Fridge Freezer Socket Location
TheScullster
Still on the kitchen wiring subject.
To comply with BCO request, I will be providing an accessible switched fused
spur to feed a less accessible socket for the integrated fridge freezer.
The wiring layout would make it easier to provide the socket at the back of
the cupboard above the oven.
Is there a problem with this - either due to accessibility of socket or
maybe heat from the oven housing?
Thanks
Phil
John Rumm
> Hi all
>
> Still on the kitchen wiring subject.
> To comply with BCO request, I will be providing an accessible switched fused
> spur to feed a less accessible socket for the integrated fridge freezer.
Does not need to be fused... you could have a plain ordinary 20A plate
switch (with optional neon) feeding a single socket.
e.g.
> The wiring layout would make it easier to provide the socket at the back of
> the cupboard above the oven.
> Is there a problem with this - either due to accessibility of socket or
> maybe heat from the oven housing?
Technically a socket at the back of an adjacent cupboard ought to
satisfy the means of isolation requirement. The only slight dodgy
arrangement is one where you must pull the appliance out to get to its
socket and that is the only way to isolate.
I would not really want a socket directly above an oven because of the
(potential) ambient temperature.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
jgharston
> The wiring layout would make it easier to provide the socket at the back of
> the cupboard above the oven.
A cupboard above an over? Oooo, don't like that. My gas chap says
you require four feet of clear space above a cooker.
Or am I misinterpreting? By "oven" do you mean "oven", ie a heated
box with a door on the front, or do you mean "cooker", ie a heated
box etc, with heating rings on top, possibly also with a grill above
it. Even so, I'd aim to keep any wiring away from the heat of an
oven or cooker.
I'm starting to wonder if you providing a layout diagram would help
us to help you.
JGH
Andy Wade
> The only slight dodgy arrangement is one where you must pull the
> appliance out to get to its socket and that is the only way to
> isolate.
For appliances pushed under a worktop the EGBR clearly states that the
feeding socket-outlet *should* be accessible when the appliance is
pulled out and it doesn't mandate any other means of isolation.
For integrated appliances there should be a readily accessible socket,
SFCU or DP switch.
Also "wiring accessories should be mounted on the building fabric and
not on kitchen furniture."
--
Andy
chris French
Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes
>On 30/03/2011 16:50, TheScullster wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Still on the kitchen wiring subject.
>> To comply with BCO request, I will be providing an accessible switched fused
>> spur to feed a less accessible socket for the integrated fridge freezer.
>
>Does not need to be fused... you could have a plain ordinary 20A plate
>switch (with optional neon) feeding a single socket.
>
>e.g.
>
>http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Wiring_Accessories_Menu_Index/Ult
>imate_Index/Ultimate_Wall_Switches_20/index.html
>
>> The wiring layout would make it easier to provide the socket at the back of
>> the cupboard above the oven.
>> Is there a problem with this - either due to accessibility of socket or
>> maybe heat from the oven housing?
>
>Technically a socket at the back of an adjacent cupboard ought to
>satisfy the means of isolation requirement. The only slight dodgy
>arrangement is one where you must pull the appliance out to get to its
>socket and that is the only way to isolate.
>
>I would not really want a socket directly above an oven because of the
>(potential) ambient temperature.
>
Yeah, I'd be wary, we have a cupboard above our oven (used for ovenware
storage), it gets pretty warm in there
--
Chris French
John Rumm
> On 30/03/2011 18:50, John Rumm wrote:
>
>> The only slight dodgy arrangement is one where you must pull the
>> appliance out to get to its socket and that is the only way to
>> isolate.
>
> For appliances pushed under a worktop the EGBR clearly states that the
> feeding socket-outlet *should* be accessible when the appliance is
> pulled out and it doesn't mandate any other means of isolation.
Having it on the wall at the back of the adjacent cupboard does not stop
that being the case. It just means its also still accessible when the
appliance is pushed into its hole.
> For integrated appliances there should be a readily accessible socket,
> SFCU or DP switch.
>
> Also "wiring accessories should be mounted on the building fabric and
> not on kitchen furniture."
Although B&Q think otherwise apparently! ;-)
TheScullster
"jgharston" wrote
Thanks JGH
Yes I do mean integrated oven (hob on other side of room).
The problem is that I have 3 full height cupboards.
Right hand is fridge/freezer - middle is oven - left is utility, ironing
board etc.
There is no room to the right of this lot for isolation which BCO says has
to be outside of cupboards.
So I intend to provide isolation to the left of the tall run of units and
cable to outlets closer to the point of use.
The oven outlet was going to be at the back of the utility cupboard, then
wired behind/across to the oven itself. Or as John suggests locate the oven
outlet directly behind the oven (though I'm not sure how much room there is
behind these appliances).
This leaves the fridge freezer supply.
If I provide an isolated socket at the back of the utility cupboard, then
I've got to get the cable from the f/f past the oven unit to the utility
cupboard far left. So I was trying to find a suitable closer spot to
position the socket to the f/f housing, which would obviously be around the
oven somewhere.
I do have a wiring diagram, but due to BCO requested changes, this area of
it is out of date ATM.
Phil
ARWadsworth
> On 31/03/2011 00:22, Andy Wade wrote:
>> On 30/03/2011 18:50, John Rumm wrote:
>>
>>> The only slight dodgy arrangement is one where you must pull the
>>> appliance out to get to its socket and that is the only way to
>>> isolate.
>>
>> For appliances pushed under a worktop the EGBR clearly states that
>> the feeding socket-outlet *should* be accessible when the appliance
>> is pulled out and it doesn't mandate any other means of isolation.
>
> Having it on the wall at the back of the adjacent cupboard does not
> stop that being the case. It just means its also still accessible
> when the appliance is pushed into its hole.
>
>> For integrated appliances there should be a readily accessible
>> socket, SFCU or DP switch.
>>
>> Also "wiring accessories should be mounted on the building fabric and
>> not on kitchen furniture."
>
> Although B&Q think otherwise apparently! ;-)
As someone once pointed out - kitchen units could be classed as part of the
fabric of the building as you don't take them with you when you move house.
--
Adam
TheScullster
"ARWadsworth" wrote
I *think* the Engineers Guide to the Building Regs actually clarifies this
point (from the author's point of view) but don't have it with me today.
Phil
Andy Wade
> John Rumm<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
>> Having it on the wall at the back of the adjacent cupboard does not
>> stop that being the case. It just means its also still accessible
>> when the appliance is pushed into its hole.
True, but what I was getting is that putting the outlet behind the
appliance is quite OK for free-standing appliances, provided there's no
risk from dripping or splashing water. Those who say that you must have
an accessible FCU etc. are going OTT.
> As someone once pointed out - kitchen units could be classed as part of the
> fabric of the building as you don't take them with you when you move house.
They're part of the building, but are they part of its fabric?
--
Andy
Robin
IANAL but from having been required once-upon-a-time to grapple with the
law on fixtures I'd say kitchen units would be held to be fixtures and
so part of the building but not part of the "fabric of the building".
But the guidance that "wiring accessories should be mounted on the
building fabric and not on kitchen furniture" would then militate
against the "kitchen islands" beloved by those with large kitchens and
widely installed. Eg does the guidance dictate that an electric hob in
an island have the means of isolation fitted to a wall rather than on
the island? That kitchen islands must not have sockets fitted to them?
I assume the guidance also rules out pull cord switches for
under-cupboard lighting unless (i) the switch is integral to the light
fitting or (ii) the switch is fitted to the ceiling?
Then again, I too am unsure if the guidance intended "should" to impose
an obligation. Perhaps those who draft the guidance - and the regs -
might be gently advised that even Parliamentary Counsel now minimise the
use of "shall" etc in legislation in favour of the more modern "must" to
convey obligation? On that score the 17th Edition came across as *so*
fuddy-duddy :)
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com
John Rumm
> On 31/03/2011 12:50, ARWadsworth wrote:
>> John Rumm<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
>
>>> Having it on the wall at the back of the adjacent cupboard does not
>>> stop that being the case. It just means its also still accessible
>>> when the appliance is pushed into its hole.
>
> True, but what I was getting is that putting the outlet behind the
> appliance is quite OK for free-standing appliances, provided there's no
> risk from dripping or splashing water. Those who say that you must have
> an accessible FCU etc. are going OTT.
While I agree the regs don't require a switch etc, I would personally
always fit one if the socket is not accessible without moving the
appliance and its tucked into a under worktop gap.
Two episodes illustrate why; the first was a tumble drier that I saw the
wiring of catch fire - flames visible through the rear vent holes in the
drum. Being able to turn it off sharpish was instrumental to restricting
the scale of the event to just "what a niff, that duvet is going to need
another wash now". The second was watching a chap attempt to pull a
washing machine out of the cubby hole, while its casework was live![1]
[1] This was part of what became a much deeper storey. I was there under
invitation of a mutual mate who thought that getting shocks off the
casework was probably not to be considered a safe and normal experience
and warranted further investigation - the owner however just tried to
remember not to touch it with wet hands!
Just as well. Turns out none of the kitchen sockets had an earth at all
(that was a physical circuit fault on the kitchen ring), so the low ESR
cap in the mains input filter did not trip the RCD or cause the cap to
go pop. Also it turns out most of the house had no earth either. One
circuit exhibited what looked like about 20 ohms ELI from a bit of
fortuitous earthing from somewhere (possibly via the undersized main
water EQ bond - but that is debatable, because it did not seem to be
shared with the remainder of the house). At first glance I thought it
must be a TT install. But then noticed the conventional split load CU
with main switch and no master RCD, and the in town location with
underground supply seemed unexpected if this was the case. I had to look
at it for a few mins to conclude that it was actually intended to be a
TN-C-S setup, but with the novel amendment of having no connection
whatsoever between the incoming PEN conductor, and the CU at all! Hence
the house had been basically unearthed for the past 10 years since it
was built!
>> As someone once pointed out - kitchen units could be classed as part
>> of the
>> fabric of the building as you don't take them with you when you move
>> house.
>
> They're part of the building, but are they part of its fabric?
Probably not...
John Rumm
>> They're part of the building, but are they part of its fabric?
>
> IANAL but from having been required once-upon-a-time to grapple with the
> law on fixtures I'd say kitchen units would be held to be fixtures and
> so part of the building but not part of the "fabric of the building".
>
> But the guidance that "wiring accessories should be mounted on the
> building fabric and not on kitchen furniture" would then militate
> against the "kitchen islands" beloved by those with large kitchens and
> widely installed. Eg does the guidance dictate that an electric hob in
> an island have the means of isolation fitted to a wall rather than on
> the island? That kitchen islands must not have sockets fitted to them?
>
> I assume the guidance also rules out pull cord switches for
> under-cupboard lighting unless (i) the switch is integral to the light
> fitting or (ii) the switch is fitted to the ceiling?
Indeed good points. I have certainly done the pull cord thing, but for
some reason would feel less happy screwing a socket to the side of a
cabinet.
> Then again, I too am unsure if the guidance intended "should" to impose
> an obligation. Perhaps those who draft the guidance - and the regs -
> might be gently advised that even Parliamentary Counsel now minimise the
> use of "shall" etc in legislation in favour of the more modern "must" to
> convey obligation? On that score the 17th Edition came across as *so*
> fuddy-duddy :)
Na, give me nice testable, traceable, "shalls" any day! (nothing worse
than a mealy mouthed requirements spec) ;-)