I'd like opinions on some interpretation of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regs. How many staff can you have in a workplace that has a ladies toilet containing just the one toilet plus one washbasin, a gents that has one toilet, two urinals and one washbasin, and a unisex disabled toilet (one toilet plus one washbasin). If the disabled toilet is not counted (ie, is not for use by the non-disabled), to the ACOP you'd be limited to five women and 15 men, but if it's shared you can advance a case for lots more - up to 25 women, arguably up to 45 men, and up to 50 total. (Top save digging in the ACOP: http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/toilets.htm ) The company wants to put 30 people in there, of unspecified balance of sexes (but typically the workforce is about 25% female), facility provision for 25 women / 25 men / 35 total would be reasonable, I think.

Chris Packham makes a very valid about pattern of use. A classic example exists in schools where teachers, by the nature of their work with pupil classes which cannot be left unattended, are limited to using toilets during morning, lunchtime and afternoon (if any) breaks. The situation is less fraught in nursery schools and some primary schools which have classes with more than one adult present, e.g. a teacher and a classroom assistant. Even so, it seems that such adults prefer not to break off from teaching or assisting with pupils unless they are desperate to go to the toilet. For many decades female teachers have greatly outnumbered male teachers in primary schools. Therefore, I thought it strange that the buildings of most of the primary schools I used to work with tended to have equal numbers of toilets for men and women. Over many years it seemed that architects who designed primary school buildings were unaware of the normal teacher gender ratios and didn't get/want feedback about their designs from people who worked in their creations, or perhaps such people tended to think there was no point complaining about poor design aspects and simply tolerated them as best they could. The situation in primary schools tended to become exacerbated as they got more support staff, notably classroom assistants and usually female. As a result, in primary schools with inadequate toilet provision and large numbers of predominantly female employees, such employees will use any toilets they can find during break times, including those signed as being for men or disabled persons!

What is the problem with able bodied employees using disabled toilets? Surely it means the facilities especially the water outlets get used thus reducing the Legionella risk, and ensuring the facilities are in good working order. I feel much the same about public disabled facilities they should be available for everyone to keep them in good working order. OK so very occasionally a disabled person might find a toilet occupied by an able bodied person but what is the problem with that if it means the facilities are functioning well?

Just in case anyone misperceived my concluding comments at #3 as inferring that disabled toilets should not be used by people who are not disabled, I fully agree with the points made by Graham at #5 for all the reasons he gave. Also, as an aside to this thread, Chris Packham's comments about hand washing prompts me to lament from casual observations over the years (in both workplace and public type facilities) that a significant proportion of men do not bother to wash their hands at all after using toilets. (This especially includes men who have come out of WC cubicles at male facilities where urinals are available. This sad fact underpins the standard semi-jokey advice against taking complementary peanuts from bowls in public bars, etc., because it's quite possible that those who invariably touch the peanuts in such bowls while helping themselves will include people who do not bother washing hands after using toilets! To help avoid confusion about multiple Grahams on this thread I'll sign myself off as Graham B.

My take on this would be: Gents One toilet two urinals means up to 15 men. Ladies One toilet means up to 5 women. The shared disabled facility will add another 5 people of either gender. This is however guidance and not compulsory. We’re pushing our landlord to provide more facilities. We have two unisex toilets, one on each floor with a hand basin in each. But we have 27 people mixed male and female. There are other companies on the premises so I’m pushing for another unisex toilet. But obviously there’s pushback since we can use the building next door (across and outside courtyard). And I just know someone’s going to say guidance, guidance, guidance - we don’t have to do anything. But like too much HnS it’s a matter of opinion as to what is required. Graham W

That would be the most onerous possible interpretation. I agree it can't be worse than that, but I think it should be better. Setting aside the disabled aspect, this interpretation says that 1xM 1xF 1xU accommodates 25 (as set out above). However, if you take the unisex label off the door and substitute a female label, you are not making more toilets available to anyone of either sex, you are reducing the toilets available to some people, yet suddenly you can accommodate 40 people. So making fewer toilets available to some people allows more people in the building. However, it is clearly a matter of opinion. Mostly I think that's a strength in our H&S statute (you can examine the actual situation and make a nuanced judgement), but sometimes it would be easier if there were hard-and-fast rules for every situation.

WE should be aware however that the building was issued with building regs approval with a Disabled9 should read accessible nowadays) toilet that was intended for sole use. Changes like this tend to leave one open to discrimination claims. The standard is "Not significantly more difficult" NOT equal.

Its not unusual to find some disabled toilets locked. Quite common at a certain large supermarket I sometimes visit. Some require a radar key. If you don't have a radar key do you have to go to the customer service counter and prove your disabled before they allow you to use them? :/

Pure lunacy. I want a Lamborghini but don't have one. But that's no reason to ban other people from having one.

David Even your flip comment might be regarded by some as discriminatory. This thread is not strictly an H&S issue but one of equality. All too often it seems the easy solution is to disregard the need of the disabled simply to cure an H&S issue. Managers love the idea of simply doubling up as it readily solves a cash issue. I do not personally want a disabled toilet I simply need one so your sports car analogy bites the dust. Can anyone explain why the able bodied should have toilets when the disabled do not???

I stand by my comment. Why insist ALL toilets are closed. Total over reaction and doesn't solve the problem. Instead probably creates more. Well done.

They aren't that expensive, if you're willing to travel (much more common on the continent than in the UK) - http://www.mascus.co.uk/...hini-955dt/pdyoujuj.html for example, running order and under £10k.

I thought they only had to make aresonable adjustment and maybe it wasn,t reasonable. I don't think getting the toilets shut down is worthy of a boast. You could of got support and pertitions and got the shop to change it's mind. But then again if some can't have why should others, childish view in my opinion for people who think that way. I think ablebodied should be allowed to use a disbled toilet, unless there really is something special about them. Now if you were talking about a hotel room I don't think they should put ablebodied in rooms for wheelchair users!