In the end it was just £27,000. That was as much as the local district council said it could scrape together, but it was still a 50% cut in core grant funding and ultimately not enough to prevent Mansfield Citizens Advice service from becoming a casualty of the financial crisis raging through England’s local authorities.

Patrick Butler www.theguardian.com

Just over a week ago, when it became clear there was no more room for manoeuvre, the charity’s board of trustees took the decision to close for good, after 41 years serving the Nottinghamshire ex-mining town, one of the UK’s most deprived areas. “It’s devastating,” said its chair, Carmel Reilly. “There’s no other place for clients to go.”

Mansfield Citizens Advice’s prime task has been fighting poverty, its staff and volunteers providing practical help to a local community struggling with soaring debt, eviction and poverty. It was clear about its social justice mission: “People need someone on their side, who will do battle for them,” said Reilly.

Last year it provided expert financial advice to nearly 2,500 local people, helping them manage debts, apply for social security benefits, and resolve rent arrears. Times have been hard in recent years – industrial decline followed by austerity, pandemic and a cost of living crisis – and demand for its services have been off the scale.

Despite just a handful of staff and a budget of just £300,000, its return on investment was impressive last year: advisers got £800,000 of clients’ personal debts – on average £7,700 per person – written off. More than £1.1m in benefit entitlements was secured. By stopping tenants being evicted, it estimates it saved local landlords £268,000.

Its work had the additional benefit of shoring up people’s wellbeing, as well as their bank accounts, and preventing costly state interventions later on, said Reilly. The loss of the service, she reckons, will result in higher rates of stress and mental illness, and greater need at the GP surgery and the council’s homelessness department.

Mansfield district council’s grant to Citizens Advice was £55,000 – a so-called core costs payment that enabled the charity to pay staff and overheads. That base funding in turn allowed it to pull in project grants of about £250,000, a fragile economy of social investment that now looks about to collapse.

The council is struggling with a £5.4m deficit over the next three years. The local councillor Craig Whitby said the decision to cut funding was difficult, but made with the “utmost care and consideration”. An unsuccessful 11th hour attempt was made to scramble together a solution using cash earmarked for councillors’ allowances. Ultimately, he added, it was “essential for the financial health and stability of our council”.

Citizens Advice nationally estimates that local authorities collectively provide a third of its local branches’ funding. The risk is that these grants will be viewed as “discretionary” – and therefore expendable – by stricken councils seeking options to cut back to “basic minimum” levels of service. The current funding crisis was “deeply troubling”, said Citizens Advice’s chief executive, Dame Clare Moriarty.

In the leafy Surrey commuter town of Woking, the socio-demographic profile is very different to Mansfield, but its local Citizens Advice service too faces the prospect of closure from April after Woking borough council embarked on a drastic cuts programme, announced that it was scrapping its £180,000-a-year core costs grant.

Its chair, Laurence Oates, told the Guardian it helped 6,725 clients last year, providing help with universal credit and disability benefits, housing, family advice, and referrals to other local charities such as food banks. It estimates that every £1 invested in Woking Citizens Advice in 2022-23 saved the NHS and other public services £6, amounting to over £2m.

Woking council’s well-publicised bankruptcy last year, with debts of over £1bn, means it can no longer afford to invest in services it has no legal obligation to provide – even a vital community charity like Citizens Advice that saves it money in the long run and is at core of the local voluntary ecosystem.

“Our role is to protect vulnerable citizens in Woking – we are a lifeline,” said Oates. “For the people we serve, there will be a lot of unmet need, and we can’t see how that gap will be filled.”

Ahead of the meeting EDDC posed 12 searching questions, see below.

The key strategic questions concern: whether or not sewage handling capacity (divided by SWW into “Hydraulic” and “Treatment”) is at, or near, capacity; and why SWW, a statutory consultee, never appears to object or raise concerns to planning applications that will clearly add to waste water flows within the network.

Cllr Geoff Jung revealed the existence of a report commissioned in 2010 jointly by Exeter, Teignbridge and East Devon councils providing an independent assessment of future strategic sewage needs. Remember that EDDC’s last strategic plan dates from 2013, after that report was published. 

Owl understands that this report indicated widespread capacity problems to the east of the Exe. This is something obviously crucial to development within the whole EDDC area.

This report is still a “live” planning document in Exeter, but not, it seems in EDDC.

[This raises the question: was someone asleep on their watch during the Tory “jobs led, policy on” build, build development strategy, the consequences of which, in terms of housing targets, we are still living with?]

This is something EDDC leader Cllr Paul Arnott said he wanted answers to.

It was a long meeting, recorded on the EDDC Youtube channel in three sections. Recordings of the question and answer sections of the meeting can be found here: Part 1 and Part 2. A third part records the subsequent discussion by councillors.

Owl’s instant takeaway is that SWW appeared evasive and seemed to think that their “Water Fit” reporting system (that excludes discharges into rivers) was the answer to many of the issues.

Councillors generally appeared dissatisfied with many of SWW responses.

Owl will report at greater length in due course.

Questions for South West Water (SWW)for East Devon DC Scrutiny Committee 1/2/24 

1) In 2023 there were ten non-permitted spills from SWW assets that affected East Devon Bathing Waters. Communication from SWW is highly inconsistent, with an apparent reliance on the Environment Agency (EA) to notify Environmental Health Colleagues due to shellfish beds. The notifications to the EA are often hours after the original incident and do not take into account the Council’s beach management function. Why is communication from SWW so inconsistent and how can you ensure you alert our beach safety officer immediately when there is a non-permitted spill affecting one of our bathing waters, rivers, or beaches? 

2) It was particularly disappointing to read in the media in reference to the spill on the 5th and 6th of January 2024 at Exmouth, that SWW were saying that advising the public of spills was the responsibility of beach managers. SWW had not notified EDDC that a second pipe burst had taken place or to work together to manage this issue. Why were we not informed of this occurrence? 

3) When there was a manhole ‘blow off’ and discharge at the Hamm, Sidmouth on 4/12/23, it was reported to the EA as being ‘minor with no significant release of effluent’. However the entire river walk some 100m long was full to knee deep with discharge? Please can you clarify SWW definitions of the levels of discharge. 

4) Have the uprated pumps installed in Exmouth resulted in more breaches/bursts (due to increased flow rates)? Is this an issue you recognise and is it related to aging infrastructure? If so what specifically are you doing about it? 

5) Is the combined system at its capacity? If not, why are we seeing more s pills (consented and unconsented) and what are you doing about this specifically?

 6) In the Water fit document you say that you are working towards no more than 20 permitted discharges per bathing water per year. In 2022 you claimed that good progress had been made in this regard. Why in 2023 was this progress lost? For example, Exmouth had 40 discharges in 2023 vs 19 in 2022. Was this related to 2023 being a ‘wetter’ year and if so are you reviewing your conclusion that progress is ‘being made’ as it seems reliant on the weather? 

7) Why have all EDDC bathing waters exceeded the ‘no more than 20 permitted discharges’target in 2023 (Sandy Bay 21, Exmouth 40, Budleigh 44, Sidmouth 28, Beer 32, Seaton 31). What specifically are you doing to reduce discharges at our beaches going forward? Will SWW be subject to any punitive measures for breaching this target?

 8) In regard of the updates issued by Beach Live/Water Fit what does it actually mean when an Event Duration Monitoring sensor is put in maintenance status? Given that many of these occur during the hours of darkness and high tide making it clear no actual maintenance is occurring?

9) SWW state that the discharges from combined sewer outfalls are not sewage but ‘stormwater’. Given that the any discharge from a sewer is by definition ‘sewage’ how do you justify this? Whilst the overflow may be due to storm water, it is mixed with sewage and will pick up contaminants from this. 

10) Can you explain why there have been spikes in E. Coli and Enterococci bacterial load at Exmouth following these ‘discharges of storm water’ ? data here Open WIMS data

11) We are concerned that SWW do not raise concerns with planning applications which will clearly add to wastewater flows within a network which clearly cannot cope. In relation to this: 

a. From previous Scrutiny meetings we understand that there are 12 SWW officers commenting on planning applications that affect SWW assets. What is the process for deciding which applications to comment on? 

b. How does SWW consider the cumulative effect of separate applications on the sewerage system? 

c. How does SWW take this information and plan for infra structure improvements and capacity building? 

d. What are your plans to stop spills and ensure there is capacity in the network for future property growth? Please note: Our Planning Committee have previously asked for information from SWW on connections capacity and network upgrades with no response. 

12) There were over 4000 tanker movements in Exmouth in 2023. Why are you tankering Sludge from Kilmington STW to Maer Lane STW Exmouth, rather than to the STW at Countess Weir which has significantly better road access?

Urinating in public made the headlines this week with the news that at least two men have recently been fined for doing so in the Hertfordshire countryside. Dacorum council and many others class the act as a littering offence.

Clea Skopeliti www.theguardian.com 

A Royal Society for Public Health survey in 2019 found that three in four people in the UK reported a shortage of toilets in their area. A decline in the maintenance of public facilities over the years has left many, including older and disabled people and those with young children, having to plan carefully or being forced to rely on private businesses. It has also significantly affected gig economy workers and people sleeping rough.

Four people explain the impact the reduction in public toilets has had on their wellbeing.

‘Another thing that makes life with chronic illness harder’

Annie, 72, who has multiple sclerosis (MS) and related bladder problems, said the availability of accessible public facilities had worsened over the years in her area. “I used to know the location of pretty much every public toilet in Bolton town centre, but these are now fewer and not always easy to access,” she said, explaining she has mobility problems.

Annie has an MS card, which gives her access to hospitality venues’ facilities, and a Radar key to open locked public loos. “The M&S in the town centre, which was so handy, shut last year. It’s been an issue since well before the pandemic,” she said. Things may be changing, however, after Bolton council last year announced a £225,000 scheme to create more disabled toilets.

Progressive MS and concerns about accessing facilities mean Annie has moved much of her social life online to Zoom. “I plan fewer outings than I might otherwise do, and it limits where I can go. If I’m not going to have access to a toilet, I try to be home within an hour. Sometimes this proves too long, leading to ‘accidents’ which can be embarrassing and uncomfortable.”

She said she limits fluid intake if she has to go out for longer than an hour. “The lack of public toilets is just one more thing that makes life with a chronic illness harder than it needs to be.”

‘Children need the toilet very frequently’

For those with young children, a lack of public toilets can make planning a day out unnecessarily complicated. John Zhang, 40, said his visits into the central London with his partner and five-year-old daughter had become less frequent due to this. “It’s hard to find toilets, unless we pay £3.95 each for coffees or go to museums. I have to plan ahead where to take my child – children need to go to the toilet very frequently, they can’t hold it. And sometimes in small cafes, there’s not always a toilet [for customers]. It takes away the enjoyment of visiting.”

Zhang, a tour operator, has noticed this decline over the past decade, and believes it negatively affects tourism. “You see more people just peeing in the streets now – it’s not good for the city’s economy and small businesses. Tourists complain that they can’t find toilets. Sometimes, when there are public toilets, you have to use coins to pay – [but] not so many people carry cash and they often don’t give change. It’s not nice to see people peeing in the street, and if you gave them a choice they wouldn’t.”

‘It is a source of anxiety going anywhere new’

A shortage of facilities means Bob, 70, can struggle with going to unfamiliar places. “Like many men of my age, I have an enlarged prostate, meaning I need to urinate frequently and often at short notice. You need to have a constantly updated mental map of public toilets, which is possible for my local area but it is a source of anxiety going anywhere new.”

Bob, who is retired in East Sussex, said it had been a problem for years, including in Norwich and London, where he previously lived. “There aren’t enough public toilets where I live – many have been closed in recent years and not replaced.”

He sees the issue as part of a wider trend towards privatisation of public spaces and facilities. “I am concerned that the trend to close public toilets and rely on access to commercial facilities will continue until the very idea of ‘free’ public services disappears.”

‘There is evidence of soiling in public areas’

Others pointed to the degradation of the environment and their local area. Elspeth, a retired teacher in mid Wales, said she worried that local councils could close some toilets in the national parks where she enjoys spending time, with public health implications.

“There are still some public toilets in Pembrokeshire and the Brecon Beacons. [In places] where there are no toilets there is evidence of soiling within car parks and nearby hedgerows, which is revolting and unsafe,” Elspeth said. In Wales, the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 requires each local authority to produce a local toilet strategy.

Elspeth drew a comparison with New Zealand, following a visit there. “I have been astounded by [their] quality and quantity of public toilets, even in the most remote locations. This investment in a public need has meant their countryside has remained pristine. Their toilets put us to shame.”