has reopened and refurbished 13 toilets since 2023—demonstrating a clear commitment to maintaining public access rather than cutting it.
Concerns about the impact on vulnerable groups should be taken seriously. However, they should not automatically veto any attempt to manage resources responsibly. If particular groups—such as disabled residents or older people—require support, then practical solutions such as a residents’ pass or exemption scheme can and should be explored. A flat refusal to consider charges risks leaving the council with fewer options, potentially leading to closures rather than modest fees.
Moreover, it is entirely reasonable that those who make use of heavily visited, tourist-focused facilities contribute toward their upkeep. Clean, safe, and well-maintained toilets do not come without cost. Without sustainable funding, standards fall or facilities close altogether—outcomes that would harm residents far more than a 50p charge.
Responsible local government requires difficult decisions. A small user fee, carefully implemented with protections for those in genuine need, strikes a fair balance between compassion and fiscal responsibility.
The council quote doesn’t actually state over what time period the scheme would raise £70,000 but even if it was per annum it would still take 3.71 years just to recoup the cost of the dead and dying trees planted at Hove and emittng CO2 into the atmosphere.
Well. I will have to stay home, as with my disabilities, I can not plan ahead, and it is very difficult for me to find a public toilet.
I have a feeling that Brighton and Hove want to loose customers and visitors.
Sack the 2nd Deputy Leader and save £31,172.75 straightaway. Council Leader Sankey had no right to appoint a 2nd DL at public expense when previous leaders have managed with one deputy. Many hundreds of transport staff could also be trimmed since this overstuffed department is failing so badly. Charging for toilets would make us uncompetitive with Eastbourne and Hastings and is unfair to those who need toilets more often than others.owing to medical needs.
James; It won’t make us less competitive with Eastbourne – on a trip there last Monday we discovered that the loos on the seafront now have a £1 cashless charge to get in. Now instead of ‘spending a penny’ you have to spend a hundred pennies.
Put the 50p on parking charges instead, will raise much more, and driving into Brighton is not a basic human need!
It’s disingenuous to hide behind the hysterical “will nobody think of the disabled?” argument: anybody with a medical need would almost certainly already have a Bladder & Bowel Community “just can’t wait” access card, or a Radar key. Both these schemes have been around for years, and are well-publicised.
Brighton council should be ashamed. Barely any public toilets in this entire town. It’s a nightmare. The money they waste is ridiculous. Everywhere is disgusting. There must be major corruption going on as what on earth so they spend money on!