Ian Streets, managing director of About Access, looks at the implications for disabled people of EHCR guidance on gender and loos
Whatever your protected characteristics, it looks as though the queue for your loo is getting longer!
The new draft code of practice from the Equalities & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was never going to enter the room quietly, and the initial release duly brought condemnation for its position that people should use the loo for the gender that they were born into.
The solution proposed by some observers – that premises should pivot to providing purely unisex loos – is also less than ideal for many people.
Somewhere in the background, having only attracted the briefest of references when the issue hit the headlines, are disabled people. They fear that accessible loos could be seen as the overflow, and they are right to be unhappy about the notion.
The EHCR took up the matter following the Supreme Court ruling last year that the definition of a woman under the Equality Act should be based on biological sex.
The code of practice sets out how associations, businesses and services open to the public should organise their facilities.
It covers a wide range of settings from shopping centres and gyms to hospitals and restaurants, and there will be more guidance to come for employers and staff facilities.
The BBC quoted the minister for women and equalities, Bridget Phillipson, as saying the aim of the guidance was to allow people to live free from discrimination and harassment.
The BBC also said the EHCR guidance was that gender neutral toilets or changing rooms should have self-contained lockable areas with floor-to-ceiling walls and wash basins.
It added that the EHCR “did not think such requirements would be too onerous as services could decide to let trans people use toilets for disabled people, for example”.
The situation raises a whole host of questions
Building Regs Part 2 say you should provide single sex loos and after that, if there is space, you can provide unisex loos.
However, an issue there is that some women, and women from some faith groups, will not use a loo that a man has used.
You might end up needing three different types of designated loos: male/female, unisex and accessible. Even then, it’s not clear where that leaves a disabled woman if her faith means she will not use an accessible loo that a man has used.
Mary-Ann Stephenson, chair of the EHRC, suggested to the media: “It would take a lot of the heat out and we might be able to provide some solutions if we could take a bigger step back and say: ‘Lots of us have different needs in terms of accessing toilets.’”
Without wanting to play down the importance of gender and faith considerations, it’s worth noting that accessible loos are – or should be – designed and laid out to accommodate people who have specific physical needs. They should have more space for getting in and out and for manoeuvring mobility aids, whether wheelchairs or sticks. Such facilities as basin, soap, hand drier, paper towels and shelves should be within reach.
In physical terms, it is straightforward for a non-disabled person to use an accessible loo. It may well be impossible for a disabled person to use a non-accessible one.
That’s why it is common sense and courtesy for accessible loos to be prioritised for use by disabled people, even though there are no laws stating that non-disabled people can’t use them.
There will always be occasions when an accessible loo is the nearest and only option for a non-disabled person who is caught short but making them available is not the same as promoting their use as an overflow for a lack of suitable loos elsewhere.
The Guardian reported it had been told that disabled rights campaigners were “watching in horror as the trans community faces similar toilet segregation and exclusion from public spaces that they do”.
The paper also reported that a community advice centre that had extended the use of its single-sex toilets to trans people had been advised to monitor the impact on both trans and disabled people.
Disability Rights UK noted that its RADAR key scheme is “rooted in the understanding that accessible facilities can be the difference between living the lives we deserve – socialising, travelling and working – and complete social exclusion.”
Disabled People Against Cuts said the guidance could mean that disabled and trans people will have to “compete” for access to toilets.
It’s a scenario where disability, gender and faith are rolled into one and is essentially like any other modification. You review the options, test them, check them, approve them, adapt them. But at what point do you think about whether they are accessible?
The BBC quoted Clare Reddington, chief executive of the Watershed arts cinema in Bristol, which in 2024 won an award for its gender-neutral toilets, which won a Loo of the Year award in 2024.
She said: “I would say that designing toilets for everyone is great for business.”
Ian Streets advises public and private sector bodies and businesses on accessibility legislation, issues and best practice.
The post Outcry over plans to use accessible loos as overflow option appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
