Replacing supply to detached garage - part P notifiable?

[Flinstone]

Hi there,

I want to replace approximately 15 metres of MICC/Pyro cable buried in my back garden - a power feed from the house to a detached garage - with SWA for a couple of reasons.

I want to protect the cable better - at present the cable is barely 2-3" below ground under weak concrete which is a bit of a hit & miss affair, presumably done by previous occupants. And since I have just dug a trench along the same route for telephone/fax/computer/satellite cabling ready for turning part of the garage into an office I would also like to take this opportunity to bury the cable deeper.

The MICC isn't long enough to bury deeper, has been damaged by stones in the concrete when digging, and I want to break into the supply to feed a shed en-route to the garage (shed is sited adjacent to cable route).

MICC being quite difficult & expensive to work with and for the above reasons, I would prefer to replace with SWA.

So, must the existing cable replacement be notifiable under part P?

Regards

 

[Aragorn84]

I THINK a streight forward replacement of the cable should be fine, as it probably comes under 1(b) and (d) of the Part P Non-notifiable list.

But once you start talking about routing it into a shed first its no longer a streightforward replacement and therefore would become notifiable i think.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Its a different cable with different characteristics.
so its notifiable

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Which bit of the Building Regulations make it notifiable because it's a different type of cable?

 

[chapeau]

Evening flinstone.

Some snippets from Approved Document P

"The rules are based upon the risk of fire and injury and what is practicable."

"Replacement, repair and maintenance jobs are generally not notifiable..."

and

"detached garages and sheds are not special locations. Work within them is notifiable only if it involves new outdoor wiring"

"Any new work in, for example, the garden or which involves crossing the garden is notifiable"

Also work is not notifiable if :

"the replacement cable has the same current-carrying capacity and follows the same route"

So there you go.

I would tend to agree with aragorn84 that replacing the cable with one that is same size/larger is probably not notifiable whereas rerouting into your new shed probably is. So take a position on all the probablys and do what you think makes sense.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Some snippets from Approved Document P

I hope you didn't write that as an answer to my question....

 

[Flinstone]

Thanks chaps for taking the time & trouble to help with your replies.

The shed did have electrics at some time but is has been disconnected (not by me). There is no sign of where it was connected to the existing power cable which feeds the garage even though there is a junction box at the bottom of the shed's back wall which is right next to the existing cable route. I had been hoping to replace the shed CU with a metal one and break into the cable whether new or old.

Whilst fully appreciating that new connections to the shed is notifiable, its a shame that such little extra work will cost so much more. The work required to prepare SWA cable, fitting glands and making connections appears to be acceptable for the existing power cable but not for barely 12" away from the run because it is a new circuit!

What interests me too is if there HAD been existing connections to the shed (not notifiable) and the cable was replaced, what is there to prove that the connections had indeed existed/not existed beforehand?

Further, I could have acted illegally and installed a completely NEW supply to the garage, but pretended that an old one had existed (not notifiable) when in fact it had not. Presumably there must be a clear way of determining this if, for whatever reason an inspection was made, but I can't immediately think of one (clearly not cunning enough).

Thanks again.