Hi all. I am aware of the number of facilites required by looking at the Workplace (health, safety and Welfare Regs of course. i.e the table shows the number of workers and the number of sanitary conveniences for example: 26 to 50 people at work = 3 water closets and 3 wash stations and so on. BUT in calculating the numbers are disabled toilets included? I cannot see anything in the Regs?

quote=ron hunter]That would be Building Standards and Regulations I guess - which aren't retrospective?

Thanks all. My point really is that when calculating the number of toilets required can we include the disabled facilities coz able staff can use them as well? Les

I personally would not include them as they are technically reserved for a particular group of persons. This specific adherence to fixed minimum numbers realy is an issue at times and designers can be the worst offenders as they seek to minmise spend in areas that they perceive to be relatively unimportant to clients. I am increasingly aware of door openings being built to the absolute minimum for wheelchair access and accessible bays being limited to one only in many places. The latter in spite of the BS stating 5% or 2 whichever is the greater. Some activities place greater needs on the welfare provision and an assessment really needs to be done. Unfortunately once a building is designed and erected it is too late to do anything.

I am not willing to trawl the Welfare Regs, but from memory toilet facilities can be shared between both sexes with an appropriate lockable door; and I don't recall anything in the Equality Act mentioning separation of able and less able people from facilities. So I can't see how a toilet not marked for a specific gender can be denied to any other group of people. Seems daft to think a small cafe might need four toilets based on male, female, male wheelchair user, and female wheelchair user. When counting toilets it is reasonable to include a toilet which is available to use.

The whole point of the relevant part of the Equality Act, and the DDA before it, is to put those with disabilities on an equal footing with those without, not to afford them a special status. The number requirements for toilets can thus include those with adaptations for disability. The nature of such adaptations does not make them unuseable for able-bodied people, and they should not be reserved for those with disabilities, just available for them, unless of course the specific availablity of a toilet was deemed a reasonable adjustment for a particular disabled person or group for a specific reason. That is my understanding of the situation, for what it's worth.

The aim of EA 2010 is to ensure non discrimination both direct and indirect. Making things significantly more difficult for a disabled person than for the able may in fact be indirect discrimination. An example would be those supermarkets who habitually park the wheelchair usable trollies further from the store entrance than other ypes of trolley. Failure to control use of disabled toilets may be interpreted by some as indirect discrimination!! DDA no longer exists Bob

Bob "Failure to control use of disabled toilets may be interpreted by some as indirect discrimination!!" On what do you base your assertion? LB