Posted By Garry Mcglaid We are currently upgrading new premises we have leased, some substantial changes are being carried out to the design. In our initial design drawings we have a single disabled toilet offset from the main corridor. It has now been suggested that the original shower room should be moved to within the disabled toilet. I think we would have an issue with not having a designated disabled toilet only, i.e disabled visitors or staff not having total access to the amenities and also issues with wet floors etc Some thoughts would be appreciated as i am not comfortable with this suggestion, but as yet have not found the relevent documents to back up my concerns Regards Garry

Posted By TBC Just how many disabled employees do you have? I've worked for many companies who think the disabled toilets are 'only' for disabled people. When others are waiting to use the toilet the disabled one is standing empty - I always find them better to use more space and usually a built in sink as well. I can remember coming out to find a guy in a wheelchair waiting to go in - he looked at me as if to say what are doing in my toilet, I just held the door open for him. He was the only disabled person in the building at the time - what was the chances of that eh! - him going to take a leak at the same time as me. Yeah fit the shower if it's the best solution.

Posted By Terence Salmon Have a look on this website: www.accesscode.info/buildings/6.htm Interestingly enough, the guide says we ought to refer to them as "accessible" cubicles- disabled toilets are those that are broken.

Posted By Robert K Lewis I have maintained a silence oveer this for a time but I think we need a reality check on this. I place this idea in the same category as lets put the baby changing in the disabled toilets. I will suggest that both amount to indirect discrimination as the only group adversely affected are the disabled. Disabled facilities are not simply to be used when no disabled persons are in sight - they are there because the disabled have specific needs that normally abled persons (hate that phrase!!) do not have. Why should these facilities be in the disabled would they not be better in either the male or female facilities. If a member of the opposite sex requires them the toilets can be closed off to their intended users. No doubt there are now cries of anguish but why is this different to misuse of disabled facilities? Bob

Posted By Juan Carlos Arias I think the answer would depend in the specific circumstances. I used to work for a company of 300+ employees, none disable, we where growing fast and the same suggestion was made (put a shower together with the disable toilet). we didn't have much room for expansion and i backed up the idea, which would increase our cubicles in the main toilet, therefore improving the welfare of the employees. why would you not make use of the space available to you? this toilet had not been used for months maybe even years and the shower would not be used constantly either. The modification didn't happen at the end (for other reasons) but I did not think there was anything wrong with the idea. If it had happened I would have made sure disable people had priority over the facility.

Posted By CFT Garry To respond to your OP, we have in one substantially sized building, extremely large disabled facilities on each floor (4 floors) all the facilities in each are designed to assist a range of disabilities not the first couple that spring to everyone's mind. In addition, a shower area is installed in each and again initially, (b4 my time) was in a wet room style ( clearly not designed by the sharpest chisel in the toolbox?) this created a major hazard for disabled persons who walked with the aid of sticks (non slip wet surfaces don't work well with crutches or sticks) added to this I just found the entire set up completely unacceptable to the disabled persons using the lavatory area within the wet room; it wasn’t great for the non-disabled either. After some thought I created a split area which now permits showers by everyone, not just the non disabled and does not shut off the room if a disabled person wishes to use the WC (having a lift and suggesting the floor above or below is not a solution in my mind). Perhaps a quick stand back and a re-think may be the right course of action for now, better to get it right now if you can; that way you don't create hazards and don't discriminate against anyone. You can contact me off piste if you wish. All the best CFT

Posted By Robert K Lewis Not to say a quick viosit from me and a complaint to the Equality Commission:-) :-) Bob:-)

Posted By Garry Mcglaid Fair comment Kieran, If the proposal had not been rejected at site project level, then i would have raised the issue at senior level and questioned our own policies. However, as i am pleased to say, at was resolved quite sensibly at site level. Regards Garry

Posted By TBC You've got to remember that a toilet adjusted for use by disabled people is still a toilet for general use. Able bodied still may have needs that require access in a hurry also and if others are occupied - needs must! If the toilet doesn't get used it turns into a storage cupboard for cleaning gear and a the pipes a possible breeding ground for Legonella.

Posted By CFT Peter With more respect for you than I can shake a stick at :-) I don't agree. The very issue brought to the forum by the OP has huge workplace safety implications;(my own earlier response not withstanding). DDA & H&S so frequently intermingle and in this thread I can see potential workplace safety hazards being created if Garry continued; fortunately he has stated he is not going down 'that' route and is now looking at alternatives. I don't believe the thread was ever intended to not discuss the workplace safety implications relating to the original project proposal. With respect. CFT

Posted By TBC Don't know what you are Crim - suggest you read who puts what on the site more carefully. Enjoy!

Posted By Crim I apologise to CFT as I have my abbs mixed up. My responses are directed toward TBC. Why don't people use their names as it would make my life easier?

Posted By IOSH Moderator All Please do remember our forums are for the purpose of workplace health and safety related discussion, and whilst we are quite happy to allow some latitude in this thread, we would ask you to ensure it stays within the accepted forum Approved Use Guidelines. Please continue. Mike IOSH Moderator

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Professionally, I'm interested in and committed to 'diversity' as a business resource, in which safe, healthy work environments are vital conditions. This is reinforced by personal experience of actually recovering from a grim respiratory condition that afflicted me for decades, so that my life has been transformed for the better. Naturally, I v. much appreciate the pain of those members of our society (in both senses of the word) obliged to live with impairments. From an optimistic perspective, I also v. much hope that tensions and misunderstandings and possible prejudices apparent in this discussion may stimulate OSH professionals to engage with opportuniities for adding to the calibre of our profession by deepening the quality of research that informs practice and debate about 'disability' and other sources of difference related to safety and health at work.

Posted By safetyamateur "I can remember coming out to find a guy in a wheelchair waiting to go in - he looked at me as if to say what are doing in my toilet, I just held the door open for him. He was the only disabled person in the building at the time - what was the chances of that eh! - him going to take a leak at the same time as me." No, that guy's always there. Weak bladder or something.

Posted By Crim What are the requirements for persons to use a disabled toilet? The answer is not simple as there are many degrees of disability and, as has been mentioned above, some people are incontinent without being classed as disabled. I suppose it is easier to say persons that can use any toilet anywhere any time should not use the disabled toilet. My daughter has to lie on the floor of a public toilet when her needs need to be met. Can you imagine her lying on a floor of most public toilets. Toilets are mostly classed as either female or male. I am often out with my daughter when she needs to go, which toilet should we use - male or female when the disabled toilet is occupied? There is a M&S store near where we live with a bank of single toilets, 3 female, 2 male and 1 disabled. You can guess which one has the largest queue outside - yes the disabled, as there is only 1 and it is quite often used by families due to the extra space inside. The best controlled disabled toilets I have seen are at Goodison Park where there are stewards solely responsible for looking after disabled persons. They are excellent and stand no messing about. If only there were people like them everywhere. Reverse discrimination? How can this be when a disabled person can only use one type of facility when able persons can use any facility but decide to use the one provided for the disabled?