Proposed Part P Building Regulations (Electrical Wiring)

19 views
Skip to first unread message

James

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 3:48:27 AM6/13/03
to
As a relative newcomer to this group, I read with dismay the recent comment
by Andy Hall (Anyone actually used a sparky recently), concerning proposals
to bring all forms of fixed electrical wiring under building control.
Googling the past threads from last autumn show how this proposal has no
meaningful relevance to safety, yet threatens a significant part of the DIY
hobby.
From Andy's comment it appears nothing further has been heard about this
recently, but it is probably progressing behind the scenes. Does anyone know
exactly what processes it will go through to become law? Presumably it has
to be passed by Parliament, but this might be part of a large set of
legislation which receives little scrutiny. I guess we still have the option
of writing to our MP's, and if we can determine the likely timescale (and
outcome) arrange our immediate DIY activities to beat any future deadline.

The fundamental problem we seem to be facing here is that whilst DIY is an
extremely widespread hobby, it has no organised representation or lobbying
power. Hence changes occur before most people are aware of them. To prevent
this happening the realities of the situation need to be made clear to the
whole population, who are probably not going to be in favour of ever
increasing regulation for its own sake. It is difficult to see how this can
be done (except at substantial cost), although perhaps carefully drafted
letters to newspapers might be a start.

The same sort of issues can be seen in the recent thread on the banning of
creosote for amature use, where it took place almost before anyone realised
it was happening. I can accept some substances are too harmful to have
present in the environment - but in this case the legislation is not banning
creosote - but just the amature use of the substance. Equally I am very
concerned about health and safety, but this can be dealt with by appropriate
warnings.

To end on a more positive note, I have seen a recent example of lobbying and
meaningful consultation producing a satisfactory outcome. I have an interest
in building model steam engines - and the recently introduced pressure
vessel regulations threatened to kill this hobby. However successful
lobbying by model engineers resulted in significant exemptions for those
building boilers for their own use. The significant difference here seems to
be the organisation within the hobby - which had always been necessary to
gain approve for such boilers for insurance purposes.

Does anyone have any comments?

James

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 03/06/2003


wanderer

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 4:04:07 AM6/13/03
to
"James" <james141...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcbvj5$fvi$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

> As a relative newcomer to this group, I read with dismay the recent
comment
> by Andy Hall (Anyone actually used a sparky recently), concerning
proposals
> to bring all forms of fixed electrical wiring under building control.
> Googling the past threads from last autumn show how this proposal has no
> meaningful relevance to safety, yet threatens a significant part of the
DIY
> hobby.

That is a highly debateable point! Some of the comments I've read in threads
suggest there are a quite a few DIYers who have little or no understanding
of the safety concepts of working with electricity, let alone the practical
aspects. There are quite a few threads that follow the lines of 'Can I get
away with ...' Equally, I moved into a property that had previously been
owned by a bodger of a DIYer. Additional spur sockets wired in flex, twisted
and taped joints, live exposed ends left in the loft, lighting circuits that
were incorrectly wired and switched.....

What is far more important is that since 1988, the person doing the work is
responsible for ensuring that the work meets current statutory requirements.
There is no fall back these days of relying on the Installation Inspector to
come along and check that all is well. How many DIYers, I wonder, actually
carry out polarity checks? How many have access to an earth loop impedance
tester and use it? How many check the insulation resistance?


Hugo Nebula

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 5:56:36 AM6/13/03
to
From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, "James"
<james141...@hotmail.com> wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:48:27
+0100:

>As a relative newcomer to this group, I read with dismay the recent comment
>by Andy Hall (Anyone actually used a sparky recently), concerning proposals
>to bring all forms of fixed electrical wiring under building control.
>Googling the past threads from last autumn show how this proposal has no
>meaningful relevance to safety, yet threatens a significant part of the DIY
>hobby.
>From Andy's comment it appears nothing further has been heard about this
>recently, but it is probably progressing behind the scenes. Does anyone know
>exactly what processes it will go through to become law? Presumably it has
>to be passed by Parliament, but this might be part of a large set of
>legislation which receives little scrutiny. I guess we still have the option
>of writing to our MP's, and if we can determine the likely timescale (and
>outcome) arrange our immediate DIY activities to beat any future deadline.

Any changes to the Building Regulations are by a Statutory Instrument,
which IIRC is not voted on by MPs, but introduced by the (Deputy
Prime) Minister. IANAL, so I don't know if MPs can overturn a
Statutory Instrument.

Generally, changes to the regulations are brought in six months after
the SI is published, giving people time to adapt to the changes. In
most cases, the work has to have commenced before the introduction
date to be counted under the 'old' regulations.

There is a page on the ODPM's site giving details of consultation
documents (http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/conindex.htm), and the
page containing the Approved Documents will have any new parts
displayed (http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/brads.htm).
Unfortunately, there's no 'Latest News' page, so you just have to keep
your eye open for a new AD appearing, as if by magic.
--
Hugo Nebula
"You know, I'd rather see this on TV,
Tones it down" - Laurie Anderson

John Armstrong

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 6:22:38 AM6/13/03
to
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:04:07 +0100, "wanderer" <wand...@tesco.net>
wrote:

>"James" <james141...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bcbvj5$fvi$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> As a relative newcomer to this group, I read with dismay the recent
>comment
>> by Andy Hall (Anyone actually used a sparky recently), concerning
>proposals
>> to bring all forms of fixed electrical wiring under building control.
>> Googling the past threads from last autumn show how this proposal has no
>> meaningful relevance to safety, yet threatens a significant part of the
>DIY
>> hobby.
>
>That is a highly debateable point! Some of the comments I've read in threads
>suggest there are a quite a few DIYers who have little or no understanding
>of the safety concepts of working with electricity, let alone the practical
>aspects. There are quite a few threads that follow the lines of 'Can I get
>away with ...' Equally, I moved into a property that had previously been
>owned by a bodger of a DIYer. Additional spur sockets wired in flex, twisted
>and taped joints, live exposed ends left in the loft, lighting circuits that
>were incorrectly wired and switched.....

But then the bodgers would just carry on before, without even
considering that BR may be involved in what they are doing.
It would be the conscientious DIYer that tries to do things correctly
that would be hit.
Would the average man on the street realise that building regs
approval is now required to replace a hot water cylinder?


--
John

James

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 8:15:02 AM6/13/03
to

"John Armstrong" <jo...@localhost.localnet> wrote in message
news:f89jevomig3uib4n6...@4ax.com...

> But then the bodgers would just carry on before, without even
> considering that BR may be involved in what they are doing.
> It would be the conscientious DIYer that tries to do things correctly
> that would be hit.
> Would the average man on the street realise that building regs
> approval is now required to replace a hot water cylinder?
>
>
> --

John - this is an interesting comment. What is frustrating is that these
regulations hit the person who does DIY because they want the job done
properly, but cannot find available tradespeople to do the work to that
standard.

Last August my hot water cylinder sprung a leak and had to be replaced.
Legally I had the choice of doing it myself, and paying the council about
185 pounds for approval (the minimum fee has now been reduced to 50 pounds
+VAT), or getting an 'authorised person' to do the labour for a not
disimilar sum. I opted for the later, but have to say the work was at best
marginal in meeting the regulations, and I had to refix the stat on the
cylinder myself to get it work. The installer was an established local
business, but I gained the impression I understood the regulations better
than they did. OK - perhaps I should have looked further and considered
other companies, but I had no hot water and needed to quickly resolve the
situation


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003


Tony

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 8:46:12 AM6/13/03
to
As as side note.... I think referring to DIY as a hobby is interesting. Does
this imply an activity carried out largely for pleasure? I 'DIY' because its
the only route to improving my house I can afford. Frankly I would not spend
my time furtling around in dark and dirty corners if I didn't have to. So
your point about BR is well made; extending building regs ever further will
limit the scope of what I can do to improve my home.
tony


"James" <james141...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcbvj5$fvi$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

Jerry Built

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 8:57:49 AM6/13/03
to
Tony wrote:
> As as side note.... I think referring to DIY as a hobby is
> interesting. Does this imply an activity carried out largely
> for pleasure? I 'DIY' because its the only route to improving
> my house I can afford. Frankly I would not spend my time furtling
> around in dark and dirty corners if I didn't have to. So your
> point about BR is well made; extending building regs ever further
> will limit the scope of what I can do to improve my home.

Why are all these pettifogging regulations being inflicted on
us? Someone in this thread said we are supposed to get "approval"
from those pen-pushing buggers in the council to even replace a
hot water cylinder. Bollocks to that. Next we're going to be
prevented from working on "fixed wiring"? Bollocks to that too!

--------------------------------------------------
This email is a free service of Phantom Email
available at http://phantomemail.com/.
Looking for a date? Check out http://personalinteractions.com/go/p185.

Jonathan@Home

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 10:54:45 AM6/13/03
to
I spose I'm lucky I have a cousin who is a sparky so I get him to check my
work, didn't know about boilers, like someone said just more bureaucracy. I
do my own work because it is cheaper to do so, I get what I want, I do enjoy
it and finally because it is a nightmare trying to get tradesmen in to do
things and then get them to listen to what you want. I phoned 10
plasterers, 2 came round, its a job I can't do along with bricklaying. I'm
off to night school to learn that as a builder wanted £1800 to knock down a
10 foot long waist high wall and rebuild it. I do my electrics, plumbing
for hot water and central heating, (I don't mess with gas) decorating and
joinery work and I reckon I've saved a packet; I went to the self build show
in Brum and decided there is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it
until some bugger says its too dangerous, they'll band public sale of
ladders next.


N. Thornton

unread,
Jun 14, 2003, 12:33:45 PM6/14/03
to
"Tony" <grizedalef...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bccgvj$cdi$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk>...

> As as side note.... I think referring to DIY as a hobby is interesting. Does
> this imply an activity carried out largely for pleasure? I 'DIY' because its
> the only route to improving my house I can afford. Frankly I would not spend
> my time furtling around in dark and dirty corners if I didn't have to. So
> your point about BR is well made; extending building regs ever further will
> limit the scope of what I can do to improve my home.
> tony

Hi

Well, it sounds worse than that. Fact is a lot of people have no
realistic choice but to DIY, the prices charged by registered /
protected etc trades are simply out of reach for a substantial
percentage of the population.

Its not about home improvements, but about managing to get by. Eg
about having lighting, power, hot water, a front door that closes and
locks, that kind of thing.

To make it illegal for a house owner to maintain and repair their
house, which if I understand it correctly P would... talk about
controversial. All it will achieve is to criminalise DIY, it wont stop
a lot of people. What will that achieve?

I understand there are safety issues, as has rightly been pointed out,
you do get nutters here and there doing stuff. How about the scary
idea of making the nutter jobs non-compliant, and permitting anything
reasonable?

Nanny, hands off. Basic rights have to surface at some point.

It is dangerous work that needs acting against, not everyone.


Regards, NT

parish

unread,
Jun 14, 2003, 1:51:58 PM6/14/03
to
Jerry Built wrote:

> Someone in this thread said we are supposed to get "approval"
> from those pen-pushing buggers in the council

What makes me really furious is that the pen-pushing buggers who insist
on "approving" everything take absolutely no responsiblitiy for their
decisions/actions.

I've just got planning permission and building regs approval for an
extension. The former cost me £110 and the latter £130. Reading the
bumpf that I got from the council it turns out that I will also have to
fork out £260 for the inspections. So, I pay the North Wilts District
Council £500 for shuffling papers and pushing pens yet the architect,
who has actually done something useful, only charged me £275 (and he
even put in the applications on my behalf).

The first inspection is when the footings have been dug; so the PPB from
the council comes and checks that they are deep enough, down to
solid/firm sub-soil, but apparently if the extension falls down in the
future (or moves sufficiently to require remedial structural work)
because the foundations have sunk then the council aren't responsible.
Hmmmmm...


parish

unread,
Jun 14, 2003, 3:44:05 PM6/14/03
to
Huge wrote:

> parish <parish_AT_ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> [17 lines snipped]


>
>>The first inspection is when the footings have been dug; so the PPB from
>>the council comes and checks that they are deep enough, down to
>>solid/firm sub-soil, but apparently if the extension falls down in the
>>future (or moves sufficiently to require remedial structural work)
>>because the foundations have sunk then the council aren't responsible.
>

> Why are you suprised?
>
>

I'm not surprised, I'm annoyed ;-)

Councils (in fact any branch of Govt.) are very good at telling us what
we can and (especially) can't do but are seemingly answerable to no-one
but themselves.

I have some old family documents from about WWII which include letters
from various Civil Servants, all of which are signed, "I remain, Sir,
your obedient servant". When was the last time anyone had an official
letter signed that way? These days you're lucky if there's a name on it.
Personally, I think it should be re-introduced.

Hugo Nebula

unread,
Jun 15, 2003, 5:43:31 AM6/15/03
to
From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, parish

<parish_AT_ntlworld.com> wrote on Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:51:58 +0000:

>What makes me really furious is that the pen-pushing buggers who insist
>on "approving" everything take absolutely no responsiblitiy for their
>decisions/actions.
>
>I've just got planning permission and building regs approval for an
>extension. The former cost me £110 and the latter £130. Reading the
>bumpf that I got from the council it turns out that I will also have to
>fork out £260 for the inspections. So, I pay the North Wilts District
>Council £500 for shuffling papers and pushing pens yet the architect,
>who has actually done something useful, only charged me £275 (and he
>even put in the applications on my behalf).
>
>The first inspection is when the footings have been dug; so the PPB from
>the council comes and checks that they are deep enough, down to
>solid/firm sub-soil, but apparently if the extension falls down in the
>future (or moves sufficiently to require remedial structural work)
>because the foundations have sunk then the council aren't responsible.
>Hmmmmm...
>

There's a bit more to it than "shuffling papers and pushing pens". If
you had a professional architect that did something useful, then
you're lucky. With most Building Regulations plans that cross my
desk, you're lucky if you can tell which way up they're supposed to
be. From these, Building Control have to be able to determine,
amongst other things, whether the structure of the walls, floor and
roof is adequate; whether people can escape from it in a fire, and
whether or not it a fire would spread to other buildings; whether it's
free from damp; whether the sound insulation is adequate; whether it's
got adequate levels of insulation and ventilation; etc. With some
"architects" (most people who submit plans are not proper architects-
so let's call them "plan-drawers"), one has to hold their hand through
the design process until they get it right, often after several
attempts.

Once you start work, the inspection fee covers all the inspections
that need to be made, and any more that you request. Normally, the
BCO would inspect the excavation for the foundations, at damp-proof
course level, before concreting the ground floor slab, before
backfilling of drains, any major structural elements (floors, steel
beams, roofs, etc), and completion. Often, due to the plan-drawer not
designing the building properly, it falls to the BCO to suggest ways
in which the extension can be built without having to rely on
sky-hooks. A common one is a plan-drawer specifying "roof trusses to
manufacturer's details", where anyone with more than 10 minutes
experience would know that trusses would be uneconomic and unviable on
a small extension with hips and valleys flying everywhere.

It's always in my mind, and I'm sure in the mind of every BCO, that we
have to be able to justify every decision that we make before a
Coroner or a High Court Judge. In the last decade, it's true that a
court ruling held that Local Authorities are only liable for damages
for death and injury, but I'm sure with the increasing number of
ambulance chasers, higher professional indemnity premiums and the fact
that Local Authorities have bottomless pockets, it can't be long
before that decision is overturned, and we once again become liable
for financial losses.

Capitol

unread,
Jun 15, 2003, 7:25:25 PM6/15/03
to
Hi, IMO the whole building business has become totally over controlled. The
average small builder today is no less competent than his predecessors. The
problem is the excessive supply of officials, who have to justify their
existence. I've worked on jobs where the architect has cocked it up, but the
guys doing the job soon made him change it. The council officials were
nowhere to be seen and definitely hadn't looked at the plans in any detail.
As I recall it, it was that the drawings were indicative only in many areas,
no one could afford the cost of really detailed drawings. Having had to
argue the toss with BCO's who wanted to operate only to a book which was
incorrect, I have very little faith in them performing any worthwhile
function. Anyway, if a few buildings fall down, why does it matter? It
simply provides work for other builders. There are many more people killed
on building sites than by faulty buildings!
Regards
Capitol

Hugo Nebula <"Send-My-Spam-To: abuse@localhost"> > wrote in message ...

Tony Bryer

unread,
Jun 16, 2003, 6:41:43 AM6/16/03
to
In article <bciv5u$ne8$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Capitol wrote:
> Hi, IMO the whole building business has become totally over
> controlled. The average small builder today is no less
> competent than his predecessors.

Of course things were always better in the "good old days" but
IME as a BCO and otherwise there are more than a few totally
incompetent people out there. Two whose work we had to rectify
last year were the 'plumber' who had no problem with running
wastes upwards and round a swept tee the wrong way, and the
'electrician' who wired a 4-plate hob straight into a ring main
with no isolating switch. I don't want a 'no work without a
ticket' regime, but these two jokers are still out there and most
of their customers don't know better.

The key problems, IMHO, are that more than a few 'builders'
working at the home extension size of job have never had any
formal training and what they have learned is usually from their
local friendly BCO's, also that modern materials not only make it
easier to do a good job, but also make it possible to do a bad
job - in the days of lead plumbing I guess that if you needed
water or wastes you called in a real plumber. Now you can do it
yourself whether you know how to or not.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm


N. Thornton

unread,
Jun 16, 2003, 8:28:08 PM6/16/03
to
Tony Bryer <to...@sda.co.uk> wrote in message news:<VA.0000233...@sda.co.uk>...

> In article <bciv5u$ne8$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Capitol wrote:
> > Hi, IMO the whole building business has become totally over
> > controlled. The average small builder today is no less
> > competent than his predecessors.

> Of course things were always better in the "good old days" but
> IME as a BCO and otherwise there are more than a few totally
> incompetent people out there. Two whose work we had to rectify
> last year were the 'plumber' who had no problem with running
> wastes upwards and round a swept tee the wrong way,

It doesnt need a BCO to deal with that, the normal legal processes
would take care of it as normal.

> and the
> 'electrician' who wired a 4-plate hob straight into a ring main
> with no isolating switch.

Not ideal but not the biggest issue is it.

> I don't want a 'no work without a
> ticket' regime, but these two jokers are still out there and most
> of their customers don't know better.

Lets be honest though, those are hardly reason for excessive
regulation. They are hardly disasters, just not good practice.

It is only genuinely dangerous work that need acting on. Of course
lack of iso switch is a risk factor, but
a) its not a big one, and
b) laws against it wont stop it happening anyway.

Its the nutcases that wire lighting circuits up with bell wire and
broken bulb holders used for junction boxes that need to be dealt
with, the great majority of us are sane and can do a reasonable job.

The direction this is all heading in concenrs me. I consider it a
basic right to be able to repair my own home.

Regards, NT

Tony Bryer

unread,
Jun 17, 2003, 6:30:25 AM6/17/03
to
In article <a7076635.0306...@posting.google.com>, N.
Thornton wrote:
> It doesnt need a BCO to deal with that, the normal legal
> processes would take care of it as normal.

Legal processes can try and mop up afterwards: most BCO's try and
stop problems happening in the first place. And where things are
wrong due to ignorance, hopefully explaining how it should be done
and getting it done right this time means that next time it may done
right, BCO or no BCO.

> > and the
> > 'electrician' who wired a 4-plate hob straight into a ring
> > main with no isolating switch.
>
> Not ideal but not the biggest issue is it.

4 x 2kW hobs drawing current down a 2.5mm cable might well have
been.

jerrybuilt

unread,
Jun 17, 2003, 8:42:03 AM6/17/03
to
Tony Bryer wrote:
> N. Thornton wrote:
> > It doesnt need a BCO to deal with that, the normal legal
> > processes would take care of it as normal.
>
> Legal processes can try and mop up afterwards: most BCO's try and
> stop problems happening in the first place. And where things are
> wrong due to ignorance, hopefully explaining how it should be
> done and getting it done right this time means that next time
> it may done right, BCO or no BCO.

Hmm, interesting snipping.

The point being made is, I think, that people feel that they are
being over-regulated and that the State is intefering excessively.
Do you agree?


> > > and the
> > > 'electrician' who wired a 4-plate hob straight into a ring
> > > main with no isolating switch.
> >
> > Not ideal but not the biggest issue is it.
>
> 4 x 2kW hobs drawing current down a 2.5mm cable might well have
> been.

That would be the Mother of all Electric Hobs, would it not?
There is normally only one 2KW "ring" on a hob, and maximum
load is around 5 1/2KW.


________________________________________________________________
Sent via the PAXemail system at paxemail.com




parish

unread,
Jun 17, 2003, 10:46:41 AM6/17/03
to
jerrybuilt wrote:

> Tony Bryer wrote:
>> N. Thornton wrote:
>> > It doesnt need a BCO to deal with that, the normal legal
>> > processes would take care of it as normal.
>>
>> Legal processes can try and mop up afterwards: most BCO's try and
>> stop problems happening in the first place. And where things are
>> wrong due to ignorance, hopefully explaining how it should be
>> done and getting it done right this time means that next time
>> it may done right, BCO or no BCO.
>
> Hmm, interesting snipping.
>
> The point being made is, I think, that people feel that they are
> being over-regulated and that the State is intefering excessively.
> Do you agree?
>

Definitely. Now we have regulations that are just for political reasons.
Bringing replacement windows under building regs requiring an inspection
by the LA if it's a DIY job, or installation by a FENSA regisitered
company is just so that the Govt. can shout about how they are taking
environmental issues seriously and doing their bit.

It is fair enough to have standards, be they Building Regs or British
Standards, where safety is the issue, gas, electric, structural issues,
etc. but that's as far as it should go.

Of course over-regulation and state interference is increasing
everywhere, not just in respect of building issues.

Capitol

unread,
Jun 17, 2003, 1:19:48 PM6/17/03
to
32A down a ring main is not a safety problem. Diversity applies.
Regards
Capitol

Tony Bryer wrote in message ...

N. Thornton

unread,
Jun 17, 2003, 3:35:19 PM6/17/03
to
Tony Bryer <to...@sda.co.uk> wrote in message news:<VA.0000233...@sda.co.uk>...
> In article <a7076635.0306...@posting.google.com>, N.
> Thornton wrote:

> > > and the
> > > 'electrician' who wired a 4-plate hob straight into a ring
> > > main with no isolating switch.

> > Not ideal but not the biggest issue is it.

> 4 x 2kW hobs drawing current down a 2.5mm cable might well have
> been.

Firstly ring circuits use 2x 2.5 sq mm T&E in parallel, or in some
cases 2x 4 sq mm in parallel.
Secondly I have never seen a 4x 2kW hob!
Thirdly it is perfectly within the 16th edn regs to put a 4 ring hob
onto a 30A ring circuit. Diversity comes into play there.

What concerns me is when we get laws making it a crime to repair your
own house, thats when it all gets out of hand IMO. Its one thing to
lay down unrealistic requirements, but to criminalise the millions who
need to fix their homes and get on with their lives is stepping into
very dodgy territory.

Its like the whole pounds and ounces thing: it is illegal to sell food
measured in pounds, despitre the fact that it is a widely used
internationally adopted standard measurement. Ask any American about
this law, they just wont be able to take it seriously.

Regards, NT

James

unread,
Jun 17, 2003, 4:21:22 PM6/17/03
to

"N. Thornton" <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7076635.0306...@posting.google.com...

>>
> What concerns me is when we get laws making it a crime to repair your
> own house, thats when it all gets out of hand IMO. Its one thing to
> lay down unrealistic requirements, but to criminalise the millions who
> need to fix their homes and get on with their lives is stepping into
> very dodgy territory.
>

It seems we are moving toward the position where the cost of approval for
building works - particularly small ones - is out of all proportion to the
overall cost of the job. I wonder if this will result in widespread
disregard for obtaining approval. If the work is not visible externally,
and you have no intention of selling the property it is difficult to see how
anyone would know about it.

Perhaps one approach could be to meticulously work to the regulations (after
all in most cases they are just best practice), but not seek approval. In
the worst possible senario you might have to seek retrospective approval,
with all that entails - but unless you sell the property this is an unlikely
event.

It is interesting to speculate how unrealistic building regulations will be
enforced, when for example motor insurance requirements can not be enforced
on a significant minority of the population. Or are DIYers an easy target?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 11/06/2003


Tony Bryer

unread,
Jun 18, 2003, 6:23:07 AM6/18/03
to
In article <bcnt6e$6vn$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, James wrote:
> It seems we are moving toward the position where the cost of
> approval for building works - particularly small ones - is out
> of all proportion to the overall cost of the job.

What is important, surely, is (a) the possible consequences of
something not been done right, and/or (b) the subsequent cost of
rectification if it isn't. Both of these do not necessarily depend
on the cost of the job: a badly done through room or extension
foundations placed over (rather than either side of) a drain could
(and sometimes do) cost a subsequent owner dearly.

Tony Bryer

unread,
Jun 18, 2003, 6:23:06 AM6/18/03
to
In article <a7076635.0306...@posting.google.com>, N.
Thornton wrote:
> Firstly ring circuits use 2x 2.5 sq mm T&E in parallel, or
> in some cases 2x 4 sq mm in parallel.

Yes I know this, but this joker had a single 2.5 cable from the hob
back to the ring, no switch or fuse. And this is from a guy who is
going around as a subcontract electrician.

> Secondly I have never seen a 4x 2kW hob!

Well OK it may have been 2x2 + 2x1.5

> Thirdly it is perfectly within the 16th edn regs to put a 4 ring
> hob onto a 30A ring circuit. Diversity comes into play there.

But scarcely good practice. Especially when there is a 30A
independently fed cooker point next to the hob!

James

unread,
Jun 18, 2003, 7:05:42 AM6/18/03
to
I was thinking in terms of what may happen if part P of the regulations are
implemented as suggested in the proposed drafts - rather than in terms of
major structural alterations.

As I understand it these would require approval for 'trivial' tasks such as
fitting an extra socket - for which approval might cost a 3 figure sum
(depending upon where you live). I agree there are dangers if such a task
is not carried out correctly, but I think we have to accept the individual
has to accept responsibility for their actions. In reality the greatest
danger may be driving on the roads to pick up parts required. I think there
needs to be sense of proportion about these the relative risks.


"Tony Bryer" <to...@sda.co.uk> wrote in message

news:VA.0000234...@sda.co.uk...

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003


Andy Wade

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 7:24:58 PM6/20/03
to
Steve wrote in article <3ef05610$0$7733$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>...

> Well yes, but its often feeding the oven !

That doesn't preclude it feeding the hob as well. Or do it the other way
round: separate ovens are often <3 kW and can be plugged into a ring
circuit whilst a 4-ring hob is a completely unsuitable appliance to
connect to a standard Appendix 8 ring.

--
Andy

Andy Wade

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 7:24:58 PM6/20/03
to
James wrote in article <bcph0i$2dk$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> As I understand it these would require approval for 'trivial' tasks
such as

> fitting an extra socket [...]

No, there is (in the draft, at least) an exemption for work which comes
within the scope of the electrical installation (small works)
certificate, defined as any work not involving the provision of a new
final circuit. Thus a lot of commonly undertaken DIY tasks, adding or
moving sockets, moving lightswitches, adding lights, etc. will be exempt,
unless the proposals are amended.

To my mind though this is a significant weakness in the proposed Part P.
It could actually encourage dangerous practices such as overextending
existing circuits or connecting unsuitable loads to them (to avoid making
a BC application) when an additional circuit might in fact be simpler to
provide and would certainly be safer. Mad.

The recent ministerial statement, see
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/cm
03
0410/wmstext/30410m01.htm#30410m01.html_sbhd0>,
does not make encouraging reading.

--
Andy

James

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 5:07:32 AM6/21/03
to
The posts in the group last autumn seems to suggest there was some
uncertainty as to what was meant by "minor works" - the wording of the draft
document taken at face value being considerably more stringent than
suggested elsewhere. I agree with you this could lead to unsuitable
circuits being created to avoid approval.

If these "minor works" are permitted I suppose we could get round the
regulation by installing some trivial extra circuits before the regulations
comes into force, which can then be later extended as and when necessary!


"Andy Wade" <spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:01c33785$2ac77a80$LocalHost@dog40...

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 11/06/2003


John Armstrong

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 12:57:30 PM6/21/03
to
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:07:32 +0100, "James"
<james141...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The posts in the group last autumn seems to suggest there was some
>uncertainty as to what was meant by "minor works" - the wording of the draft
>document taken at face value being considerably more stringent than
>suggested elsewhere. I agree with you this could lead to unsuitable
>circuits being created to avoid approval.
>
>If these "minor works" are permitted I suppose we could get round the
>regulation by installing some trivial extra circuits before the regulations
>comes into force, which can then be later extended as and when necessary!

Mmm. Put a new breaker in, stick a loop of t+e in and you have very
short existing ring main. Or would you have to have something on it
before it was considered a circuit ?


--
John

N. Thornton

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 2:34:56 PM6/21/03
to
"James" <james141...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bd176i$e55$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> The posts in the group last autumn seems to suggest there was some
> uncertainty as to what was meant by "minor works" - the wording of the draft
> document taken at face value being considerably more stringent than
> suggested elsewhere. I agree with you this could lead to unsuitable
> circuits being created to avoid approval.

'The 60A lighting ring covering all 40 houses in the terrace - whats
unsuitable about that?' :)

'But the hobs do light up, see? Its halogen.'

'What do you mean I cant enclose my 1 kW halogen lamps in this old
oven cavity for safety? Why not?'


> If these "minor works" are permitted I suppose we could get round the
> regulation by installing some trivial extra circuits before the regulations
> comes into force, which can then be later extended as and when necessary!

The reality is simply that home owners will face prosecution for doing
perfectly good wiring.


> "Andy Wade" <spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:01c33785$2ac77a80$LocalHost@dog40...
> > James wrote in article <bcph0i$2dk$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> > > As I understand it these would require approval for 'trivial' tasks
> such as
> > > fitting an extra socket [...]
> >
> > No, there is (in the draft, at least) an exemption for work which comes
> > within the scope of the electrical installation (small works)
> > certificate, defined as any work not involving the provision of a new
> > final circuit. Thus a lot of commonly undertaken DIY tasks, adding or
> > moving sockets, moving lightswitches, adding lights, etc. will be exempt,
> > unless the proposals are amended.

I would assume the amendments will come further down the line, thats
the standard way to get things through.

Fraid it doesnt help us all take em seriously any.

Regards, NT

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages