The decision to provide new public toilets in Shanklin has been branded unlawful by some town councillors.
Shanklin town councillors agreed last month to accept the quote proposed by Danfo to replace the old Chine Bluff toilets, with 13 in favour and 2 against.
The plan would see a block of 2 toilets installed, with baby changing and disabled access facilities. Showers are also proposed for the side of the building.
The pay-to-pee facility would cost 20p a visit.
However, holding its first extraordinary meeting in 17 years, Shanklin Town Council met on Friday (13th August) to discuss whether to rescind the decision.
The meeting was called by councillors Robert May and Stephen Parkes, backed by 3 others, who said they had strong reason to believe the decision-making process was unlawful and improper, according to the town council’s financial regulations.
Speaking at the meeting, Cllr Parkes said he was ensuring the proper due diligence had been taken, so the council was not seen to be spending the public money incorrectly. He said while he was in favour of improving the toilets, ideally, the town council would get 3 separate quotations, following best practices, not just 1, and engage with the public.
Cllr Mike Hailston said there was a process meant to follow. He said:
“When you are spending in excess of £133,000 plus VAT then I think you do have a responsibility to look for the best value, well if you are only getting one quote how can you tell that is the best value? You cannot.”
It was clarified, however, by town mayor, Cllr Chris Quirk, that while it could be done the way councillors suggested, the way the council has operated is also legal. He said:
“Legally we do not have to put the contracts on the tendering website, we are still required to try to get the best value for money.
“There has been a suggestion we have not followed the appropriate regulations. They are both acceptable routes … [the decision is] whether the process we have gone through is appropriate and adequate.”
Following Brexit, financial regulations relating to contracts, tenders and procurements were changed and councils no longer have to follow the processes outlined in EU rules. However, Shanklin’s adopted financial regulations from the National Association of Local Councils had not been updated the regulations since the laws changed.
Cllr Adrian Whittaker said he accepted the regulations had changed but town councils run to their last adopted rules, and for that reason, best practice had not been followed.
Cllr May said he felt for transparency and the best quote for the town, there was no reason the town council could not go over and above what was required by getting more than one quote.
The vote on rescinding the decision fell, with 6 votes in favour but 7 against and 1 abstention.
Never mind the quotes, it should be unlawful to charge for public toilets.
Make me sick the lot of them.
I agree, but for a long time we always had to pay to use them. It’s nothing new. Where do you think the phrase ‘spend a penny’ comes from.
Shanklin in the Buff! I’m on my way.
In my opinion, the council should be doing something with the closed toilets near to the lift; they would get much more use due to their central position. For us older residents, walking to either end of the Esplanade is not possible-much too far to go !!!!
Quote, why not price for job, the quote will only be doubled no doubt when price for completed job.?
More importantly , why not rescind the previously obtained quotation and put out for a proper tender ? Including Danfo. Not forgetting cheapest aint always best. This has NOT been done properly !!!
As Bert says a quote is all well and good what you end up paying is what matters, look at the non floating bridge.
If this figure includes complete reconstruction of the building not just replacement of two stainless steel units costing in the region of £5000 each (Google stainless steel units) then it may be feasible.
Suggest they go for a fixed finished price from at least two companies after all if it was your own money would you get one quote for a job?
Agreed Bert and Rich. When i got quotations for a particular job ,i would make sure all the requirements for that job was met by the suppliers, with no omissions in the specification. Then when accepting a price i would include a limit of liability of the cost in the order ,i.e. no price increase on the original quote Also we would make stage payments to keep an eye on progress, with a 10% retained for the job completion. SIMPLES.
Maybe it’s just me but £133,000 sounds like an awful lot of money for a block of 2 toilets and a shower.
The principles for spending public money are the same regardless of which framework a council signs up to. A contract must be awarded through a process which is transparent, fair and gets good value.
The process on this occasion is transparent – it was awarded to the only company that knew about the opportunity.
It was not fair – noone else had a chance to bid.
It is not good value – without testing the market properly it’s impossible to demonstrate the services are being acquired at a good price.
Without all three elements a council opens itself up to accusations of corruption.