Kitchen ring main cable size

[John D v2.0]

back to 10:03, only on the following assumption

Assuming "ring main" literally means (ring final) circuit,

 

[John D v2.0]

Although for the record it's quite clear that he's only replacing the wiring for an existing circuit but since the pedantry centred on the word New I focused on that.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

He said it was a new circuit.

 

[SimonH2]

It could well be a "new" circuit in the normal everyday meaning of the word new. it could also not be a "new" circuit according to the definition in BS7671. There is no contradiction.
A John points out, what to the lay person is a "new ring round the kitchen" could well be an extension of an existing RFC. Or it could be connected to an existing breaker in the CU. In both cases - the OP may be correctly calling it "new", but it's not "new" according to the definition in BS7671 and hence not notifiable. From the context of the question, the OP is very unlikely to know and understand the BS7671 definition of new circuit, so it's quite reasonable to work on the basis that he is using the "everyday usage" of the word "new" - but for regs compliance, you need to use the official definition.

 

[mwatsonxx]

I'm buying a new second hand car.

 

[John D v2.0]

It could well be a "new" circuit in the normal everyday meaning of the word new. it could also not be a "new" circuit according to the definition in BS7671. There is no contradiction.
A John points out, what to the lay person is a "new ring round the kitchen" could well be an extension of an existing RFC. Or it could be connected to an existing breaker in the CU. In both cases - the OP may be correctly calling it "new", but it's not "new" according to the definition in BS7671 and hence not notifiable. From the context of the question, the OP is very unlikely to know and understand the BS7671 definition of new circuit, so it's quite reasonable to work on the basis that he is using the "everyday usage" of the word "new" - but for regs compliance, you need to use the official definition.

In this case the op mentioned the existing 32A breaker and the old wiring connected to it, so it leaves little doubt which definition he's using!
I'm sure the op has given up on this thread and is getting on with the job already.

 

[SimonH2]

In this case the op mentioned the existing 32A breaker and the old wiring connected to it, so it leaves little doubt which definition he's using!

I wasn't sure about the existing breaker bit. Existing breaker = not a new circuit according to BS7671.

I'm sure the op has given up on this thread and is getting on with the job already.

Indeed, or is another one never to be seen again BAS's "help".

 

[John D v2.0]

It really doesn't help that this forum doesn't have a stated purpose or code of conduct. It could desperately need one.

 

[John D v2.0]

Duplicate post

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In both cases - the OP may be correctly calling it "new", but it's not "new" according to the definition in BS7671 and hence not notifiable.

Please show where the Building Regulations use the definition from BS 7671.

I'm thinking that we have just found another instance where you don't like what the regulations say, and have decided to pretend that therefore they must mean what you want them to mean.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That opens a whole new can of worms.

Whilst it is true that, in some instances, the Building Regulations have different definitions than BS7671, where there is no specific definition of a word or item in the BRs, would you suggest that 'we' use the BS7671 definition or the accepted language definition - these again may be different.

 

[SimonH2]

Hmm, looking at it again, perhaps too much emphasis on the definition of "new" and not enough on "circuit".
Given that for most people*, the means of compliance with Part P will be to conform to BS7671*, then unless the BRs specifically override it then I don't think it's unreasonable to use the BS7671 definitions when interpreting electrically related parts of the BRs. So to the layman, running a load of cable round a ring of sockets, and wiring it to the existing B32 MCB that supplied the previous wiring that's been ripped out - that's "a new ring". But for the BS7671 definition of circuit, it's not new, it's a modification of an existing circuit.

If you use any other definition such that adding to an existing "circuit" (BS7671 defn) is a "new circuit" (BR terminology) then just adding an extra socket to a ring would be notifiable. Given the 2015 relaxation in what's notifiable, then having nearly everything notifiable cannot be what was intended by the authors.

* Very few people will have the specialist knowledge and skills to be able to convincingly justify doing something different to BS7671 and still meet the requirements of Part P. Maybe very small deviations in detail, but nothing more.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you use any other definition such that adding to an existing "circuit" (BS7671 defn) is a "new circuit" (BR terminology) then just adding an extra socket to a ring would be notifiable. Given the 2015 relaxation in what's notifiable, then having nearly everything notifiable cannot be what was intended by the authors.

But you think that their intention was that if there was a CU in place, populated with MCBs etc, and not a single mm of any final circuits, that someone could then come along and install every single bit of the rest of the installation - choose and run all of the cables, install all of the accessories and fixed appliances, and that as long as they avoided putting anything in any bathroom zones none of it would be notifiable.

Fair enough.

 

[SimonH2]

And there's BAS with his straw man arguments again

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - there's me again pointing out that you are wrong, again.

I'll be charitable though - I am prepared to accept that you have no idea that you are wrong, on account of you having no idea what you are talking about.