DCC non-committal on introducing more toilets to public areas

Dublin City Council has not committed to installing more public toilets in the city centre after a motion was submitted to a recent North-Central area committee meeting.

Social Democrats councillor for Artane-Whitehall Patricia Roe tabled the motion asking management to install more bathrooms at public spaces.

The motion read: “That this committee agree that there is a need for more public toilets to be provided in our area, particularly in parks and areas where people recreate.

“Firstly, in the short term, could ‘Portaloos’ be provided in our public parks where there are no public facilities available, in particular Albert College Park.

“Secondly, can we look at installing public toilets on a more permanent basis in the above areas.

“Perhaps single ‘automated public convenience’ type could be used where appropriate, and as an example for multiple cubicle plus baby changing area, could I refer to public toilet installed at Duncannon beach, Co Wexford.

“I note that the only budget allocated in the CE’s capital fund, for the coming year, for public toilets are at tea rooms in Merrion Square and Fairview Park tea rooms.

“Installation of public toilets at appropriate public areas should be a recommendation in our new city development plan.”

However, in response, the local authority said that before more public bathrooms are installed, “serious consideration” must be given to their location, design and maintenance requirements.

“Unless such public toilets are suitably located and adequately serviced they can quite quickly become havens for anti-social behaviour and vandalism.

“The Parks Service has experience of such toilets in the past that were unavailable to the public more often than not due to vandalism and damage.

“Portaloos would not be considered as an appropriate interim solution within a public park as their light-weight plastic construction makes them vulnerable to being tipped over or otherwise damaged and to firesetting.

“Such temporary toilets are only really suitable at events or at works sites where they are located behind locked gates.”

The council said that there are longer-term plans for the rejuvenation of Albert College Park in Glasnevin which includes the development of tea-rooms and public toilets.

However, Roe says that the council’s reply is too narrow in its scope.

“The reply, which came from the head of the parks department, referred solely to the provision of public toilets in parks.

“However, my motion, very deliberately, said that public toilets should be provided in parks and in places where people recreate – so Dollymount for example,” said Roe.

Roe also says that concerns around the toilets potentially being a target for anti-social behaviour are not grounds for pursuing their development.

“The parks department, used the “anti-social behaviour” excuse, which, in my opinion, is used far too frequently to shut down discussion on many different types of facilities that councillors suggest, be it public seating or many others.

“It will cause anti-social behaviour is always the go-to answer.”

The council’s claim that Portaloos are not an “appropriate interim solution,” is also being challenged by Roe.

“A Portaloo in the park keepers’ yard, for example, which in Griffith Park is open during park opening hours and locked when the park is closed, would not be vandalised,” she said.

“With regard to Albert College Park, which I specifically mentioned, the comment that “there are longer term proposals to conserve the historic buildings…. and provide a tearoom and toilets’” is just that – a proposal, it is not at developmental stage yet.

“My proposal is to provide somewhere for the public to use now, not in five or six years time.”

Although Roe’s motion was technically passed, the council has not committed to installing any more public bathrooms.

“My motion can be deemed ‘passed’ in that no one spoke against it, but then again being ‘passed’ in this manner doesn’t guarantee that anything in the motion will be acted upon.

“The really frustrating thing is that although two councillors spoke briefly and agreed that more public toilets are needed in our area there was no come back from either of the managers – the area manager and parks manager – so while the motion may have been ‘passed’ according to the records, no replies or timelines were given,” says Roe.