EARLIER this year, a national survey claimed to have identified the “30 things that make Britons most angry.”

No-one should have been too surprised, perhaps, to find that “queue-jumping” topped the list. It is, after all, something of a national obsession.

Also in the top ten were bad drivers, home sales calls, rude shop staff, people who don’t cover their mouth when they cough, screaming at children in public, eating with your mouth open, talking loudly on the phone, traffic jams and middle-lane-hoggers on the motorway.

Missing from the entire list, though, was one topic which is guaranteed to anger almost everyone at some time or another: the lack of a public toilet when you need one. There was a slight nod to it, at number 25, with “running out of loo roll” but its absence was a shocking omission if the letters pages of local newspapers up and down the UK is anything to go by.

Take this example from the Telegraph & Argus, submitted by a reader from Wrose: “The proposed closure of the public toilets in Bingley town centre shows a complete disregard for the requirements of public comfort and decency. This ‘I’m all right, Jack’ attitude is an arrogant disregard of a public need.”

Or this, from our website: “Do they not realise that every cancellation or withdrawal of these civilised assets renders Bradford a less attractive and welcoming place to visit or live in.”

Public toilet closures are variously described as “disgusting”, “criminal”, “indecent” and “an attack on our basic human rights.”

And yet they continue to close at an alarming rate.

In May last year, a Freedom of Information request showed that 1,782 facilities had closed in the UK in the previous 10 years, prompting Raymond Martin, of the British Toilet Association (BTA), to say: “It’s about public decency and public dignity - we don’t want people being forced to urinate in the streets.”

The BTA was set up in 1999, to “promote the highest possible standards of hygiene and provision in all “away from home” toilet facilities across the United Kingdom.”

It says providing toilets is about health, well-being, equality and social inclusion: “When any of us are travelling and away from home for an extended time, we will on one or more occasions require the use of a decent, clean toilet.

“There are also an increasing number of specialist user groups, whose lives are adversely affected by the poor state of public toilets across the country. These include people with mental or physical disabilities and their carers; older persons and many focus groups; families with babies or young children, schoolchildren and residents and visitors of all ages who are coping with a range of medical conditions.

“This is a basic human function and we need to have a greater level of adequate provision for everyone and anyone who has a sudden urge to find relief when they are away from their normal residence.

“It’s a problem faced by thousands of people every day, truck, lorry and van drivers, car drivers and that includes taxi and private hire, coach drivers and passengers, emergency services and transient workers.”

It’s a stance reinforced by Age UK, who say: “‘Worrying about being caught short or facing the indignity of having an accident in public can have a devastating impact on people in later life, resulting in many feeling increasingly stuck at home and cut off from the rest of society.”

Failure to get to or use a toilet when we need to can also lead to serious health problems, it is claimed.

Dr Clare Walton, of the Stroke Association, told a national newspaper: “There is no research to suggest that holding a full bladder can directly increase your risk of stroke.

“However, not being able to empty your bladder could potentially cause a temporary increase in blood pressure which could put some individuals at risk of stroke.”

None of which seems to make much impact on cash-strapped local authorities. If anything, public toilet closures are accelerating.

Last December, Bradford Council announced plans to close seven public conveniences across the district, in Saltaire, Bingley, Baildon, in both Brook Street and Riverside in Ilkley, and in both Central Park and near the Bronte Parsonage in Haworth.

The closures would save £144,600 in annual running costs.

There was particular anger in Bingley, where the public toilets are barely 10 years old, having had £150,000 of public money spent on building new ones and where, just two years ago, almost 2,000 local people signed a petition against a previous threatened closure.

That anger is more than matched in Haworth, where there are fears the closures could have a huge impact on tourism.

Gill Hill, chairman of the Friends of Haworth Central Park, said: “I think it’s disgusting. In this day and age, when you go abroad, there are public toilets all over the place. In the name of decency why can’t England have them as well?”

Last week, it was revealed that the Bronte Parsonage is considering building its own toilets but they would only be available for museum visitors.

Which still leaves the issue of where will the tens of thousands of annual visitors to the public toilets go if they close?

One answer could be the proposal being put forward by Ilkley Parish Council, which says the town’s two facilities cost nearly £45,000 per year to run.

Its scheme will go before Bradford Council next month. If approved, it will see the Parish Council – which increased its precept by 39 per cent this year – picking up most of the tab for the provision.

That model, perhaps combined with a sensible fee for each usage, is likely to be the way ahead.

Surely, we’d all be willing to spend an extra pound or so on our town or parish council services if it means we can spend a penny when we need to?

Even if it also means replacing “lack of public loos” with “increasing local taxes” on the list of things which make us see red….