Consultation outcome

Toilet provision in buildings other than dwellings

Updated 15 May 2024

Introduction

1. The government published a technical call for evidence on toilet provision for men and women in October 2020. This followed concerns that increasing numbers of publicly accessible toilets were being converted into ‘gender neutral’ facilities with shared waiting and hand-washing facilities, causing safety and privacy concerns especially for women. Women need safe spaces given their biological, health and sanitary needs (for example, women who are menstruating, pregnant or at menopause, may need to use the toilet more often). Women are also likely to feel less comfortable using mixed sex facilities.

2. Government received 17,589 responses to the initial call for evidence, generally calling for greater consideration in the range of toilets and to preserve safety, privacy and dignity for all. 86% of responses cited safety concerns for identified groups of people using toilets. 79% of responses mentioned safety for trans/non-binary people and 75% mentioned safety concerns for women. More than 12,000 responses raised issues with each of the following regarding current provision of toilets: menstruation, family use, disabled use, and medical conditions.

3. Following this, in July 2022, the government announced via written ministerial statement that it aimed to ensure separate toilets for men and women continue to be provided by amending the Building Regulations and publishing new statutory guidance, so that the provision of universal toilets is encouraged where space allows, and where universal toilets are provided, that privacy is ensured.

4. Government also commissioned consultants, Ove Arup Limited (Arup), to research and propose the layout and equipment for new toilets. The purpose of their report was to provide DLUHC with data, layouts and evidence to inform future consideration and policy development work on the design of toilet facilities to meet the requirements (including space requirements) of a range of different users.

5. In July 2022, the government announced its intention to launch a technical consultation on formal changes to the Building Regulations and a new Approved Document.

6. On 13 August 2023 the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published a public consultation on changes to the Building Regulations related to the provision of specific types of toilet accommodation in buildings other than dwellings. The consultation sought views on the draft technical changes to the Building Regulations and statutory guidance in a new Approved Document T (which set out designs for four types of toilet accommodation). The duration covered 8 weeks from 13 August 2023 to 8 October 2023. It was published online at GOV.UK and respondents were encouraged to submit responses through an online survey, or alternatively by email or in writing.

7. The consultation complied with section 120B of the Building Act 1984 to undertake appropriate consultation for proposed changes to the Building Regulations.

8. DLUHC commissioned Ove Arup Limited (Arup) and Jane Simpson Access, to support its analysis of respondents’ views that were received during the consultation. This report sets out a summary of that material and the government’s conclusion and response.

Summary of responses

Interpretation of responses and analysis

9. This report is structured around the questions set out in the consultation document. Each section includes a quantitative analysis of the responses (percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number) and a summary qualitative analysis of the supporting evidence submitted for each question. The question numbers used in this report are consistent with the question numbers in the consultation document. Questions 1 and 2 of the consultation document are not summarised here as they referred to personal data (name and email address).

10. Each question asked the respondent to select either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for their answer. It should be noted that none of the questions received a 100% ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. Any responses which did not select either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ where recorded as ‘not answered’. Alongside this, respondents could provide further written supporting evidence for each answer. Not all respondents provided supporting evidence for each question. Respondents that did select either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ were still able to provide supporting evidence. All responses to each question were analysed for completeness, including those who did not provide a response.

11. Some respondents provided supporting evidence that directly responded to the question and/or provided additional comments relevant to toilet accommodation. Both types of comments were analysed and are summarised in this report for completeness. Some supporting evidence was not relevant to the specific question and was not analysed further. Each question was analysed as a standalone question, with supporting evidence shared for that question only considered in analysis. Some responses which were submitted in writing and not via the online survey were not aligned with the structured questions in the consultation document. These were not included in the statistical analysis but were read and considered.

12. The terms ‘single-sex’ and ‘universal’ are used throughout the question summaries in this report to mean toilet accommodation available to either males or females only and accommodation available to all, respectively. Except for question 14 of the consultation document, which refers to the toilet designs proposed in the draft Approved Document T specifically, many respondents did not refer to the proposed designs for either single-sex or universal toilet accommodation in their supporting evidence. Respondents also referred to toilet accommodation available to all in various ways, including, ‘gender-neutral’, ‘mixed’ and ‘shared’. These responses are included in the analysis as it relates to ‘universal’ toilet accommodation; however, this may not be indicative of respondent preferences for either self-contained or not self- contained toilet accommodation or the proposed toilet designs in the draft Approved Document T.

13. Although not all respondents provided further supporting evidence for all the questions, it should be noted that when supporting evidence was provided, it indicated that respondents had interpreted the policy proposal in different ways. Some respondents answered questions with either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but their supporting evidence made clear they were often trying to make the same points, which were often related to safety and privacy. This qualitative material enabled nuance to be understood and brought clarity to their views, which has been reflected in the government’s development of the policy.

14. Consequently, the insights gathered from the supporting evidence were considered alongside the majority answer (i.e. ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘not answered’). Therefore, statistics for the majority answer are provided below for each question, as well as statistics which represent a breakdown of opinion in the supporting evidence itself. Where respondents expressed more than one point in their supporting evidence, each point was counted separately and is reflected in the analysis of the supporting evidence.

15. It should be noted that some respondents who provided supporting evidence for questions and said single-sex toilets should be provided, or who said universal toilets should be provided, only referred to this type of toilet accommodation, so it was not clear in their supporting evidence whether they also support or do not support the intent for both types of toilet accommodation.

Number and profile of responses

16. In total 1,096 responses were received in response to the public consultation. Responses to the consultation were almost all from individuals, although there were 61 responses from organisations. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the number of individuals who responded verses organisations.

Table 1: Profile of responses to the consultation

Type of response	Number of responses	% of total responses
Individual	1033	94.25
Organisation	61	5.57
Not answered	2	0.18
Total	1,096	100%

17. The consultation received responses from a range of stakeholders. A breakdown showing the types of organisations who responded is recorded in Table 2.

Table 2: Responses by organisational category

Organisational category	Number of responses	% of total responses
Building / Developer	0	0.00
Designer / Engineer / Surveyor	4	0.36
Local Authority	5	0.46
Building Control Approved Inspector	2	0.18
Architect	8	0.73
Access consultant	3	0.27
Occupational therapist	0	0.00
Manufacturer	1	0.09
Insurer	0	0.00
Construction professional	3	0.27
Fire        and        Rescue        Authority
professional	0	0.00
Property       Manager       /       Housing Association / Landlord	4	0.36
Landlord representative organisation	0	0.00
Building Occupier / Resident	16	1.46
Tenant representative organisation	2	0.18
Charity	11	1.00
Estate agent or property marketing specialist	0	0.00
Other interested party	76	6.93
Not answered	961	87.68
Total	1096	100%

18. Tables 1 and 2 summarise answers to questions 3 and 4 from the consultation document.

Proposed new requirement in the Building Regulations (Questions 5 - 13)

19. As part of the consultation and to meet the stated aims the government proposed to add a new requirement to Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010. The requirement which was consulted on was:

Requirement

Requirement	Limits on application
Toilet accommodation T1. Reasonable provision must be made for specific types of toilet accommodation in buildings other than dwellings for use of as: (a) single-sex toilets with either single- sex shared or individual hand- washing facilities, and / or (b) fully enclosed universal toilets.	Limited to buildings other than dwellings. Requirement T1 applies to all toilets which form part of or serve the building. Except en-suite facilities in individual rooms for residential purposes and care homes. Requirement T1 does not apply to Schools as defined in Section 4 of the Education Act 1996. Requirement T1 does not apply to cellular accommodation in custodial facilities.

20. The aim of the proposed new requirement was to ensure that:

• separate single-sex toilet facilities are provided for men and women with signs showing whether they are male or female facilities
• fully enclosed universal toilets are provided where space allows to ensure privacy and safety

21. Most building work being carried out in England must comply with the Building Regulations 2010 which apply when new building work is being undertaken or a building undergoes a material change of use. The proposed requirement is intended to apply to building work, other than those specifically exempted, and material change of use.^{[footnote 1]} The Building Regulations are not retrospective and do not set the standards for existing buildings. The Building Regulations do not direct how buildings should be managed or used.

22. In the consultation, government proposed to exempt schools and cellular accommodation in custodial facilities from T1 because these building types must take into account additional considerations. En-suite facilities in individual rooms for residential purposes and en-suite facilities in residential rooms in care homes function within a suite in a similar way to dwellings, and so were also proposed to be exempted from T1. Some of these proposed exemptions are also covered by existing legislation supported by specialist guidance.^{[footnote 2]}

23. There is currently no existing guidance on signage for universal toilets. However, British Standard BS ISO 7001 provides signage for a unisex toilet.

Question 5 - Do you support the government’s intent to ensure provision of single-sex and/or universal toilet accommodation for building works in buildings other than dwellings?

24. Most respondents supported the government’s intent.

Table 3: Summary of responses to Question 5

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	887	81	651
No	201	18	187
Not answered	8	1	5

25. Of the 843 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 33% stated single-sex toilets should be provided
• 30% stated single-sex and universal toilets should be provided
• 21% stated universal toilets should only be provided in addition to single-sex toilets
• 14% stated only single-sex toilets should be provided

26. Most respondents used their response to state their preference for toilet accommodation provision.

27. For all respondents who said single-sex toilets should be provided or only single-sex toilets should be provided, most said this was for the safety, privacy, dignity, comfort and hygiene of women and girls. Of these respondents, several referred to the different needs and experiences of females as reason for the need for single-sex toilets. Other respondents said users who needed single- sex toilets included: trauma-affected people, people from religious and cultural groups, children, disabled people, people with long-term health conditions, older people, men and boys.

28. Among respondents who said both single-sex toilets and universal toilets should be provided, the primary reason was that it ensures appropriate toilet accommodation for all, as well as ensuring female-only toilet accommodation is not being deprioritised in favour of, and/or converted into, universal toilet accommodation and ensures a safe space for women is available. These reasons were also reflected by those respondents who said that universal toilets should only be provided in addition to single-sex toilets.

29. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: universal toilets should be provided, only universal toilets should be provided, universal accommodation is a more efficient use of space, clarification is needed on the ‘and/or’ component and the government’s intent and proposal is unnecessary and/or not justified by evidence.

Question 6 - Do you agree with the new functional requirement (T1) proposed?

30. Most respondents agreed with the new functional requirement (T1) proposed.

Table 4: Summary of responses to Question 6

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	800	73	373
No	221	20	154
Not answered	75	7	11

31. Of the 538 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 57% stated single-sex toilets should always be provided
• 29% stated universal toilets by themselves should not be provided
• 26% stated ‘and/or’ should class single-sex toilets as the default
• 18% stated universal toilets should only be provided in addition to single- sex toilets
• 10% stated universal toilets should always be provided

32. Most respondents used their response to state their preference for toilet accommodation provision.

33. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: universal toilets being acceptable in smaller buildings (i.e. where there is space for only 1 or 2 toilets), single-sex toilets are not needed, single-sex toilets should only be provided in addition to universal toilets, universal toilets should not be provided, either single-sex or universal toilets would be acceptable, the ‘and/or’ wording should be ‘and’ only, T1 needed further clarification, building owners and occupiers should decide on toilet accommodation, single-sex waiting spaces should be provided, single-sex handwashing facilities should be provided, universal toilets should be accessed from a public space, waiting spaces for universal toilets should be supervised and shared handwashing for universal toilets would be acceptable if open to a public space.

Question 7 - Do you agree with the exemptions included in the new functional requirement (T1) under limits on application?

34. Most respondents agreed with the exemptions included in the new functional requirement (T1) proposed.

Table 5: Summary of responses to Question 7

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	561	51	93
No	248	23	177
Not answered	287	26	12

35. Of the 282 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 36% stated T1 should apply to schools
• 20% stated single-sex toilets should be provided in schools

36. Among respondents who said T1 should apply to schools, reasons included: schools are not following existing guidance for toilet accommodation, existing guidance for schools is unclear or misunderstood, T1 could provide more statutory weight than existing guidance for schools and other parts of the Building Regulations apply to schools. Another reason to agree an exemption for schools, may be inferred by respondent’s preferences for toilet accommodation and their understanding that T1 would guarantee this. Some respondents also commented on the provision of toilet accommodation for teaching staff.

37. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence related to schools included: T1 should apply to all education facilities, an exception for children in schools who require toilet supervision, single-sex and universal toilets should be provided in schools, universal toilets should be provided in schools, either single-sex or universal toilets should be provided in schools, schools should be exempt from T1, schools need to be reminded of existing guidance and/or this guidance needed to be clearer and schools should be exempt only if single-sex toilets are provided or if existing guidance for schools is similar to T1.

38. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence related to custodial facilities included: T1 should apply to cellular accommodation; single- sex toilets should be available, primarily for women’s safety; and universal toilets should be available for LGBT people.

39. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: there should be no exemptions at all, there should only be exemptions if there is existing guidance for those building types, T1 should apply to care homes, hospitals should not be exempt, existing buildings should not be exempt and exemptions should be allowed for the commercial aims of building owners and occupiers.

Question 8 - Do you agree with the new functional requirement (T1) applying to building works and material change of use?

40. Most respondents agreed with the new functional requirement (T1) applying to building works and material change of use.

Table 6: Summary of responses to Question 8

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents
who provided supporting evidence
Yes	611	56	59
No	184	17	92
Not answered	301	27	8

41. 159 respondents provided supporting evidence with their answer.

42. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: existing buildings should be compliant with T1; T1 should not apply to existing buildings where building works and material change of use occur; uncertainty whether T1 would apply to material change of use as some Use Class Orders may be less stringent and diligence may vary between local planning authorities; T1’s application to building works and material change of use will help maintain and/or improve toilet accommodation; T1 is too onerous and restrictive for building owners and occupiers; T1 will be unfeasible in buildings that can only accommodate 1 or 2 toilets or older buildings; additional costs for building owners and occupiers; impractical for smaller development, extensions and conversions; being more challenging to meet sustainability objectives; and may result in the loss of existing universal toilets.

Question 9 - The draft Approved Document notes that educational buildings must meet SPR and ISS regulations. Do you think the following line of guidance from these regulations should be included in the Approved Document: “In schools, separate toilet facilities for boys and girls aged 8 years or over must be provided except where the toilet facility is provided in a room that can be secured from the inside and that is intended for use by one pupil at a time”?

43. Most respondents agreed that the line of guidance from SPR and ISS regulations should be included in the Approved Document.

Table 7: Summary of responses to Question 9

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	668	61	253
No	261	24	208
Not answered	167	15	11

44. Of the 472 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 43% stated single-sex toilets should be provided in schools
• 10% stated universal toilets should be provided in schools

45. Most respondents used their response to state their preference for toilet accommodation provision in schools, with most of these respondents implying disagreement with the line of guidance from the SPR and ISS regulations that allows schools the choice to provide either single-sex or universal toilet accommodation only.

46. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: both single-sex and universal toilets should be available in schools; the age in the line of guidance should be lowered or removed; toilets should be one of the four toilet types in Approved Document T; toilet accommodation should be decided by schools; the line of guidance is necessary to provide clarity for schools; the line of guidance is unnecessary, specifically as guidance for schools exists; additional toilets guidance was needed for schools; accessible toilet accommodation should be provided in schools; and toilet accommodation for teachers and visiting adults is required.

Question 10 – Do you agree with the Secretary of State’s intention for separate single-sex toilet facilities?

47. Most respondents agreed with the intention for separate single-sex toilet facilities.

Table 8: Summary of responses to Question 10

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	890	81	371
No	183	17	122
Not answered	23	2	2

48. Of the 495 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 31% stated single-sex toilets should always be provided

49. Most respondents used their response to state their preference for toilet accommodation provision.

50. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: universal toilets should be the default, with single-sex toilets only in addition; only single-sex toilets should be provided; universal toilets should be provided if there was only room for one or two toilets; single-sex toilet accommodation should include single-sex handwashing facilities and a single-sex waiting space; providing only single-sex toilets would be exclusionary and increase queuing times for women and girls; only universal toilets should be provided; both single-sex and universal toilets should be provided; both single-sex and universal toilets should be provided in larger buildings only; the intention for single-sex toilets as the default needs to be made clear; T1 gives clarity for building owners and occupiers that single-sex toilets should be provided; T1 does not guarantee single-sex toilets as it is written; single-sex toilet provision is impractical for smaller buildings (i.e. where there is space for only 1 or 2 toilets); and building owners and occupiers should decide on toilet accommodation.

Question 11 – Do you agree with the intention to include signs showing facilities are provided for men and women?

51. Most respondents agreed with the intention to include signs showing facilities are provided for men and women.

Table 9: Summary of responses to Question 11

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	895	82	423
No	170	16	111
Not answered	31	3	7

52. Of the 541 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 28% stated signs should refer to sex not gender
• 26% stated signs will provide clarity and minimise confusion

53. Among respondents who said signs should refer to sex and not gender, this was primarily to clarify who toilet accommodation is for. Toilet accommodation is often indicated by pictogram (graphics), commonly understood by people irrespective of language, so that additional text is not necessary.

54. Among respondents who said signs will provide clarity and minimise confusion, users that respondents said may benefit included: people who speak no or little English, different cultural groups, disabled people, older people, and first-time visitors to a building.

55. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: universally recognised symbols should be used for single-sex toilets; text should be included with symbols; signs should be consistent, legible, not abstract nor promote gender stereotypes; signs for men and women will be exclusionary to some users; only universal toilet should be provided; signs should indicate who the facilities are for and the facilities available; signs should indicate the facilities available, not who the facilities are for; signs should be inclusive; and no specific requirements for signs should be included in Approved Document T to maintain flexibility.

Question 12 – Do you agree with the intention to provide universal toilets where space allows?

56. Most respondents agreed with the intention to include universal toilets where space allows.

Table 10: Summary of responses to Question 12

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	901	82	490
No	158	14	121
Not answered	37	3	15

57. Of the 626 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 52% stated universal toilets should be provided only in addition to single- sex toilets

58. Most respondents used their response to state their preference for toilet accommodation provision.

59. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: universal toilets should be provided only in addition to single-sex toilets, except where there is space for only one or two toilets or older buildings with spatial constraints; universal toilets should be provided; universal toilets should be the default; only universal toilets should be provided; single-sex toilets should be the default; the intention of T1 needed to be clarified to indicate single-sex toilets should be the default; universal toilets should not be provided; universal toilets should not be provided, except where there is space for only one or two toilets; universal toilets should open into a communal and open lobby area/waiting space; men and women should not share handwashing facilities; ‘where space allows’ allows choice for building owners and occupiers; ‘where space allows’ is not definitive enough and will not secure universal toilets; ‘where space allows’ implies an unjustified preference for single-sex toilets; ‘where space allows’ should not apply to new builds as universal toilets should be factored in; one universal toilet will be sufficient; extra pressure for on wheelchair-accessible unisex toilets if universal toilets are not provided; building owners and occupiers should be encouraged to provide more universal toilets; and considerations for providing universal toilets, such as additional costs, spatial demands, various building contexts and technical considerations in providing self-contained toilet accommodation.

Question 13

60. Question 13 of the consultation document consisted of three separate questions.

Should more guidance on the signage to be used for universal toilets be provided in ADT?

61. Most respondents agreed more guidance on the signage to be used for universal toilets should be provided in Approved Document T (ADT). There was no option to provide supporting evidence to this specific question.

Table 11: Summary of responses to the first part of Question 13

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses
Yes	590	54
No	186	17
Not answered	320	29

Should ADT refer to BS ISO 7001:2023 symbol PI PF 003 for universal toilets?

62. Of those who selected ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question, most respondents agreed Approved Document T (ADT) should refer to BS ISO 7001:2023 symbol PI PF 003 for universal toilets. There was no option to provide supporting evidence to this specific question.

Table 12: Summary of responses to the second part of Question 13

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses
Yes	408	37
No	129	12
Not answered	562	51

Please specify any other British Standard and/or guidance which may be referred to for universal toilet signage.

63. Respondents were given a free text box to answer this question. Of the 165 respondents who provided supporting evidence for this question:

• 32% suggested alternative signage for universal toilet accommodation to that proposed in draft Approved Document T
• 24% stated clarity as to who would be using facilities was an important factor in signs
• 16% stated guidance for universal toilet signage in the draft Approved Document T was not sufficient
• 10% stated universal toilet signage should be accessible to particular user groups

64. Among respondents who suggested alternative signage for universal toilets, the most popular suggestions included using text to indicate who the toilet is for and using an image of a toilet. Other suggestions included: stating the details of the kind of facilities provided (though others were against this); the use of British Standards, for example, BS 6465-4 in conjunction with BS 8501, Figure A.4 in Annexe A of BS 6465-4, the unisex toilet symbol from BS 8501, and additional symbols from BS ISO 7001:2023 (namely AC 001 and PF 023); an “all-gender” symbol for universal toilet accommodation signage (i.e. that includes 3 typographic symbols and is often used to identify both binary and non-binary / non-conforming gender); the use of a ‘blended’ male and female symbol (though others were against this); an inclusive toilet sign containing a male symbol, a female symbol and a ‘blended’ male and female symbol; internationally recognised ISO standards; toilet signage used in the Netherlands; and guidance developed by the New York City government.

65. Most respondents commented on the guidance in Approved Document T and what signs for universal toilets should look like, rather than specifying alternative guidance.

66. Among respondents who stated guidance for universal toilet signs was not sufficient, reasons included that it was not suitably inclusive of transgender and/or non-binary people, that toilets symbols did not need to indicate sex nor gender and male and female symbols are outdated and/or stereotypical.

67. Among respondents who stated universal toilet signage should be accessible to particular users, users listed included: people unable to read, people who speak no or little English, neurodivergent people, people with dementia, people with learning difficulties, and blind and partially sighted users.

68. Other, less prevalent views regarding universal toilet signs expressed in supporting evidence included: the proposed guidance was sufficient; signs should make clear universal toilets and wheelchair-accessible unisex toilets are distinct; regulating universal toilet signs was unnecessary; and clearer guidance on how PI PF 003, 004 and 005 should be used alongside arrows is needed.

69. Some respondents commented on toilet accommodation signs more broadly in supporting evidence. Less prevalent views included: signs should be consistent; signs should be welcoming to users; wayfinding signs to other types of toilet accommodation should be included next to each type of toilet accommodation; signs should refer to sex not gender; signs should refer to gender not sex; and the universal symbol for disability is widely understood, if disliked by some disabled people.

Proposed new statutory guidance on toilet accommodation (Questions 14 - 16)

70. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities publishes statutory guidance called ‘Approved Documents’ on how to meet the requirements in the Building Regulations for common building situations.

71. The toilet types described in the proposed new statutory guidance in Approved Document T included:

• Type A – Ambulant universal toilet
• Type B – Universal toilet
• Type C – Ambulant single-sex toilet cubicle (not self-contained)
• Type D – Single-sex toilet cubicle (not self-contained)

72. Government proposed that the guidance stated that:

• where universal toilets are provided, they should be either Type A or Type B; and
• where single-sex cubicles are provided they should be either Type C or Type D

73. The proposed guidance allows single-sex toilets Type C and Type D to be designed as Type A or Type B toilets, i.e. fully enclosed toilets sign posted for single-sex use.

74. The proposed guidance refers to BS6465-1 for further guidance on the levels of provision of certain types of toilet facilities in different settings.

75. Approved Document M, Volume 2 recommends the provision of ambulant disabled persons toilet. The proposed new guidance describes the size, layout and equipment of either Type A (ambulant universal toilet) or Type C (ambulant single-sex toilet cubicle - not self-contained).

Question 14

76. Question 14 of the consultation document consisted of five separate questions.

Do you agree with the design of the 4 toilet types proposed in the draft Approved Document T?

77. Of those who selected ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question, most respondents agreed with the design of the 4 toilet types proposed in the draft Approved Document T. There was no option to provide supporting evidence to this specific question.

Table 13: Summary of responses to the first part of Question 14

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses
Yes	536	49
No	165	15
Not answered	395	36

Do you agree with the proposed design of Type A – Ambulant universal toilet?

78. Most respondents agreed with the proposed design of Type A. There was no option to provide supporting evidence to this specific question.

Table 14: Summary of responses to the second part of Question 14

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses
Yes	551	50
No	110	10
Not answered	435	40

Do you agree with the proposed design of Type B – Universal toilet?

79. Of those who selected ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question, most respondents agreed with the proposed design of Type B. There was no option to provide supporting evidence to this specific question.

Table 15: Summary of responses to the third part of Question 14

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses
Yes	535	49
No	119	11
Not answered	442	40

Do you agree with the proposed design of Type C – Ambulant single-sex toilet cubicle (not self-contained)?

80. Of those who selected ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question, most respondents agreed with the proposed design of Type C. There was no option to provide supporting evidence to this specific question.

Table 16: Summary of responses to the fourth part of Question 14

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses
Yes	485	44
No	177	16
Not answered	434	40

Do you agree with the proposed design of Type D – Single-sex toilet cubicle (not self-contained)?

81. Of those who selected ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question, most respondents agreed with the proposed design of Type D. There was no option to provide supporting evidence to this specific question.

Table 17: Summary of responses to the fifth part of Question 14

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses
Yes	487	44
No	179	16
Not answered	430	39

Please provide any additional evidence to support your responses.

82. Respondents were given a free text box to provide supporting evidence regarding question 14. 166 respondents provided supporting evidence for this question.

83. Respondents provided general comments regarding changes for all the toilet designs. Suggested changes involved: disposal bins, shelves, WC pan position, mirrors, clothes hooks, doors, partitions, emergency alarms, accessible sanitaryware, radiators and space and height factors.

84. Respondents also provided comments on the toilet types proposed. These included suggestions for different toilet types regarding the location of handwashing facilities, the design of lobby areas/waiting spaces, the ventilation and extraction requirements, and whether specific toilet types should be self- contained or not.

85. Other, less prevalent views included: specific toilet designs are unnecessary, with only some features needing to be defined; dimensions should be presented as ‘minimum only’; and drawings needed to be updated to include all the equipment shown in the proposed schedule.

Question 15 – Should a specific numeric threshold apply to the 4 toilet types?

86. Most respondents suggested there should be a specific numeric threshold for the 4 toilet types.

Table 18: Summary of responses to Question 15

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	608	55	356
No	257	23	64
Not answered	231	21	26

87. Of the 446 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 39% stated single-sex toilets should be provided where two or more toilets could be provided
• 11% stated more single-sex toilets should be provided for females

88. Among respondents who stated more single-sex toilets should be provided for females, the main reason noted was due to the specific biological and social needs of females and the extra time needed to use toilets. Suggestions for the ratio of female toilets were also included.

89. Other, less prevalent views regarding numeric thresholds expressed in supporting evidence included: single-sex toilets should be provided where three or more toilets could be provided; universal toilets should only be provided where space allows and/or in smaller buildings (i.e. with space for one or two toilets only); at least one universal toilet should be provided where single-sex toilets are provided; at least one universal toilet should be provided where there are 3 or more toilets; only one universal toilet should be provided in all cases; numeric thresholds should only apply to larger buildings; numeric thresholds should only apply to ensure sufficient provision for disabled people; thresholds should be the same as in Approved Document M; a minimum number of single- sex toilets should be provided before universal toilets; for every single-sex toilet, there should be double the number of universal toilets; a minimum percentage of universal toilets should be defined; universal and ambulant universal toilets should be provided on all floors; ambulant toilets should always be provided; an ambulant toilet should be provided where 2 standard toilets are provided; more than 1 ambulant toilet should be provided if space allows; ambulant toilets should be the default provision where only 1 or 2 toilets can be provided; numeric thresholds ensure toilets meet the needs of users; numeric thresholds should be coordinated with BS 6465-1; numeric thresholds will help with standardisation and compliance; numeric thresholds are not practical; there should be flexibility for building owners and occupiers to decide on numbers and provision; there should be no numeric thresholds; and an appropriate methodology for determining numeric thresholds would be needed.

90. Other, less prevalent views were expressed which were not directly related to the question. These included respondent’s preferences for specific types of toilet accommodation in general and references to toilets for disabled people, covered in Approved Document M.

Question 16 – Do you have any specific corrections or editorial comments on the proposed Approved Document T?

91. Most respondents had no specific corrections or editorial comments on the proposed Approved Document T.

Table 19: Summary of responses to Question 16

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses
Yes	49	4
No	710	65
Not answered	337	31

92. Editorial comments ranged from challenges to the overall logic, purpose, and presentation of the draft Approved Document T presented at consultation, to finer points of correction to its text, diagrams, tables, definitions and references. Comments on the clarity of the new requirement were also prevalent.

Transitional arrangements (Question 17)

93. The consultation proposed that the new requirements of T1 will not apply in any case where a building notice or initial notice has been given to, or full plans deposited with, a local authority before the day the new regulations come into force and either the building work to which it relates has started before that day; or is started within the period of 6 months beginning on that day.

Question 17 – Do you agree with the transitional arrangements set out in this consultation?

94. Of those who selected ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question, most respondents agreed with the transitional arrangements.

Table 20: Summary of responses to Question 17

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	482	44	46
No	236	22	166
Not answered	378	34	11

95. Of the 223 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 28% stated T1 should apply retrospectively

96. Among respondents who said T1 should apply retrospectively, some suggested that T1 should apply to plans submitted prior to the day it comes into force. Others said T1 should apply to buildings under construction at the time T1 comes into force. Others suggested T1 should apply to completed buildings.

97. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: support for the proposed transitional arrangements, as they were either fair/reasonable, sufficient, consistent with expectations or pragmatic/sensible; transitional arrangements were important to allow the new requirement to be applied to as many buildings as possible or to mitigate any associated costs; no transitional period should be required at all, one reason being as T1 could be applied relatively cheaply and easily; the proposed transition period was too long; the proposed transition period was too short as developers needed to manage associated costs; T1 should not apply retrospectively; particular types of toilet accommodation should be maintained in buildings during the transitionary period; and developers following the intent of the transitional arrangements is important.

Assessment of Impacts (Questions 18 and 19)

98. The consultation document included high-level cost estimates of the policy being applied to non-domestic buildings, including new builds and material change of use, and a summary of the methodology used to cost these. The government proposed to refine the analysis following the consultation.

99. The consultation document included a summary of assessments of how the proposed policy may impact each of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. The government proposed to complete a full equality impact assessment following the consultation.

Question 18

100. Question 18 of the consultation document consisted of three separate questions.

Do you have any evidence that indicates the average archetype cost is overall too high or too low?

101. Most respondents had no evidence that indicated the average archetype cost was overall too high or too low.

Table 21: Summary of responses to the first part of Question 18

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	35	3	32
No	675	62	33
Not answered	386	35	13

102. Of the 78 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 19% stated any costs to meet T1 should be met and factored into building works

103. Among respondents who stated any costs to meet T1 should be met and factored into building works, reasons for this included: single-sex toilets are needed; all types of toilets are needed; safety reasons; and to meet the needs of women, girls, children and men.

104. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: costs appear reasonable; costs are too high, reasons included greater space requirements for universal toilets and costs outweigh any proposed benefits; costs are too low, specifically for existing buildings; T1 allows only single-sex toilets which are cheaper than universal toilets; costs of providing both single- sex and universal toilets will be outweighed by commercial appeal added to the building; it is difficult to assess costs without being provided with the calculations for each archetype used to provide the figures; and further research and information should be included in the assessment of costs.

105. Other, less prevalent views were expressed which were not directly related to the question. These included concerns of the costs of the requirement in general. Are there any further common new build archetypes that should be added to the analysis following the consultation?

106. Of those who selected ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question, most respondents stated that there were no further common new build archetypes that should be added to the analysis.

Table 22: Summary of responses to the second part of Question 18

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	89	8	85
No	444	41	5
Not answered	563	51	21

107. Of the 111 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 45% stated places of assembly, recreation and entertainment should be added
• 18% stated sport and leisure buildings should be added
• 13% stated hospitals and primary care centres should be added
• 11% stated transport buildings should be added
• 11% stated educational buildings should be added

108. Other, less prevalent views in the supporting evidence expressed that one or more of the following should be added to the analysis: government buildings, retail premises, crematoria and cemetery buildings, public toilets, factories, hairdressers, banks, multi-storey car parks, shelters, a building that requires a large volume of people to pass through toilet accommodation in a short period of time and any building type that meets the requirements for provision of a Changing Places toilet.

Do you have any other thoughts on improvements to methodology or evidence which could be incorporated in the full impact assessment?

109. Of those who selected ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question, most respondents had no further thoughts on improvements to methodology or evidence which could be incorporated in the full impact assessment.

Table 23: Summary of responses to the third part of Question 18

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	85	8	81
No	495	45	8
Not answered	516	47	18

110. Of the 107 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 21% stated evidence of the impact of the proposal on users should be incorporated

111. Among respondents who stated the impact on users should be incorporated, specific users referred to included: LGBT people, women and girls, people from religious and cultural groups, disabled people and parents and guardians.

112. Other, less prevalent views expressed in supporting evidence included: the assessment of the potential impact on building owners and occupiers should be incorporated and a template for building owners and occupiers to conduct their own impact assessment across all protected characteristic groups should be provided.

Question 19 - Do you agree with the impacts presented in our equality impact assessment?

113. Most respondents did not agree with the impacts presented in the equality impact assessment.

Table 24: Summary of responses to Question 19

Response	Number of responses	% of total responses	Number of respondents who provided supporting evidence
Yes	416	38	90
No	583	53	523
Not answered	97	9	18

114. 631 respondents provided supporting evidence with their answer.

115. Responses to question 19 highlighted safety, privacy and dignity concerns from a wide range of protected characteristic groups, including age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, religion, sex and sexual orientation. Responses also included many requests for a specific requirement for universal enclosed toilets, rather than ‘where space allows’ from a wide range of protected characteristic groups, including age (younger and older), disability, gender reassignment, sex (particularly for two people of a different sex requiring use of one toilet) and sexual orientation. Concerns on the increased pressure on the use of accessible toilets for a variety of users, particularly where universal enclosed toilets are not provided, were noted. The impact on disabled people was noted, though the Building Regulations do not direct the use and management of buildings.

116. 250 respondents discussed the importance of single-sex toilets regarding the use and management of toilets. Clear signage of toilets also received overwhelming support and comments from all groups.

117. 163 respondents discussed the types of toilets covered in Approved Document T. Of these:

• 86% commented on the negative implications of not providing universal toilets as a mandatory requirement
• 7% were in favour of providing only universal toilets
• 4% supported the provision of universal toilets before single-sex toilets
• 3% supported the provision of single-sex toilets only

Government response

New requirement in the Building Regulations

118. The consultation responses showed overall support for the government’s proposed policy, to ensure provision of single-sex and/or universal toilet accommodation for building works in buildings other than dwellings. Most respondents agreed with the intent for separate single-sex toilet facilities, as well as the provision of universal toilets where space allows. Additionally, in the supporting evidence itself there was strong support for the provision of single- sex toilets in particular. Most also agreed with the proposed new functional requirement (T1).

119. However, it was evident that respondents had understood T1 in different ways leading to some misunderstanding. Supporting evidence also suggested that the ‘and/or’ phrase in T1 required further clarification to avoid confusion.

120. Taking the above into account, the wording in T1 has been revised to ensure clarity, as well as adding further detail in Approved Document T. The phrase “and/or” has been removed from the T1 requirement responding to concerns over its misinterpretation. The new requirement reads as follows:

Requirement

Requirement

Limits on application

Toilet accommodation T1. (1) Toilet accommodation in buildings other than dwellings— a) must consist of— i. reasonable provision for male and female single-sex toilets, or ii. where space precludes provision of single-sex toilets, universal toilets, and b) may consist of universal toilets in addition to single-sex toilets. (2) In this requirement— “single-sex toilet” means toilet facilities which— a) are intended for the exclusive use of persons of the same sex, and b) provide washbasins and hand-drying facilities in— i. either the toilet room or cubicle, or ii. a separate area intended for use only by persons of that sex. “universal toilet” means toilet facilities which— a) are provided in a fully enclosed room which contains a water closet and washbasin and hand-drying facilities, and b) is intended for individual use by persons of either sex.

Requirement T1 does not apply to— a. en-suite facilities in individual rooms for residential purposes. b. residential rooms in care homes as defined in section 3 of the Care Standards Act 2000. c. schools as defined in section 4 of the Education Act 1996. d. premises, or part of any premises, used wholly or mainly for early years provision within the meaning of section 20 of the Childcare Act 2006 by an early years provider to whom section 40 of the Childcare Act 2006 (duty to implement Early Years Foundation Stage) applies. e. cellular accommodation in custodial facilities.

121. The objective of this requirement is to require toilet accommodation in non- domestic buildings to be separate single-sex toilets, with single-sex shared or individual hand-washing facilities. Universal toilets can be provided in addition to single-sex provision and where space allows. Where there is not sufficient space to provide single-sex toilet facilities, fully enclosed universal toilets should be provided. The original policy intent remains unchanged, but the revised T1 wording provides the clarification of the policy that was required.

122. Most respondents agreed with the proposed exemptions to T1 and so no changes have been made to these exemptions. However, after testing the limits of exemptions to T1 and identifying gaps through the consultation relating to where young children use toilet facilities, an additional exemption for premises used wholly or mainly for early years provision has been added. This followed discussions with the Department for Education. Additionally, some respondents favoured excluding schools from the T1 policy exemption. However, standards for toilet provision in schools are already set out in the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 and the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014, which include making provision for separate toilet facilities for boys and girls aged 8 years or over, except where the toilet facility is provided in a room that can be secured from the inside and that is intended for use by one pupil at a time.

123. Most respondents agreed with T1 applying to building works and material change of use and this will remain the case which aligns with other requirements in the Building Regulations.

124. In question 9, most respondents agreed that the following line should be added to Approved Document T: “in schools, separate toilet facilities for boys and girls aged 8 years or over must be provided except where the toilet facility is provided in a room that can be secured from the inside and that is intended for use by one pupil at a time.” We have not added this line to Approved Document T as this line is not needed following the decision to keep schools exempt from requirement T1. Question 9 was designed to seek further views on how schools should be treated regarding requirement T1.

125. Most respondents agreed with the intention to include signs showing facilities are provided for men and women. Approved Document T continues to state that toilet accommodation should have “clear and appropriate signage at the entrance door to the toilet type.” Most respondents also agreed more guidance on the signage to be used for universal toilets should be provided in Approved Document T and there was strong support for Approved Document T to refer to BS ISO 7001:2023 symbol PI PF 003 for universal toilets. Approved Document T now provides more guidance and continues to state that toilet accommodation should “display clearly an internationally standardised signage symbol for a universal toilet” and that this should be PI PF 003 from BS ISO 7001. Both statements in Approved Document T will provide clarity and minimise confusion for toilet users.

126. Following analysis of the consultation responses, Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 has now been amended by adding a new Part T and the requirement T1. This ensures the safety, privacy and dignity for members of society when using toilets, through the provision of specific types of toilet accommodation, as set out in requirement T1. This meets the government’s original policy goals and aligns with the consultation responses.

New statutory guidance on toilet accommodation

127. Of those who selected ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to question 14, most respondents agreed with the designs of the four toilet types proposed in the draft Approved Document T. In question 16, some respondents also passed on specific corrections or editorial comments regarding the draft Approved Document T.

128. Since the consultation in August 2023, the new Approved Document T has been reworded in parts with greater clarity. There have been changes to enhance and improve the clarity of the guidance and redrafts to remove ambiguity and add definition. Most changes to Approved Document T following the public consultation have been minor technical changes relating to features and fittings, common design principles, critical dimensions, door swings and layouts, use of sanitary appliances and on the spaces in and around toilet pans and washbasins. The only substantive change has been to the wording of requirement T1 and following intention sections. The T1 requirement has removed the words “and/or” responding to concerns over its misinterpretation. It was found that people read and/or in a variety of ways. Minimum dimensions have been added to the tables concerning the four toilet types. The diagrams have had additional keys, dimensions, and labels. The Approved Document T also has more and improved key terms and there is an extra Appendix D: Appliance and equipment schedule. References have been updated and reformatted and the overall document layout standardised to fit the livery and style of the wider suite of statutory guidance supporting the Building Regulations. Two amendment booklets have also been prepared to highlight consequential changes to the two approved documents relating to sanitation and accessibility (Approved Document G and Approved Document M volume 2), where guidance is referenced by Approved Document T guidance. Reflecting on comments from the public consultation has improved the overall content, detail, and layout of the new Approved Document T.

129. Most respondents suggested there should be a specific numeric threshold for the four toilet types. We have decided not to set a numeric threshold for the four toilet types as Part T in Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations does not cover the number of toilets. This allows discretion for building designers and developers and building control to consider the usage patterns for particular buildings. Provision of specific types of toilets still needs to be provided, as per the new requirement. However, more detailed guidance has been provided on page 4 of Approved Document T to support the understanding of requirement T1 with regard to the provision of single-sex and universal toilets: “available space for toilet accommodation will vary from building to building; once reasonable provision is made for single-sex toilet facilities, any remaining space for toilet accommodation can be considered for universal toilet provision.” Additionally, Building Regulations avoid duplicating sources of statutory guidance and Part G already covers sanitation and refers to a further British Standard, BS6465-1 for the scale of provision of sanitary and associated appliances. Approved Document T also refers to British Standard, BS6465-1.

130. The new Approved Document T has now been published alongside the new legislation.

Transitional arrangements

131. Of those who selected ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to question 17, most respondents agreed with the proposed transitional arrangements.

132. The legislation will come into force on 1 October 2024. The new requirement will not apply in any case where a building notice, an initial notice or an application for building control approval with full plans, has been given to the relevant authority in respect of that building before the day the new regulations come into force, 1 October 2024, and either the building work to which it relates is sufficiently progressed before that day, or is sufficiently progressed within the period of six months beginning on that day and ending on 1 April 2025. Once these transitional arrangements have elapsed, all applications will need to conform to the new regulation. The new Approved Document T will take effect in line with the legislative transitional arrangements.

133. The new regulation is subject to the negative parliamentary procedure; the statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 15 May 2024.

134. It is customary for changes to Building Regulations to be accompanied by a transition period to provide clarity to building control bodies and those commissioning, designing and carrying out the building work. It also reduces the risk to developers being impacted by changes to requirements part way through the design and construction process. With these transitional arrangements, we will ensure that projects that already have planning permission can continue without further delay.

Assessment of impacts

135. Since the consultation in August 2023, we have worked with economic and architectural consultants to complete an updated full impact assessment. The impact assessment methodology has been updated to reflect comments on archetypes chosen for the analysis and costs associated with material alterations. The number of archetypes identified and analysed has increased from 18 to 30 and now includes more assembly, recreation and entertainment examples, as well as a hospital and a sports stadium. Additionally, the methodology for calculating costs associated with material alterations has been updated to reflect costs to businesses associated with refurbishments under the £250k threshold for inclusion in the Glenigans dataset. Reflecting on comments from the public consultation, specifically those from question 18, has improved the overall content, analysis, and methodology of the updated impact assessment.

136. The impact analysis demonstrates a modest cost to business with the central scenario indicating a cost of [£40.9 million] over a 10-year appraisal period, and an EANDCB (Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business) of [£4.8 million]. There are several benefits for a range of people; however, these benefits have not been monetised. A full impact assessment has now been published.

137. Since the consultation in August 2023, we have worked with an inclusive designer and access consultant to complete a full equality impact assessment to fulfil the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Reflecting on comments from the public consultation, specifically those from question 19, has improved the overall content, detail, and analysis of the updated equality impact assessment.

138. The equality impact assessment states that the policy has mostly positive impacts overall, but there are some negative impacts on certain protected characteristics where universal toilets are not provided in addition to single-sex toilets. We have adopted some of the potential actions suggested as part of the equality impact assessment to mitigate this. We believe that the policy constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, that is to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of all toilet users. This equality impact assessment has informed the final policy decision. A full equality impact assessment has now been published.

Summary

139. We are grateful to all respondents for taking the time to submit responses to this consultation. All responses have been carefully considered in the development of the new regulation, new Approved Document and this document. This was carried out in consultation with the Building Safety Regulator.

1. Building work is defined in regulation 3 of the Building Regulations 2010 to include new construction, extensions, provision of services or fittings, or material alterations. Material change of use is defined in regulation 5 of the Building Regulations 2010. It states there is a material change of use where there is a change in the purposes for which a building is used, for example the building being used as a shop, where previously it was not. ↩

2. Such as existing standards in schools in the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 (for maintained (local authority) schools) and the Education (Independent Schools Standards) Regulation 2014 (for Academies and independent schools). ↩