Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling

You've piqued my interest with ' large renovations that require regulatory approval. '

Doc T says that 'the Building Regulations apply to all types of building work as defined in regulation 3 of the Building Regulations.'
But I wasn't able to track down reg 3 of the Building Regs.

I wonder, though, if removing a block of cubicle-based sex segregated toilets, and replacing it with a commensurate number of 'universal' toilets, would be regarded as 'building work'.

If so, not only would newbuilds in England since 2024 have to comply with Doc T, but also existing buildings which had carried out the 'large renovation' of radically altering their toilet facilities.

In other words, by removing the sex segregated toilets and replacing the solely with universal toilets, they would have contravened building regs?🤔

And that's where one of my crack team of avenging angels swoops in and tells them to restore the women's and men's separate facilities pronto..... if they know what's good for them😡

@TheignT This wasn't some random gotcha. I really want to know how these unisex facilities are configured. I would really appreciate a reply.

Puerile? I don't know whether to assume you are sexist, using a (mildly) derogatory word deriving from the Latin for "boy", or that you identify as a boy. 😉

Perhaps there needs to be a Toilet Regulations Compliance Flowchart. With branching pathways for things like

• new build/not; staff use only /staff and public/public use only; single sex/unisex/mixed sex.

Did the Council canvass the views of the public before doing this?

I certainly don't recall being asked.

Meanwhile in the local park the Ladies and Gents have been replaced by two "Unisex loos" and some urinals.

Just, why, why, why? The vast majority of the public, men and women, prefer traditional toilets as we have had throughout the 20th century and beyond. This is nothing to justify these sorts of changes. Did the Council canvass the views of the public before doing this?

Having mixed sex toilets only is not compliant where Doc T of Building Regs applies, i.e. in recent builds in England, which have to have segregated single sex provision in the first place as long as there's enough space, and may have mixed sex toilets in addition, and as an option.

So if my Leisure Centre had been a new build they wouldn't have got away with creating two "unisex" toilets? I suspect that it wouldn't class as a large renovation. The Ladies used to be two cubicles and a wash basin outside the cubicle and then the outer door opening onto the corridor.

I don't know about the Gents - I suspect one cubicle and a couple of urinals.

Meanwhile in the local park the Ladies and Gents have been replaced by two "Unisex loos" and some urinals. I strongly suspect that the majority of users of the park are women and small children. So why the extra provision for men? I doubt if the Town Council even thought that they were being discriminatory.

Having mixed sex toilets only is not compliant where Doc T of Building Regs applies, i.e. in recent builds in England, which have to have segregated single sex provision in the first place as long as there's enough space, and may have mixed sex toilets in addition, and as an option.

There's a subtlety here that may be important.

The building regulations apply to new builds and large renovations that require regulatory approval. They mean that, in time, as physical estate is updated, this will become the norm (unless of course the regulations are changed in the future.)

Meanwhile, regulations aren't retroactive - so if works or changes at a church don't rise to the bar of whatever triggers a requirement for approval, Document T doesn't apply to them.

Good point! The idea that you can just switch the labels on the doors of existing men's and women's toilets and bingo! you have gender neutral facilities is wrong.
As you say, JanesLittleGirl, there are precise specifications for 'universal' toilets, and standard cubicles don't meet those standards.

Just re-badging the women's and men's isn't OK.
Having mixed sex toilets only is not compliant where Doc T of Building Regs applies, i.e. in recent builds in England, which have to have segregated single sex provision in the first place as long as there's enough space, and may have mixed sex toilets in addition, and as an option.

It seems like a lot of organisations and venues are making stuff up as they go along, and it often seems like they go for the arrangement which least suits women - e.g. removing women's toilets rather than men's to replace them with mixed sex ones. Could it be spite??

So much of it sounds completely dodgy from a health and safety/EA/building regs/workplace regs point of view. I would love a crack squad of inspectors to be armed formed to go through the country like avenging angels and sort it all out😠

Can I just check that you are describing properly compliant unisex (universal) toilets? Is each toilet in a separate, fully enclosed room containing a toilet, a wash basin and a hand dryer where each room has door which is lockable from the inside and opens onto a corridor?

Because they aren't mens toilets any more, they are unisex. At least the ones I was talking about it doesn't look like there were ever urinals in the mens toilets.

They still lock up the booze, the collection money and the silverware.

Even the most devout Christians know how to mitigate risk and when to use safeguards when it suits them.

Urinals are practical and effective in men's toilets. Why would anyone want to remove them? Out of spite? And they are nothing to do with the issues for women that this thread is about.

Why? Men are perfectly capable of using a normal toilet, they don't need a urinal. If men actually need urinals why aren't they in the accessible toilets? Bit of disability discrimination.

That's just daft.

Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."

See, other people can use proof texts.

Seriously, it is foolish to be too trusting. I have met many people who are not as they seem, even in churches.

They managed at home so I'm sure they will cope.

Well I didn't know until yesterday as I obviously didn't use the gents but no they can't have. If they did and they've removed it they've done a great job as there is no evidence of one being removed.

I think Christians are often vulnerable to a "be kind" mentality, forgetting that to "love one's neighbour as oneself" and that being called as Christians to "love one another as Christ loved the Church" can be challenging to work out, not just a matter of being nice. In my experience the CofE seems particularly prone to this "niceness". No tipping over tables or calling out hypocrisy for us nice people!

But truth also matters, and real love is sometimes tough love.

Has anyone ever run surveys of transmen to find out how many have actually been in the habit of using gents' facilities, and how many have been using the ladies' all along?

Because it strikes me that if men are so transphobic that transwomen as big as they are don't want to share with them, you'd be daft, as a trans man, to risk yourself in the gents' unless you are unusually big and strong or very very good at passing.

If a lot of transmen who fit neither of these categories have been using the ladies' all the time, then the number whose routine is now being disrupted will be smaller than anticipated and easier to accommodate.

If they've been using the gents', as recognisable transmen, quite happily, then the gents' may not be as dangerous as it is painted.

So is there any data on this?

I'm pretty sure men in general would not be happy with loos with no urinals! And rightly so. But this is the kind of result you can expect from this idiocy.

And as soon as they put in a urinal they will be discriminating against women - hello small claims court

My leisure centre has done the same, although they are enclosed with washbasins inside so are compliant. The Management are very proud of having put them in. I live nearby so don't have to use them and can go at home.

I do wonder if we get more and more unisex loos how long will it be before men get fed up with having to queue as women have to.

So the men never had a urinal? Just a toilet pan?