Meter tails.

[JohnW2]

It's a bit of a cyclical reference, a material alteration is one that makes it less compliant ...

That's not what I seem to be reading. It seems to me that, per the 'definition' [in 3(2) of Building Regs], in the case of something that was previously compliant. a 'material alteration' is something that [ per 3(2)(a) ] renders it non-complaint (not 'less compliant', whatever that would mean!!). 3(2)(b) appears to only apply in the case of something which was non-compliant before the alteration.

... 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....

As clear as mud, you mean?

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

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

Not really seeing your point, if you steal a carrot from a supermarket you are hardly going to be prosecuted but I'd be surprised if they wrote that as an exception to the law!

 

[John D v2.0]

3(2)(b) appears to only apply in the case of something which was non-compliant before the alteration

Yes hence the less compliant. It either complied or it didn't before hand, if it did choose a if it didn't choose b. If it complied your only option is to remain in compliance, if it didn't then you can make it better or the same. Or if it's part m then fall into a cyclical reference...

An alteration is material for the purposes of these Regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result—

(a)in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or

(b)in a building or controlled service or fitting which before the work commenced did not comply with a relevant requirement, being more unsatisfactory in relation to such a requirement.​

 

[JohnW2]

Yes hence the less compliant. It either complied or it didn't before hand, if it did choose a if it didn't choose b. If it complied your only option is to remain in compliance, if it didn't then you can make it better or the same.

I'm lost! ...

... If the situation was previously compliant, then only (a) applies - and the work only becomes a 'material alteration' if the alteration makes it non-compliant. Even if I understood how 'compliance' ( a seemingly dichotomous concept - i.e. yes/no) could have degrees, the 'definition' says nothing about 'less compliant'.

... If even the previous situation were non-compliant, then only (b) applies - but that is not, I think, the situation we are discussing in this thread.

You've actually quoted the chapter and verse of the above in your latest post!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not really seeing your point, if you steal a carrot from a supermarket you are hardly going to be prosecuted but I'd be surprised if they wrote that as an exception to the law!

That would be up to the supermarket but it is against the law to steal carrots; having a CU at a certain height is not.

 

[John D v2.0]

That would be up to the supermarket but it is against the law to steal carrots; having a CU at a certain height is not.

It is if it's a new dwelling.!
I've forgotten what the original point was now. So far in this thread i learnt that part m only applies to the original work to create a new dwelling, not to any subsequent work.
I guess your point is that on the basis that no one is going to be sent to jail for putting the sockets just above the skirting it's a wonder they bothered with part m at all.

 

[JohnW2]

It is if it's a new dwelling.!

Not as I see it. It could only be 'against the law', even in a new dwelling, if it somehow contravened 'the law' (a.k.a. Part M of the Building Regs), and (in contrast with various 'guidance' documents) that 'law' says absolutely nothing about a CU (or anything else) 'being at a certain height'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

I feel like we have entered a strange world. So what you're saying is only prescriptive laws have effect.
I thought the whole point of the legal system here was to decide legal questions even if they are not prescribed in primary legislation

 

[JohnW2]

I feel like we have entered a strange world. So what you're saying is only prescriptive laws have effect. I thought the whole point of the legal system here was to decide legal questions even if they are not prescribed in primary legislation

If what you're saying is that the legislation we're talking about is so vague that only a Court could make a definitive decision as to whether or not, in a particular case, "Reasonable provision had been made ..." (as required by the legislation), then you are clearly right.

However, since the issues in question are probably never going to be tested in a Court (and, even if they ever were, it would presumably be only in relation to one particular set of circumstances, hence of little general applicability), we have to try to manage without a Court's help!

In other words, it comes down to a judgement as to what is "Reasonable provision", and there will probably be almost as many views about that as people one asks!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Getting started.]

Jesus.
The house is getting a full re wire which I will get signed off as unfortunately I’m not part p even though I can test.
The height of the board will be 1800 centre.

back to my original question
Currently the meter tails go straight through the back of the meter panel into the kitchen then are chased up the wall in capping to the board at 1800 so they don’t go up the cavity like I thought.

I’m going to try the cavity route first but quick question. Can meter tails run in cable zones at chase depth or would they need 50mm clearance.
My easiest option if it complies is chase like 80mm deep up the kitchen and then into the ceiling then through the joists. Would this option be to code or would it need mechanical protection also.
I know mains cables buried are not ideal but if it’s a pass it’s a pass.

 

[Getting started.]

https://postimg.cc/gallery/xkc5epia/

Pics.

 

[AndyPRK]

You could put a blank face plate on the wall to create a zone.

Easy way forward

 

[EFLImpudence]

The house is getting a full re wire which I will get signed off as unfortunately I’m not part p even though I can test.

You do not have to be "Part P" as you call it. Anyone competent may do it.

Currently the meter tails go straight through the back of the meter panel into the kitchen then are chased up the wall in capping to the board at 1800 so they don’t go up the cavity like I thought.

Capping does nothing except hold them in place for the plastering.

I’m going to try the cavity route first but quick question. Can meter tails run in cable zones at chase depth or would they need 50mm clearance.

The cables must be more than 50mm. deep to avoid having to have an RCD.

My easiest option if it complies is chase like 80mm deep up the kitchen and then into the ceiling then through the joists. Would this option be to code or would it need mechanical protection also.

If the wall is usual brick or block that is probably not possible as there are maximum depths allowed by Building Regulations - one third the thickness of the leaf.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You could put a blank face plate on the wall to create a zone.

Easy way forward

No. That would not comply.

 

[JohnW2]

Jesus.

Quite so. Put the CU wherever you want (within reason!).

As you say, buried meter tails are probably 'not ideal' and are (I would say very) unusual, and where they exist are probably most commonly SWA. However, as you also say, provided they satisfy the requirements for buried cables (of any sort), they would not be non-compliant with the regs. Mind you, as EFLI has pointed out, given the probable impracticality of burying them >50mm deep, they would probably have to be RCD protected if they were not either SWA or substantially protected by metal (not just 'capping').

Kind Regards, John