Hello thank you. I have become an expert on the health and safety implications of door gaps after researching why they are disappearing for several years now!
This is a very long post where I am trying to condense a lot of information and reasoning (that I have mentioned a lot in the past to others) because you said the leisure centre was signposted to this thread. Apologies if I have repeated anything.
I will say I want everyone to be safe. The most vulnerable could be any of us (regardless of sex, gender etc) having a medical emergency. Women and children are more at risk of assaults in private spaces in public areas.
As to what happened when, Document T is based on British Standards BS6465 that have been round for a long time and are updated periodically. They or parts are due for renewal soon. There are 4 parts to it and I believe part 1 covers swimming pools. However, the British Standards cost a lot of money to buy and are normally only accessed by people such as architects. I haven’t got access to the Standards and all their versions. The info I posted upthread about gaps in from the standards at the critical time they were writing the 1992 Health and Safety legislation. I doubt anyone had a thought that the ‘woman’ definition would be contested or that everyone would be carrying a slim phone video camera in their hand at that time. The thing is, the reasons for the gap design to keep people safe and healthy hasn’t changed.
I think it was because toilet provision was becoming an ‘anything goes’ in terms of design in lots of venues that hadn’t followed standards, that the previous government decided to make the design requirements free and very accessible and put Doc T in the public realm. People were relying on venue toilets as government public toilet provision has all but disappeared.
I have researched Doc T consultations and analysis for why the detail about gaps being a health and safety measure was not mentioned. The gaps were not only not discussed as a positive, they were being discouraged for people with long term health conditions. I did not expect to find this result. This was due to a Stonewall campaign targeting private gender neutral toilets and transgender safety (based on a 2018 report where the worst thing that was detailed was two women pushing a man out of the ladies after he did not want to leave when told to) and designers who were on Stonewalls diversity award scheme prioritising transgender topics rather than focusing on their remit of looking at people with longterm health conditions. Most of the long term health conditions weren’t even mentioned. Their ‘evidence’ was that enclosed toilets were better because that was the preference of transgender people in New York nightclubs. This is all facts. I am not being controversial here - I can back this all up as the documents and government analysis are on the internet. My comments (about saving a strangers life due to a door gap) and my experience as a teacher, seeing seizures and hypos were ignored. So was a charity that wrote in. I have no idea if others said the same as I can only go on what I know personally regarding inputs. The consultation was so skewed it appeared that only 3% supported disabled facilities because most of the responses were mentioning transgender concerns.
When researching cardiac arrests and lamenting no one was collecting data, I saw a correlation between private design and assaults. Rapes and sexual assaults are more likely to happen in places where the perpetrator can’t be seen to be stopped. Disabled toilets (mixed sexed, private, enough space) were often a place to be ‘misused’ for consensual and non-consensual sex. For example, in a three year study, it was found there was one rape reported per school day in British school premises. This was a report compiled by the BBC in 2016 which was discussed in Parliament. Annoyingly the locations weren’t known. The examples I found were in a school store cupboard and disabled toilets.
I have written to the Health and Safety Executive and they have confirmed single sex facilities are the only ones that can have door gaps. They have said this is single sex designs C and D. Universal designs A and B (mixed sex, enclosed, sink inside) cannot. I have discussed with them the fact that they didn’t specifically mention door gaps for health and safety and that they should mention universal designs should have gaps if they are used in a single sex area. They acknowledge my concerns.
Document T does specify that universal toilets are sound resistant, private, have a safety lock that can be opened easily from the outside and the door swing can be altered to swing outwards in the event of someone collapsing by the door (this happened to us, we lifted someone over the door to enable them to drag the young woman away from the inward opening door). Without a door gap, people end up being in toilets, sometimes for days, without anyone noticing because the door safety features that are mentioned in Document T can end up being retrospective and not safeguarding or prevention.
I have done a lot of research into secondary school design (not covered under DocT). A common theme is private designs are misused for sex, drugs and are vandalised. This is more so if it’s unisex (commonly referred to as gender neutral). Hidden cameras are being used. Girls are avoiding using toilets (Tbf this has always been the case). Tragically, there have been secondary school children who have died in these private designs in the U.K. - I cannot say if the design was a contributing factor to a delay in cpr.
In contrast, for years in school design specifications, the designated private unisex toilet was by the entrance near the reception where it could be noticed who was going in and out. Mixed sex toilets require a lot more supervision. I also note OP you’re a teacher too. Checking who is in toilet blocks for fire drills is so much easier when there’s door gaps and you are being timed. If there are major changes to provision, the fire service do need to inspect.
I note you’ve said people are avoiding one swimming pool and going to another with single sex provision. This is in keeping with what I find. Even females that don’t want to use women’s toilets, then complain about feeling unsafe in both unisex and men’s toilets and that they less clean. The trend is men who don’t want to use men’s toilets more often want to use women’s toilets, not unisex. It is scientifically proven there are the most pathogens in unisex toilets in uk hospitals, the least in female toilets.
With my campaign I am arguing it is a reasonable adjustment for those with medical health concerns, to have a gap for health and safety. There are millions of people it this country with heart conditions, diabetes, epilepsy, asthma etc. who are more at risk. There’s a stroke every 5 mins and a heart attack every five minutes in this country. Likewise women and children are more affected by serious sexual assaults so need design that prevents adverse things happening in a cubicle. Practically, for the above, that’s a simple door gap. Practically, that means single sex design as the default with a single sex area in front of the cubicles. The exceptions are for young children and cleaners (as has always been the case).
If you want links to anything I have discussed, I can supply. I also use this diagram which illustrates some of what I have been saying much more succinctly!
For what happens with mixed sex toilets (with gaps), the WRN did some good images you could use too:
https://www.womensrights.network/school-toilets