New switched spur off the ground

My, how you have changed.

Perhaps it would be quicker if you showed where such things are mandatory and where the Building Control were correct in insisting that such a self-builder were not correct in his demand that mere guidance may be ignored.

Is this similar to Part F which merely states:



and some have translated this to mean that fans in bathrooms are compulsory because someone else said so?

EFLImpudence said:

My, how you have changed.

Click to expand...

¿Que?

Why on earth do you say that?

Perhaps it would be quicker if you showed where such things are mandatory and where the Building Control were correct in insisting that such a self-builder were not correct in his demand that mere guidance may be ignored.

Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point.

You said "if someone were having a house built for themselves then it is up to them."

Compliance with Part M is not up to them - even if they are literally self-building with their own hands and intend to live in the house until they die, they have to comply with Part M.

As for guidance vs mandatory, all I have done is to question the wisdom IRL, if compliance with Part M is compulsory, of getting into a fight with Building Control over the heights of accessories.


If someone was a "self-builder" but the work was physically being done by architects and/or contractors and/or there was a professional project manager, I wonder how much extra you would advise them to pay in professional fees, and how long to hold up the build for, in order that there could be an argument with BC about the enforceability of guidance for things like accessory heights and fans in bathrooms?

That's not a rhetorical question, BTW - if you disagree with the idea that the most sensible thing might be for someone to just go with the Approved Document flow then your position must be that they should always stand their ground. Which could so easily have cost implications. So how much would you advise them to spend on that dispute?

ban-all-sheds said:

Why on earth do you say that?

Click to expand...

Well, you used not to like officials who overstepped their remit, and
you used to be a stickler for what the regulations actually said.

Compliance with Part M is not up to them - even if they are literally self-building with their own hands and intend to live in the house until they die, they have to comply with Part M.
As for guidance vs mandatory, all I have done is to question the wisdom IRL, if compliance with Part M is compulsory, of getting into a fight with Building Control over the heights of accessories.

Click to expand...

Obviously not worth it IF compulsory but did you not agree the heights were only a recommendation?

That's not a rhetorical question, BTW - if you disagree with the idea that the most sensible thing might be for someone to just go with the Approved Document flow then your position must be that they should always stand their ground. Which could so easily have cost implications. So how much would you advise them to spend on that dispute?

Click to expand...

The Approved Documents are merely guidance (apart from the quoted actual Building Regulations) are they not?

EFLImpudence said:

Well, you used not to like officials who overstepped their remit, and
you used to be a stickler for what the regulations actually said.

Click to expand...

I still don't, and I still am.

All I have done is to question the wisdom IRL, if compliance with Part M is compulsory, of getting into a fight with Building Control over the heights of accessories.

Obviously not worth it IF compulsory but did you not agree the heights were only a recommendation?

Click to expand...

They are, but Part M isn't. All I have done is to question the wisdom IRL, if compliance with Part M is compulsory, of getting into a fight with Building Control over the heights of accessories.

The Approved Documents are merely guidance (apart from the quoted actual Building Regulations) are they not?

Click to expand...

They are. But all I have done is to question the wisdom IRL, if compliance with Part M is compulsory, of getting into a fight with Building Control over the heights of accessories.

If someone found that Building Control were insisting on something that was only guidance, how much would you advise them to spend disputing it?

Ok, maybe not wise - perhaps not worth it might be more accurate.

Part M does not mention heights of sockets and switches.

It is, like all the other parts, quite vague -



then, as usual, someone else describes what they think is reasonable.

EFLImpudence said:

Ok, maybe not wise - perhaps not worth it might be more accurate.

Click to expand...

Unwise, not worth it - pretty much the same.

Part M does not mention heights of sockets and switches.

It is, like all the other parts, quite vague -

Click to expand...

I know.

But if you think it's not worth arguing the toss with BC over it I'm puzzled about why you've written all your recent posts just because I talked about the stupidity of going toe-to-toe with Building Control over such a trivial matter.

...because one of your replies to what I wrote was "The law says otherwise".

Yes, I did

In reply to

EFLImpudence said:

I am not saying I would refuse on principle but if someone were having a house built for themselves then it is up to them.

Click to expand...

If someone is having a house built then Part M does apply to them, and it is not up to them whether they comply with M1.