Unisex toilets earn approval this time

Alex de Vos
Residents and traders have welcomed Torquay’s first unisex toilet block despite community opposition forcing the abandonment of plans for a similar foreshore facility two years ago.
Surf Sight Optical’s Martin Duke said he was thrilled with the shire’s new toilet block, nearing completion in the Gilbert Street shopping centre.
He praised the design feature of “individual, unisex cubicles”.
“I think it looks great and I’m really happy with it,” Mr Duke said.
“No one has expressed concerns about it being unisex.”
Mr Duke considered the facility “safer” than other blocks with separate male and female toilets.
“I’ve got a 10-year-old daughter and it’s a lot easier for me,” the Gilbert Street trader said.
“She’s not walking into an enclosed space on her own and this way I can open the door and check for syringes before she uses the toilet.
“People have the wrong idea – they are single cubicles and have an individual door and hand basin.”
Surf Coast Community and Ratepayers Association’s Spencer Leighton said the group was “quite happy” with the facility.
“I think unisex toilets are okay when they’re not in an isolated location,” Mr Leighton said.
“We’re concerned about unisex toilets in areas like the beach but shopping centres are okay.”
However, Mr Leighton slammed the size of the shared complex.
“We weren’t really happy with the size,” he said.
“The old one was in a dreadful condition but this one doesn’t seem to be much bigger. You’d think they (Surf Coast Shire) would have built one with more cubicles.”
However, Torquay resident Sally McKay said she would feel uncomfortable using the same toilet as men she did not know.
“I don’t like the idea,” she said.
“I wouldn’t feel comfortable about going into the toilet with my kids.”
The Independent reported in 2007 that residents were up in arms over plans for a unisex toilet block on Torquay’s front beach foreshore. Torquay Ratepayers Association pledged to lodge a submission against the toilet block, labelling it an “inappropriate” safety risk.