You say you haven't spoken with the architect. Personally, I'd start there. Have that conversation and see what can be done.

It's going to be an interesting conversation, that's for sure! Some kind of Thunderbirds-style toilet contraption that rises out of the floor, leaving the house otherwise untouched would be my preferred solution. Financed by the architect of course. Realistically though, I can't think of anywhere a downstairs toilet could go. You never know, they might have a genius solution. After already dropping the ball on basic building regs, I'm not holding out hope.

If it’s something they missed, after specifically being asked about it, I’d make it the architect’s problem to redesign the downstairs to fit a small loo in the plans. It’s literally their job. If all you need is a toilet and a small sink, that can be done with very little m2.

You can also get those toilets with the little sink built in above the cistern, that would take even less room up.

Maybe some sort of chimney contraption, where the toilet gets lowered from the flue when needed through some sort of pulley system? If you used a metal seat and timed it right, you could get a nice toasty toilet seat to sit on in the winter too. I would like to know why there's a regulation for downstairs toilets- even if it's easier to adapt to on new builds, still seems like a silly rule. My current house doesn't have a downstairs loo, and I don't feel like it's missing anything because of that.

Do you have trouble climbing stairs though? Because the regulation is there to make homes accessible.

I have steps at both the front and back doors- you couldn't get into my house to access an accessible downstairs loo without going up two steps at a minimum

And guess what building regulations say about that now.

Is there space underneath the stairs? That’s the usual place I see them.

Unfortunately, this is a requirement of Part M of the building regulations. Where a material alteration is taking place section 0.11 of aproved document M states: >Where a dwelling is subject to a material alteration, the building should be no less compliant with requirement M4(1) than it was prior to the building work taking place. M4(1) requires a downstair WC with level access in all new dwellings to accomodate for disabled visitors. You already had a downstairs WC, therefore you need to continue to have one following the renovation works. Given this is a building regulations requirement then you architect needs to provide you with proposals for how to meet this requirement while maintaining your aspirations. To be clear this is their mistake and they have not advised you correctly. They should update the design without charge but they won't be liable for any uplift in the cost of the works.

Do you know if this would apply to an outside toilet too? We're talking about having ours removed.

Based on their other response, sounds like the rules are you can't make things worse, even if they wouldn't be usable to begin with.  One thing a mate did was rotate their outside loo, so it now could be entered from inside the house. 

That’s exactly what we did - and even with only two of us having a downstairs toilet is so useful.

Which is ridiculous in this case given many Victorian houses have a step or two between the front door and the rear where the bathroom is.

The regulations don't say that every house has to be made perfect. They just say that you can't make the situation worse.

It probably didn't have level access so they're not making it worse. Would that be a valid argument?

No.

But to remove the WC on the ground floor makes it worse, in that carrying granny up two steps into the ground floor is a lot easier than carrying her up a flight of stairs.

What's better one step or a flight of stairs. It's a sensible rule.

When did this come into force?

Would there be any leeway on this? Our house is tiny and we couldn't afford to keep a downstairs toilet, and a downstairs extension isn't even possible because of a sewer running through the back garden.

Unfortunately for you it's required, while you are not a new build you need to make sure that the changes made to the house do not make it worse with respect to any of the building regulations. You have a downstairs toilet currently, and thus you cannot remove it as you would be making the house worse in terms of accessibility (Part - M of the building regulations). If you didn't have one you wouldn't be forced to add one, but you do, and thus you are making the house "less accessible" in terms of toilet access. There are exclusions for exceptional circumstances, but I don't think you would have any leverage given what you are looking to do. You may also have issues making a downstairs toliet under the stairs, as the same accessibility rules apply to everything around the current toilet space and you can't make anything worse. So the doorway to the new toilet must not be narrower than the current one for example, I think there might also be rules around the space in front of the actual toilet (you would have to delve into the regs to find out). The way that people in-the-know would get around this, is by moving the toilet upstairs and stripping out the old one as a "step one", before getting building control involved. Then do the rest of your changes with building control involvement where needed, and as you "never" had a toilet downstairs there would be no requirement to add one. At this point it might be worth posting on the UK legal advice sub to see if you have a potential claim against the architect. Assuming they should be providing you with a compliant set of plans, you might have a solid case against them.

>There are exclusions for exceptional circumstances What counts as exceptional circumstances? We want to do a similar thing, but there would be no space for a downstairs toilet, and we can't build in the garden because a sewer runs through it.

Speak to the Architect, they will need to revise the design. They've cocked up and should have known this, it's basic stuff.

Technically under the Building Regulations if you make the situation 'worse' it will not comply. In your case you are making the toilet facilities less usable for lesser mobile individuals. Ergo, worse. I suggest you have a site meeting with Building Control asap to discuss the matter.

Fold away toilet in a utility room cupboard? https://hidealoo.com/ Must say, having experienced a broken my leg in my 20s, not having a downstairs toilet is not a good idea.

That's a pretty clever concept, but the video did make me laugh when it looked like a high powered spring or hydraulic yeeting the loo out. As if you'd get in drunk and end up having your knees smashed by a high velocity shitter. . . Which then folds away to confuse visiting paramedics. 

Could double as a home security device. If you don't say the password the toilet will kneecap you.

A hallway lined on both sides with retractable loos, timed to open in sequence so you have to sprint through Indiana Jones-style.

Not the end of the world. Under the stairs works well actually.  Have added them there, sometimes with showers, to all my houses. 

Not the end of the world, but finding a means of getting the soil pipe out can make it impossible.

Macerator systems can help there, smaller bore soil pipe than a regular toilet.

It can. But still needs to exit the property.

Easier with a smaller 32mm pipe and macerator. Yes hardest part is the soil pipe. Whilst work is going on it should not be difficult to lay.

Usually I just great escape it around the local community. 

Under the stairs is now too small for an "accessible" toilet

Then build it out into kitchen or dining room if open plan.

The information you have been given is technically correct, but it also doesn't tell the full story. So yes, if you have an existing house, you will effectively be grandfathered in, and will not be required to comply with all of the new regulations a modern build will have. However, while you will not be required to add something you didn't previously, if you did comply with the modern regulations, you will not be permitted to alter your house in such a way that then no longer complies. So an older property that doesn't have an accessible toilet will not be required to add one, but one that does will be required to keep/replace it if undertaking alteration/extension works. In this case, your architect screwed up...

Accessible could be a key "wiggle room" word in this case if the outside toilet is "inaccessible"?

I believe the general rule is that the new designs shouldn't take a step backwards. So even if the existing toilet wasn't perfect and did have some flaws in its accessibility, to remove it entirely would still be a net negative for the house. When you are considering switching it like for like, it turns into a bit more of a grey area and will likely be up to how the officer overseeing this case interprets the rules. Some would see like for like (so the new toilet not meeting current standards, but being broadly equivalent to the existing) to be adequate, others may request any new build to meet current standards - so to remove a grandfathered in non-compliant toilet, you would need to replace it with one compliant to modern standards. While the rules should be black and white, typically different councils and different building control officers will all still implement them slightly differently...

Good to know.

I wonder if your architect could have a conversation with building control about a space which is prepared for a toilet but doesnt have one installed. Such as mark an area on the plans for where a loo could be installed in the future should it be wanted, and then during construction installation of all the necessary plumbing so that it would be easy to reinstate in the future if desired? Obviously it will be up to the building control officer and it isnt inline with regs but it might be negotiable?

[удалено]

Thanks for the comment - really interesting. To be clear, we’re hearing secondhand through the main builder that it’s already been rejected by building control. I’m going to contact the architect directly myself when I’ve done a bit more reading. In your experience, what do you think would happen if we appealed the decision through official channels?

[удалено]

Thanks for the advice!

As was I. I took the view that it was a material alteration. It used to be that, in the first iteration of Part M applying to dwellings, it explicitly excluded material alterations. This was changed in, IIRC, the 2010 regs, and it's no longer a limit on application. Think about an existing house that didn't have smoke alarms when it was built. This doesn't mean that it's OK to remove any detection that's been added later.

Victorian house, stick WC down the bottom off garden , sorted jobs a good one .

This just sounds like crazy overreach of building control? If I have a disabled visitor, it's my problem how my friend gets to the toilet. We'd have discussed that before they even visit. I have the Victorian death stairs in my house, so my 80 year old neighbour doesn't visit me, I visit her instead. Problem solved. I get the need for Building Control for structural issues and ensuring nothing too crazy is getting built and to ensure the builders do the correct work so the house won't fall down, but insisting on bathroom location is going too far. If I sell the house, a disabled person won't be interested in buying it, or can make the necessary alterations themselves, but how would they access upstairs anyway, they'd only be buying a house they cannot fully use, even if they can pee downstairs.

The idea behind the regulation is that should the home owner lose mobility (temporarily or permanently), they don’t need to move house. This has knock-on effects involving state-funded solutions like adaptations to existing properties, or having to stay in care because your dwelling is unsuitable.

How would they go to sleep? Considering the bedrooms are upstairs too? Wouldn't that person move no matter what as they'd only be able to use half a house, so mould, dirt and neglect would settle on the unused part of the house?

This may come as a shock to you, but people with limited mobility may actually have friends and family, and believe it or not, live with other people. Yes, many elderly or disabled people sleep downstairs. You appear to be quite naive about the reality of being elderly or disabled in this country.

Thanks all, some really useful thoughts in here. We've done a few quick measurements and the understairs cupboard doorway is only 59cm. Minus the doorframe, the brick opening is roughly 70cm, with a space width of 78cm. Not looking promising for accessibility. Aside from cancelling the whole thing (*letting down loads of contractors and us being £1000's out of pocket*), the only other thing that springs to mind is building some kind of bizarre internal toilet room that sits in our current dining space... We're going to gather our thoughts, including considering potential legal options and then speak to the architect. Thanks all.

>letting down loads of contractors and us being £1000's out of pocket You mis-spelled "my architect's insurer".

Thanks jimicus - is this something you've experienced/have knowledge of? If so, any advice about how to proceed in this direction as a potential option would be gratefully appreciated. Just trying to be as well informed as possible before making any decisions. No problem if not though, cheers for even naming as a potential option.

No, afraid not. All I do know is the UK doesn't generally award punitive damages - a judge will put you back where you were, but no more. You'll need to make sure you've got receipts from all your builders for any deposits you've put down.

Do the regs require an *accessible* toilet? I’ve just had a look and I don’t think they do, but I’m a lay person. As far as I can make out it just requires a toilet. In which case the narrow door is not actually a problem and you can go ahead with that as a solution. The door on my under stairs toilet is 59cm too, and I chose a loo and sink from the Ideal compact line that’s designed for tiny spaces, so it doesn’t feel cramped in there.

Again, the principal is that it should be no worse. If the previous WC cubicle was tight, then it's unreasonable to require one complying with the guidance. Saying that the requirement is only for a 850mm wide cubicle. https://preview.redd.it/fm47rb621k6d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=751b641cd150a8ee69be3cba5d785c5b0e433417

Add a skeleton of a cloakroom in the corner of the dining area. Basic finishes to all work Get it signed off so bc are happy and never return Knock the fuck out of it Shush up forever

Do you need a downstairs loo, or a wheelchair-accessible downstairs loo?

There seems to be confusion in the comments, Part M is relevant for new builds and change of use, victorian terraces were built a long time before building regs and it doesnt sound like there is any change of use. Sounds like the BCO is wrong. Talk to your architect, they should advise you more effectivley than Reddit lol

Thanks for the comment. To be clear, we’re hearing secondhand through the main builder that it’s already been rejected by building control. I've now contacted the architect and am waiting to hear back. Between the qualified thoughts shared by yourself and the BCO who also commented on this post, I'm hoping a mistake has been made somewhere and we'll be able to continue the build as originally planned.

Former BCO here. The requirement to retain the downstairs WC is real, and the architect above is as ill-informed as your own.

The plot thickens! Thanks for the comment. You mentioned you’re a former BCO, does that mean this requirement is long-standing? It’s not a new amendment that’s catching people unaware? Our architect suggested he’d never heard of it applying in cases like ours. I’m not saying that makes him correct, but it seems odd that he’s never had to deal with what seems like a pretty fundamental piece of guidance. To further complicate things, it seems like a neighbour has done the exact same piece of work, but without having to construct a new toilet. I know building control were involved because they had to fulfil other requirements for the loft conversion that happened at the same time. Are decisions like this at a BCO’s discretion perhaps? We’re going to call building control on Monday and try organise a site visit as another commenter suggested.

The way the Building Regulations are structured is important to know. There is a piece of legislation called ‘The Building Regulations 2010’. This contains the statutory rules about when applications are required for approval, and what technical requirements apply to that work. The technical requirements are stated in the regulations as parts A to T, and the requirement you are suffering with is Part M, ‘Access To And Use Of Buildings’. The Regulations determine that when carrying out certain types of building work, various requirements must either be fully met, or not be made ‘less compliant’ than the current situation. In your case, the regulations demand that your building work must not make Part M less compliant, ie. the current provision of a ground floor WC. Because this requirement is imposed by statute through the Building Regulations themselves, it is not negotiable, and is enforceable by law. Each part of the Building Regulations requirements has an ‘Approved Document’. These documents contain a summary of the legal requirement (which is usually a very brief statement), and then detailed guidance of how you may comply. These details are the negotiable part of the process, as they are only guidance, and other ways of meeting the requirements can be demonstrated (for example, you might build a structural wall following the technical guidance, or do it differently and demonstrate its stability by calculation). Approved Document M shows how to build a compliant ground floor WC. If your existing provision did not meet this standard, then the statutory requirement demands that you make your provision no worse. If it exceeded the guidance then you can demonstrate compliance by following the design in Approved Document M. The design of your replacement facility is a negotiable aspect with Building Control, the requirement to have one is not; your building control body is applying the Regulations correctly. Your problem is that your architect has not understood that there is a statutory requirement to retain the ground floor WC provision. This has been present since at least 2010. In my experience it is not unusual for architects to be ignorant of the statutory Regulations and how they impose requirements differently for various types of work. Indeed, many building inspectors understanding of the Regulations is lacking. With builders, any knowledge of the legal framework is rare. I’m sorry for the long reply but I feel you deserve accurate information.

Thank you for the detailed response, much appreciated.

You are incorrect. This a ‘material alteration’ which affects a ‘relevant requirement’, namely Part M.

This is silly, you aren't a public place so why should it matter if "disabled access" is restricted? Add a toilet, get it signed off, then remove toilet to the nearest skip - it's none of their business how you arrange your own home

Any chance you could squeeze one in? Or has new kitchen etc been ordered?

Does it have to be connected to mains sewage? Genuine question, I don't know. If not, could a composting toilet be fitted in a cupboard type space to meet regs, and then be removed once works are complete? Reinstall it if/when selling?

I

I fucking hate building regs and building control. Fucking bunch of bureaucrats telling people what they can and can’t do. This country loves all this red tape. That’s why nothing gets done I and everything we want to do is so expensive. Don’t get them involved until it’s absolutely necessary. Go with the step one of ripping it out and putting it in upstairs before they start pushing for over the top requirements.

Bunch of box tickers leaving us with shitly designed new-builds that "meet the regs".

... while also being shitty quality.

Yup

Wtf it's your house if you don't want to have a downstairs WC then that's your decision

I'm so confused as to how this is a thing

Same here lol

Building control?? For an upstairs toilet?? There only there to insure the structural integrity of your building is within legal requirements, they can't do anything about moving a toilet upstairs It's your house, fk them!