Cambridge faces toilet closures, increased fees, and job cuts amidst budget concerns, sparking public and council debate.
Cambridge council tax increased by 2.99 percent. This means the average household now pays £232.13, an extra £6.74 annually. The council confirmed this increase on Monday.
Unison protested the toilet closures, expressing concern about public hygiene. They noted that street cleaners already handle waste in areas like the market, indicating a potential increase in their workload.
The toilet closures are expected to save £121,000 per year. Quayside, Gonville Place, and Victoria Avenue restrooms are slated to close. The council justified the decision by citing low usage and high upkeep costs.
The Labour group faced criticism from the opposition and even some within their own ranks regarding these measures. This occurred at a council meeting on February 24th.
Cllr Simon Smith stated that savings were necessary, claiming the impact on services would be “minimal.” The council aims to save £6 million and has identified recurring savings of £4.9 million.
Cllr Smith emphasized that the council is protecting key services, including bins, parks, and homelessness prevention. They also continue to support those in need and enhance community well-being.
Cllr Tim Bick asserted that the council was aware of funding issues but delayed action. He highlighted a recent public consultation where people opposed further toilet closures.
Cllr Bick warned that the toilet closures would negatively impact certain community members. The Liberal Democrats proposed a six-month suspension for review. Cllr Delowar Hossain echoed this sentiment, urging the council to listen to residents and avoid cutting essential services. Some Labour members also shared these concerns.
Cllr Mark Ashton strongly opposed the toilet closures, sharing his personal experience with bowel cancer and his reliance on accessible restrooms. He argued that the council should prioritize these facilities. Cllr Ashton suggested using reserve funds and conducting a review of usage reasons, a proposal that was fully supported by Cllr Russ McPherson.
Cllr Martin Smart defended the toilet closures, stating that the selected toilets had low usage and high maintenance costs. He also noted that punting operators may take over the Quayside location. Cllr Smart promised investment in the remaining toilets and pointed out the availability of other public restrooms, such as those in shopping centers not managed by the city.
Cllr Smith acknowledged that the public was ignored. However, he emphasized the need to balance the budget and felt that people were losing perspective. He clarified that the debate centered on three toilets within the context of the council’s £68 million budget. Cllr Smith defended the breadth of public services provided and stated that there was no “magic money” available.
Swimming fees are also increasing, with the council discontinuing a £2 subsidy per visit. Non-residents now pay £7.50, up from £6.20, while residents pay £6, up from £5.25.
Cllr Cheney Payne described the swimming fee increase as “short-sighted,” arguing that subsidies encouraged activity crucial for public health. Cllr Cameron Holloway acknowledged the difficulty of the decision, recognizing the health benefits of swimming. He affirmed that the city had nice pools but needed sustainable financial decisions and would continue to subsidize those needing help.
Cllr Bick expressed alarm about job cuts, specifically within the open spaces team. He emphasized that clean streets and spaces are “critical” and accused Labour of risking essential services. Cllr Mike Davey characterized it as a “difficult budget,” requiring savings, and blamed “15 years of austerity” from past governments. Most councillors ultimately approved the budget.