43,000 Visits, £76,000 Costs and No Review: The Story Behind Nottingham's 50p Toilets

By Lee Odams

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are my own and are written in a personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of the RMT Union or any other organisation unless explicitly stated.

For some time, I have been raising concerns about the charging system at Nottingham City Council's Greyhound Street public conveniences.

As a professional bus driver, Branch Secretary of the Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch of the RMT, and somebody with a long-standing interest in public transport accessibility and public facilities, I wanted to better understand how the system operates, how much it costs, how heavily it is used and whether any assessment has been undertaken of its wider impact.

Following a Freedom of Information request, Nottingham City Council has now provided a detailed response.

The findings are interesting.

A Heavily Used Public Facility

The first thing the figures demonstrate is that the Greyhound Street toilets are far from a little-used facility.

The Council's figures show more than 43,000 recorded entries during 2025 alone.

This underlines the importance of the facility to city centre users, including shoppers, visitors, workers and transport staff.

In an era when many local authorities have reduced or closed public conveniences, Greyhound Street clearly remains an important piece of Nottingham's public infrastructure.

No Assessment of Impact on Bus Drivers or Transport Workers

One of the most surprising findings within the response is what the Council says it does not hold.

The Council confirmed it holds no information specifically relating to bus drivers' use of the facility.

It also confirmed it has undertaken no assessment, either formal or informal, of the impact of the charging system on transport workers or transport services.

This is noteworthy because bus drivers often rely upon public facilities during the course of their duties, particularly where operators do not have dedicated welfare facilities available at route termini.

The issue of toilet access for bus drivers has been debated nationally for many years and has featured in resolutions submitted to the RMT National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers.

Given the importance of welfare facilities to transport workers, it is perhaps surprising that no assessment appears to have been undertaken.

No Review of the Charging System

The Council also confirmed that it holds no review, report or assessment regarding:

The effectiveness of the charging system.
Whether the charge should be increased, reduced or removed.
The introduction of concessions.
The possibility of providing free access.

For a charging scheme that has now operated for a significant period of time, this finding raises legitimate questions about how success is measured and whether any evaluation of outcomes has taken place.

How Was 50p Decided?

Another interesting response concerns the 50p charge itself.

The Council confirmed it does not hold an internal calculation, estimate or model used to determine the charge.

Instead, the Council advised that the charge was considered reasonable when compared with charging arrangements operated by other local authorities.

While benchmarking against other councils is a valid consideration, some may question whether a more detailed assessment would have been beneficial given the importance of public toilet provision within a major city centre.

The Cost of Operating the Facility

The Council disclosed operating costs for the facility during 2025/26, including expenditure on cleaning, utilities, maintenance and security.

The total operating cost was approximately £76,000.

These figures demonstrate that operating public conveniences is not without cost and reinforces the financial challenges councils face when maintaining public services during periods of budget pressure.

However, the figures also raise further questions regarding the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the current charging model.

An Existing Arrangement for Bus Drivers

The response also confirmed that Nottingham City Transport has an arrangement allowing staff access to the facility and that almost £10,000 has been invoiced and paid under that arrangement.

This raises an obvious question.

If the need for toilet access by bus drivers has been recognised sufficiently to justify an arrangement for one operator, has sufficient consideration been given to the wider bus industry, including drivers working for other operators serving Nottingham?

The Council's response suggests no assessment of that wider issue has been undertaken.

Questions That Remain

While the Freedom of Information response answers some important questions, it also raises new ones.

The maintenance costs disclosed by the Council are significant, and users frequently report occasions where barriers appear to be out of service or left open.

Whether these reports reflect isolated incidents or a wider operational issue is not clear from the information provided.

To better understand this, I have submitted a further Freedom of Information request seeking information about:

Vandalism incidents.
Barrier failures.
Maintenance records.
Repair costs.
The number of occasions barriers have been left open or disabled.
Any assessment of whether the charging system represents value for money.

The answers to those questions may help provide a more complete picture of how the system is operating in practice.

Conclusion

Public toilets are often overlooked until people need them.

For bus drivers, older people, disabled passengers, city centre workers and visitors, access to clean and reliable facilities is not a luxury — it is a basic necessity.

The Freedom of Information response provides useful transparency regarding the operation of the Greyhound Street toilets and highlights areas where further scrutiny may be justified.

As further information becomes available, I will continue to follow this issue and report on the findings.

About the Author

Lee Odams is a professional bus driver, Branch Secretary of the Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch of the RMT, and Secretary of the National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers. He writes in a personal capacity on transport policy, bus safety, accessibility, public services and issues affecting transport workers and passengers.

The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of the RMT Union or any other organisation unless explicitly stated.

Search This Blog

Bus Industry Insights – Analysis and Commentary on Bus Safety, Transport Policy and Governance