Spotlessly clean, a real credit to the council. | Can get quite busy during peak times. |
Excellent location, right by the lake. | No hand dryers, only paper towels. |
Well-maintained and tidy. | A bit exposed, could benefit from more screening. |
Always stocked with toilet paper and soap. | The 'Sledge!? Is that you!?' comment in the essential information is a bit odd. |
A welcome convenience for visitors to Coburg Lake. | Limited accessibility for those with mobility issues. |
Easily accessible | Men’s toilets were blocked |
Relatively clean | Women’s and handicapped toilets lacked toilet paper |
Quiet | Contact details on website require updating |
Well-stocked |
Very clean | No toilet paper in the cubicle during one visit |
Beautiful surroundings | |
Well-maintained | |
Soap available | |
No complaints |
Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | Saturday | Sunday |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Open 24 hours | Open 24 hours | Open 24 hours | Open 24 hours | Open 24 hours | Open 24 hours | Open 24 hours |
Always open - a huge benefit for travellers and locals alike. | Could use some updating – the facilities feel a bit dated. |
Conveniently located in Parker Reserve. | Sometimes lacks soap or paper towels. |
Generally clean, considering it's a public facility. | Smell can be unpleasant at times. |
Accessible location. | Limited privacy. |
It's a public toilet, which is useful when travelling. | The rating is extremely low, suggesting significant issues. |
Located on Charles Street, Coburg North, it's relatively accessible. | Cleanliness is likely a major concern given the poor rating. |
Provides a basic facility for those in need. | Maintenance appears to be lacking. |
The lack of opening hours information is inconvenient. | |
Could benefit from better signage and accessibility features. |
Conveniently located in Balin Reserve. | Frequently reported as being unavailable or difficult to find. |
Provides a public bathroom option in Coburg North. | A significant and recurring complaint is the lack of toilet paper. |
The overall rating is quite low (2.5 stars), suggesting a generally unsatisfactory experience. | |
Users have expressed frustration regarding its accessibility and reliability. |