Labour council installs squat toilets ‘preferred by international visitors’ in new £1million block and you will have to pay £1 to use them
Cambridge City Council, which is Labour-run, has opened a new £1million public toilet block on Silver Street that includes squat-style flushing toilets, and is charging users £1 per visit. The council says the toilet style suits some international visitors and that the charge funds cleaning, maintenance and staffing while deterring misuse, but the move has drawn criticism from local residents who consider paying for a squat toilet excessive.
The block, opposite Queens' College and near the Mathematical Bridge, replaced a 1980s facility that repeatedly flooded from the adjacent River Cam. Local resident Heather Boyd called the £1 charge "absolutely crazy" and said she would rather have free standard toilets than a "slick" paid facility, while another resident criticised the reintroduction of a pay-per-use fee on social media. Council leader Katie Thornburrow defended the charge as common practice in tourist destinations, noting Cambridge attracts around eight million visitors a year, or more than 22,000 a day.
- Cambridge council installs £1 squat toilets near Queens' College
- New £1million block replaces flood-prone 1980s facility
- Residents call the £1 charge "crazy"; council defends it as standard practice
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters could argue that a public facility in central Cambridge should serve the wide range of people who visit and study there, including those accustomed to squat toilets and who may find them more hygienic or accessible in practice. They may also say that a modest £1 charge can help fund cleaning, maintenance and security, protecting a costly public asset from misuse and keeping it usable for everyone.
The case against
Critics could argue that spending £1 million on public toilets, then charging people to use them, is hard to justify when toilets are a basic public necessity and fees may deter people with little money. They may question whether three specialist toilets represent the best use of limited council funds, particularly if the design and cost were not clearly explained or if more conventional facilities could have met local need more cheaply.