Opinion piece by Howard Moutrie
In NSW, before the BCA, there was Ordinance 70, and associated with it was Specification No.9 which was titled ‘Access and Facilities for Disabled People’. This document was a precursor to AS 1428.1. In relation to the design of an accessible toilet, there were two optional basin locations, one with the basin in front of and in close proximity to the toilet pan. The design was quite similar to the “standard WC compartment for wheelchair users” indicated in Designing for the Disabled by Goldsmith, and is clearly quite restrictive for a frontal transfer.
Following the research undertaken by John Bails in the 1980’s, the first edition of AS 1428.1 was produced. The research by Bails was predominantly focused on wheelchair manoeuvring and a different layout for the toilet was provided where the basin was located outside the toilet circulation space so that it did not interfere with the movement and positioning of the wheelchair. This put the design of Australian accessible toilets out of step with the rest of the world. Our design was better; or was it?
With the exception of the US and Canadian Standards, which locate the basin outside the toilet cubicle in the same way as standard toilets, the UK, Europe and countries using the ISO Standard locate the basin close to the toilet, generally so it can be reached while sitting on the toilet pan. There is a good reason for this. Although the influence of Bails’ research improved the manoeuvring within the toilet, one important aspect was not considered, that of hygiene. To be quite frank, particularly for people with restricted movement, it is quite possible for your hands to become soiled. To wash your hands, under the AS 1428.1 model, you need to dress, get into your chair and move over to the basin so that you can clean up. The potential for soil transfer is significant.
The ISO Standard has been updated and now includes three layout options. The Type C option maintains the basin in close proximity to the toilet pan, although the other two options are more in line with the Australian layout. The UK Standard maintains a hand rinse basin close to the toilet pan with a larger basin located elsewhere. See the following diagrams:
ISO Type A Peninsular toilet with drop down grabrails and basin opposite.
ISO Type B Corner toilet with drop down grabrail on open side and basin opposite.
ISO Type C Corner toilet with drop down grabrail on open side and basin close to toilet.
UK Standard Corner toilet with drop down grabrail on open side and small basin close to toilet. Additional width required for main basin.
This is where the UK and ISO Standards have their benefits: you can remain on the toilet while you wash your hands, and clean up without soiling your clothes and/or wheelchair. The only restriction of this layout being that the ability to locate a wheelchair directly in front of the pan is slightly impacted. It is also acknowledged that not everyone may have the strength or mobility to be able to reach forward to use the hand wash basin.
The AS 1428.1 Supplement tells us that a frontal transfer is used by 23% of users and the front angle is much more commonly used, as indeed is a side transfer. Another reason the basin was moved away from the toilet in AS 1428.1 is to make it easier to use a commode chair, but given we are considering public buildings in AS 1428.1, is this relevant?
I think the UK Standard has it correct. A small basin for a quick hand clean (for those who can use it) and then a full basin, mirror and so on, appropriately located. Interestingly, they all provide a drop down grabrail on the open side of the pan and don’t require a horizontal grabrail on the rear wall. The latter probably due to the provision of a dropdown grabrail on the side.
On all layout types, the ISO Standard also requires an independent water supply (shower hose) to be located near the pan. This can be used to wash oneself, or indeed clean the toilet or surrounding area.
Like many parts of AS 1428.1, I don’t think there has been much evaluation of the effectiveness of what is being prescribed. With each iteration, a few things are tweaked but there is little or no review of the effectiveness of what is prescribed. This can be the fault of the approved terms of reference of the proposed update/review. For the last review of AS 1428.1 a lot of work was done on improving the visual indicators on glazing, but had to be abandoned because it was outside the scope of the review approved by Standards.
To get change, if it is indeed required, we need to show why that change is needed. If you are a user of accessible toilets and have a comment, or indeed support the view expressed in this article, please email me at [email protected]. If we have enough evidence we may be able to get some change.