Sir – Your report on toilet refurbishment (September 6) says that fresh flowers, books and newspapers will greet convenience visitors; but, for the foreseeable future, many will be greeted with a closed notice and a telephone number.

Councillor John Tanner realises that the public value their toilets and that it is his job to see that they stay open, but makes no protest over the ones that have been closed. The cost of supplying newspapers and flowers to the refurbished loos will reduce even further the chance of others being reopened or improved. The Market Street and Gloucester Green ones are said to be next in line for refurbishing; but they are in an acceptable state. Florence Park toilets are being improved; but those serving Hinksey Park remain closed for half the year. Your report refers to a council policy on toilets and a survey having been made to show what the public expect from this service. Are either of these documents generally available so that the public can make their own observations and draw their own deductions from the evidence they present? Letters in the press have suggested that, above all, there is a demand for the closed loos to be re-opened. In order to carry out what appears to be his own somewhat whimsical policy, Mr Tanner has assumed the power to appoint a journalist to the unconstitutional post of “city toilet tsar” in order to promote his ideas, using information supplied by Mr Tanner himself. But we hear nothing from the elected representatives, even of those wards where the toilets have been closed.

Does the executive boards system exclude decisions of boards (quorums of three) being debated by other members of the council; and have public toilets become a party political issue?

Robert Sephton, Abingdon