I HAVE followed with amazement the on-going saga of the closure of public toilets in Bridport.

While supporting Ros Kayes in her attempt to save the East Street toilets, I would like to make the following comments: 1. Bridport has effectively one small toilet block (South Street) to serve the southern, central and eastern sides of town. This represents about a 70 per cent reduction in capacity over the last two years and is barely adequate for the resident population, let alone the influx of tourists.

2. We are now told we must sell the East Street toilets to help pay for the inadequate facilities in South Street. In addition, the council cannot afford to maintain the East Street toilets, even if they are bought back into use. I find this situation unbelievable when our elected representatives on the county and district councils waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on traffic calming measures in West Bay, some of which they now intend to remove.

3. Also they spend a small fortune removing white lines and cats eyes from the coast road which, in the process, causes long-term maintenance problems and is of questionable benefit.

4. Changes to public toilets have lost at least 14 car parking spaces and lost revenue.

May I suggest that our elected representatives try spending our money more wisely and listen to what residents want.

The cost involved with relocating the TIC and the public toilets has been great, has lost car parking spaces and I am yet to speak to anyone who thinks these changes have improved Bridport.

Likewise, I have not spoken to anyone who feels the B3157 is safer after spending large sums of money on changing road markings or the traffic calming at Haddon House in West Bay were well thought out.

Finally, let us hope that further large sums of our money are not spent trying to impose street parking meters on Bridport residents when they are not wanted or needed.

Peter Tobutt Walditch