IT was reported in last week's Malvern Gazette that Malvern Hills District Council plans to close a number of public toilets.

This action will seriously inconvenience (no pun intended!) the many people who suffer from high blood pressure, as one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for hypertension is bendrofluazide, which is a powerful diuretic. I wonder how many of those concerned with the proposed closure of these toilets have to take diuretics or were even aware of this problem which affects many older people?

But apart from this problem, is one public convenience in each area of the town really sufficient? What's going to happen if the one and only toilet in the area is unavailable as a result of vandalism, a not unlikely event?

The toilets in the Victoria Road car park and Edith Walk are described as "rudimentary and not easily modified for disabled access". I have inspected these and they both have stainless steel urinals and wash basins and Edith Walk also has a stainless steel WC and seems quite adequate for their purpose.

They may not easily be modified for disabled access but are the able majority therefore to be denied access to these public conveniences? Visitors expect to find public conveniences in or near a car park. I think that embarking on the closure of public conveniences with the introduction of the new extended drinking hours seems to be just asking for the sort of nuisance that we do not want in Malvern.

KEITH BERRY, Nursery Road, Malvern.