Meter tails.

[JohnW2]

I merely ask the question. As a location is a place then relocating must be replacing.

As I said, that is true in terms of the derivation of the word but, I would say (per the example I gave), NOT the way in which the word is used in 'normal usage'.

As I said, I feel sure that most people regard re-positioning/relocating as something different from 'replacement'. I moved my car from one place to another (within my drive/garden) this morning. Are you really suggesting that anyone would say that meant that I had "replaced my car"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

The eternal struggle of theoretical semantics vs reality. There can be no winner.

 

[JohnW2]

The eternal struggle of theoretical semantics vs reality. There can be no winner.

Seemingly not - but I live in hope (whilst not holding my breath) that commonsense will usually prevail!

The irony in this particular case is that, although I do not believe that commonsense results in moving a CU constituting 'replacing' it, I suspect that what the authors of the requirement probably had in mind was 'fiddling with a CU', and that probably would include moving it!

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

Part M says nothing specific about heights and does not, in any case, apply to alterations.

View attachment 180295

The Wiring Regulations do say similar regarding less safe electrically than before but that would not apply here.

I haven't found the particular line but taken in isolation that means that if the material alteration is specifically to move a reasonably accessible consumer unit up to ceiling height to keep it out of the way, the law doesn't apply.
That may be the intention, but it wouldn't seen likely given the guidance.i doubt anyone's been prosecuted under that clause of the building regs anyway.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I haven't found the particular line but taken in isolation that means that if the material alteration is specifically to move a reasonably accessible consumer unit up to ceiling height to keep it out of the way, the law doesn't apply.

Which line?

Are you thinking that while Part M categorically states that it does not apply to an extension or material alteration of a dwelling - I think commonly translated as only applies to new-builds - it nevertheless applies to a CU, and switches, in an old dwelling?

 

[JohnW2]

I haven't found the particular line but taken in isolation that means that if the material alteration is specifically to move a reasonably accessible consumer unit up to ceiling height to keep it out of the way, the law doesn't apply.

As far as I can make out, and contrary to common belief, I don't think that there is any such statement (about 'no less safe than before') in BS 7671, but there may be in some of the 'guidance' documents (e.g. OSG, Approved Doc P).

Kind Regards, John
P.S. Ignore the 'attachment'. I inserted the image in error, and can't get rid of it!

 

[John D v2.0]

no less safe than before'

All of the height stuff is in part m not bs7671, and in the definitions section of the building regs legislation it defines a material alteration as one that either makes a compliant installation non compliant or a non compliant one less compliant.
So as i pointed out before, it seems a little odd that part M only applies to new dwellings as build or conversion time, but as soon as it's completed you can basically do whatever you like.

 

[John D v2.0]

Which line?

Can't remember and i would need to get on the computer to work it out

Are you thinking that while Part M categorically states that it does not apply to an extension or material alteration of a dwelling - Ithink commonly translated as only applies to new-builds

New builds and conversions

it nevertheless applies to a CU, and switches, in an old dwelling?

I was just making an observation, that it seems odd that the moment you finish building or converting, you can throw part m out the window and do what you like. Without finding the quote i can't confirm what i previously read. But it was in the guidance anyway.

 

[JohnW2]

All of the height stuff is in part m not bs7671, and in the definitions section of the building regs legislation it defines a material alteration as one that either makes a compliant installation non compliant or a non compliant one less compliant.

It does. However, that definition is talking about compliance and non compliance with the requirements of the Building Regs (i.e., in context, 'Part M') which, as we know (and unlike the various 'guidance' documents), and just like Part P, contains absolutely no 'detail requirements' at all.

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

Even without detailed requirements I'm not sure many people would say moving a cu from 1400 to 2300 was making it easier for people to use it. Even the OP said it was to get it out of the way not to maintain its accessibility. Although it looks like that law doesn't apply to subsequent modifications anyway.
Anyway, speaking of the OP, this digression probably isn't helping too much.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is no provision made for unusually tall people?


You are fundamentally saying that people could be prosecuted (and consequently imprisoned) for having an accessory they own in their own property at the wrong height.

Britain is not quite there yet.


That large building companies install parts at the suggested heights for universal acceptance is understandable but if people want a single house not to these instructions why should it not be allowed?

 

[JohnW2]

Even without detailed requirements I'm not sure many people would say moving a cu from 1400 to 2300 was making it easier for people to use it.

I'm sure that most people wouldn't. However, the definition of material alteration you're citing merely requires that something previously compliant is not made non-compliant, and I'm not sure that making it 'less easy to use' would necessarily make it non-compliant with "Reasonable provision shall be made for people to ... use the buildings and its facilities" (which is the only 'requirement' for compliance), does it?

However, isn't there something very odd about this 'material alteration' business (even when there IS 'material alteration')? 4(2)(b) of the Building Regs appears to be essentially saying that building work which involves a 'material alteration' is 'not allowed', but Part M says that the requirements of Part M don't apply if the work involves a 'material alteration'! I can't help but wonder whether their use of the term 'material alteration' always corresponds to their own definition of the term!!

I'm confused - how do you interpret all of that?

Even the OP said it was to get it out of the way not to maintain its accessibility. Although it looks like that law doesn't apply to subsequent modifications anyway. ... Anyway, speaking of the OP, this digression probably isn't helping too much.

Agreed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Could it be buildings other than dwellings which have been excluded By Part M itself.

 

[John D v2.0]

You are fundamentally saying that people could be prosecuted (and consequently imprisoned) for having an accessory they own in their own property at the wrong height.

Britain is not quite there yet.

Back in the day I'm sure you could have your head on the block for that! Just because something is against the law doesn't mean a trip to death row, you do have to go via the police, cps and the judge first, i doubt you'd get past any of those hurdles for any trivial offences.

That large building companies install parts at the suggested heights for universal acceptance is understandable but if people want a single house not to these instructions why should it not be allowed?

Well maybe that is the intention, to bind bulk builders without affecting subsequent occupiers.

I'm confused - how do you interpret all of that?

It's a bit of a cyclical reference, a material alteration is one that makes it less compliant, but it doesn't apply to material alterations, therefore is hasn't become less compliant, however it was only excluded because it made it less compliant....

 

[EFLImpudence]

Back in the day I'm sure you could have your head on the block for that! Just because something is against the law doesn't mean a trip to death row, you do have to go via the police, cps and the judge first, i doubt you'd get past any of those hurdles for any trivial offences.

Therefore there is no point making it a legal requirement - which might be why it is not.