Legal: Public convenience politics

It was once the case that a British restaurant would have terrible food but wonderful toilets, whereas a French restaurant would have fantastic food and awful toilets.

Whilst these stereotypes have crumbled a little over recent years, the British still take their public conveniences very seriously and there has recently been a high-profile court case where a Scottish pub was successful at resisting attempts to restrict capacities due to a perceived lack of female toilets.

The number of toilets frequently becomes an issue in licensing applications south of the border, with some environmental health officers routinely objecting to applications for new licences and variations to existing ones if the number of toilets per head does not conform to the British Standard which applies. So can an application be refused or capacities limited on this basis?

The British Standard is merely a guideline, which is not legally binding. When determining applications, licensing sub-committees have to take such steps as they consider necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives under the Licensing Act. Therefore, unless the reduced number of toilets could either be a public nuisance or have public safety implications, it is not a ground upon which to refuse a licence application.

For cafés open primarily during the day, a lack of toilets will probably result in little more than queues at peak times and people using facilities elsewhere. For large vertical-drinking establishments that open late, on the other hand, it is possible a lack of toilets will indeed cause a public nuisance, as patrons may make use of alleyways and doorways instead.

Even if a lack of toilets is a problem that can be overcome from a licensing point of view, there are still the hurdles of building control, planning and the Disability Discrimination Act to overcome. In short, regardless of the quality of the food, in Britain you are still expected to have wonderful toilets, and lots of them.