Downstairs toilet nightmare - please help!

teneighty

Boils down to, any work cannot make the house less compliant than it was before the work.

A WC downstairs is a requirement of the regulations, so removing one makes the dwelling less compliant, so is not allowed.

A very good point but I'm afraid I disagree. It is not as simple as just having a ground floor WC.

For the Building Control Officer to use this argument the toilet would have to be fully compliant with Part M including external access to the house. So that would be wide outward opening door, room for wheelchair, level access etc. etc. The chances of that being the case for any house built in the 1960's are extremely unlikely.

They could hardly argue that the toilet has to remain citing lowering compliance to Part M if it is was already too small with a narrow doorway and the house has a stepped entry threshold which never complied with Part M in the first place.

I would fight it and if necessary go for a determination.

martinsurrey

teneighty wrote: »

A very good point but I'm afraid I disagree. It is not as simple as just having a ground floor WC.

For the Building Control Officer to use this argument the toilet would have to be fully compliant with Part M including external access to the house. So that would be wide outward opening door, room for wheelchair, level access etc. etc. The chances of that being the case for any house built in the 1960's are extremely unlikely.

They could hardly argue that the toilet has to remain citing lowering compliance to Part M if it is was already too small with a narrow doorway and the house has a stepped entry threshold which never complied with Part M in the first place.

I would fight it and if necessary go for a determination.

current compliance with part M is irrelevant, the toilet facilities must be no LESS compliant after works, as detailed in the approved document.

1)is there a toilet downstairs - If yes, there must be one after work, if no, no need to add

2)does the toilet have 760mm clearance infront of the seat - if yes there must be atleast 760mm in front of the new toilet, if not, there must be atleast as much clearance as there currently is.

etc

the logic is that it is easier for a disabled person to use a small cramped downstairs toilet, with a single step up to it (so not part M complaint) than to get up a whole flight of stairs to a toilet that might not be any better.

and after the work it must be no harder for them to use the facilities than it is currently

You cannot go backwards away from part M complaince, in any respect.

(and by the way, I think the rules are crazy, they stifle every build to cater to a small percentage of the population, next it will be that all kitchen cupboards must be below 5" as some people are not very tall!

but even if I dont like them, they are the rules)

NWilson123

It's interesting that this subject can get such a reaction! I think two toilets is definitely a desirable and not a necessity. Lots of us manage with just one!

teneighty

@martinsurrey. It is so refreshing to have someone put forward an intelligent and coherent argument on this forum.

I can certainly see your point of view but think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one especially as it seems the OP has lost interest and we will probably never know the outcome.

Like you, I think the imposition of Part M on private dwellings was a step too far.