Council is asked to demolish Wyong’s Apex Park toilet without saying what happens to the replacement its strategy planned

The recommendation is two lines long: receive the engagement summary, and approve the closure and demolition of the Apex Park public toilet. It is item 6.2 on the agenda for the Ordinary Council meeting at 6.30pm on Tuesday 17 November. Behind it is a request that did not start with the council. The idea came, the report says, from discussions involving the Wyong Business Chamber and correspondence asking the council to consider closing and demolishing the block, over the block’s condition, anti-social behaviour, and its closeness to the neighbouring school site, which Wyong Christian Community School is redeveloping.

There is a deadline attached. The report’s section on critical dates says the school has offered to pay for the demolition, and that Further delay may result in the school’s offer to fund the demolition being withdrawn.

What the strategy said about this toilet

The council’s Public Toilet Strategy, prepared by consultants CM+ and published in its post-adoption revision in January 2026, inspected the block in October 2023. It recorded graffiti, an uneven road surface, and old and outdated fixtures, interiors and exteriors, and gave the building’s age as 53. It did not propose keeping it. Its recommendation was ongoing maintenance until the end of its life, then:

Demolish existing after end of life. Provide new Type A - Local Toilets facing the corner of North Road and Pacific Highway on higher ground above flooding level. Integrate bus stop into the building design.

Central Coast Public Toilet Strategy, January 2026, page 190, entry EW02 (Apex Park Public Toilet, BL0186)

The council’s August report to its Infrastructure and Assets Committee put that replacement in roughly the 2035-36 financial year. The strategy also lists Apex Park among the Wyong area’s accessible public toilets; it counts 11 in that area in all.

The officers now argue the block is worth less than the strategy assumed. Their August recommendation asked the committee to endorse demolition, noting its strategic value is lower than identified in the Public Toilet Strategy considering its age, condition, constrained location and anti-social behaviour, and the opportunity for removal at no direct cost to Council. The report adds two things the strategy did not have. The Wyong Musical Theatre Company, whose nearness earned the toilet some of its demand points, has moved. And Transport for NSW plans place Apex Park inside the project boundary for the proposed Pacific Highway widening, which the officers say may further constrain the site and limit future renewal.

The November report repeats that the strategy identifies the facility for renewal in 2035-36. What none of the three reports says is whether that replacement still stands, moves elsewhere, or is dropped. The August report says only that future service provision may be explored. The November recommendation is demolition alone.

How many people use it

The council put counters in the block from 13 May to 1 July. The average was 51 visits a day in the first fortnight and 49 after that, about 6 or 7 of them to the accessible cubicle. The men’s count is an estimate: when staff collected the counters on 1 July, the report says, the set installed on the men’s toilet had been stolen at some time throughout the period. The officers estimated men’s visits at 1.2 times women’s.

From the utilisation table in item 2.2, Infrastructure and Assets Committee business paper, 11 August 2026, page 25. The four comparison toilets are ones the council says are proposed or approved for demolition under the strategy; the report does not give the dates their counts were taken. Apex Park men’s figures are estimates, as above.

On those numbers Apex Park is busier than any toilet in the comparison except Lions Park, Wyong, which it roughly matches. The council’s argument is that it sits in the same band as toilets it has already decided to remove. Anecdotal feedback from cleaning and security staff, the August report adds, indicates that a significant share of activity at the site is associated with anti-social behaviour.

What residents said

The proposal was on exhibition from 2 September to 14 October. The council letterboxed about 1,500 Wyong homes, put posters in the park and ran a stall at the Wyong Spring Fair. It received 341 submissions: 315 online, 6 by post or email and 20 in person. Of those who filled in the online form, 83% strongly supported demolition and 2% supported it; 8% strongly opposed it and 3% opposed it. The themes the officers list include safety, the school next door, anti-social and substance-related behaviour, access to other toilets, keeping or replacing the facility, and homelessness. On that last point the report calls the issues complex and extending beyond the management of an individual public toilet facility.

Where people would go instead

The November report names one council toilet, in Wyong Town Park, about 650 metres directly south. The August report also listed toilets available for public use at Wyong Village Shopping Centre and Wyong railway station. The school’s executive principal, Darren Milligan, presented to the committee on 13 October, and the November report says it was identified during that presentation that the school’s redevelopment would include a publicly accessible café incorporating an accessible toilet facility, which could also be made available for use by the broader community.

At that same meeting, Cr Jane Smith moved, and Cr Belinda Neal seconded, an amendment that would have asked the council to talk to the school about making public access a condition.A It was lost 3 to 4. The committee instead noted that a report would come to Council after the exhibition, carried 4 to 2.

Exhibit A · from the source

The money

The two reports describe the cost differently. In August the officers wrote that demolition costs would be met externally, that the adopted budget did not include funding and the amount would need to go into a future quarterly budget review, and that the building’s book value at 30 June 2026 was $74,090, to be written down early if it is demolished. They put the possible ongoing saving at up to $19,000 a year. The November report says the proposal has no financial implications for this year or later years of the long-term financial plan, and that the adopted budget includes funding for it. It does not mention the book value. Neither report says how much the demolition itself would cost.

1. October 2023 Strategy consultants inspect the block: demolish at end of life, replace on higher ground at the corner.
2. 13 May to 1 July 2026 Usage counters in place; the men’s set is stolen.
3. 11 August 2026 Committee asks for community input and invites the school to present (IAC-26/43).
4. 25 August 2026 Council adopts that recommendation; consultation goes on Your Voice Our Coast.
5. 2 September to 14 October 2026 Exhibition: 341 submissions.
6. 13 October 2026 The school presents; the public-access amendment is lost 3 to 4.
7. 17 November 2026, 6.30pm Council asked to approve closure and demolition, item 6.2.

Sources: the strategy; the August and November reports; the 25 August and 13 October minutes; the council’s meeting calendar.

Our view

The case for knocking this block down is real. It is old, in poor condition, inside the boundary of a proposed highway widening, and the people who answered the council’s survey wanted it gone by a wide margin. Nobody should be asked to defend a 53-year-old toilet block for its own sake.

But demolishing it and replacing it were one recommendation in the strategy, and the report splits them. Councillors are asked to approve the half that a third party will pay for, quickly, while the half that serves the public has no date, no site and no mention. About 50 visits a day, 6 or 7 of them to an accessible cubicle, on a corner the strategy wanted to pair with a bus stop, is a modest need but a real one, and the strategy itself judged that this corner should keep a toilet. The replacement offered in its place is a cafe toilet the report says could be made available, and the committee chose not to ask for that to be secured. If Council approves demolition on Tuesday, it should say in the same resolution what happens to the strategy’s replacement: rebuilt on this corner after the highway work, sited elsewhere nearby, or deliberately dropped. Any of those is defensible. Leaving it unsaid is not.

We will read the minutes of the 17 November meeting when they are published and report what Council decided, including anything it said about a replacement.