Bathroom with no window - fitters says over-run is optional?

[Paul_C]

Is that allowed by the relevant regs when there is a requirement for 'adequate ventilation'?

Certainly. The fan provides that adequate ventilation, you just have to switch it on.

It seems a bit odd to leave the householder in manual control of whether or not the ventilation is operative.

I would say it's perfectly sensible to have manual control, given that the person using the bathroom will know whether he wants the fan on or not.

Besides, it's still manual control even if linked to the light switch as seems to have become all too common these days. If it were a bathroom with natural light, you wouldn't need to switch the light on every time you went in during daylight hours, so the fan still wouldn't be turned on "automatically" every time somebody went into the bathroom.

 

[JohnW2]

I would say it's perfectly sensible to have manual control, given that the person using the bathroom will know whether he wants the fan on or not.

My thought was that if the ventilation was 'required', then the person using the bathroom ought not to have the option to not to use it.

Besides, it's still manual control even if linked to the light switch as seems to have become all too common these days. If it were a bathroom with natural light, you wouldn't need to switch the light on every time you went in during daylight hours, so the fan still wouldn't be turned on "automatically" every time somebody went into the bathroom.

Sure, but my understanding was that the requirement for electrical ventilation usually only arises in situations in which there is no natural light - hence, linking the extractor to the fan to tyhe light is a pretty sure way of making sure that it is operational whenever the room is occupied (and for the run-on period thereafter).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What is the thinking behind these regulations?

I can understand them relating to public and rented properties for the benefit of users and inhabitants.

However, if the OP doesn't mind his house being damp and smelly (although not that bad, really) what has it to do with the government?
The noise of a fan for fifteen minutes after leaving the bathroom is really irritating, in my opinion.

I know the answer really.

 

[JohnW2]

What is the thinking behind these regulations? I can understand them relating to public and rented properties for the benefit of users and inhabitants. However, if the OP doesn't mind his house being damp and smelly (although not that bad, really) what has it to do with the government? The noise of a fan for fifteen minutes after leaving the bathroom is really irritating, in my opinion. I know the answer really.

The Building Regs have 'always' (for as long as I can remember) had quite a lot to say about ventilation in all 'habitable rooms' (which, if I recall, doesn't actually include bathrooms and toilets) - long before anyone was interested in dampness etc. - I think through a desire that occupants had 'fresh air' to breathe (sound like rules with a Victorian era background!)!

I've always assumed that the specific requirements in relation to rooms containing toilets which didn't have natural ventilation (openable windows of adequate surface area) were based on perceived health issues - but I could be totally wrong.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

My thought was that if the ventilation was 'required', then the person using the bathroom ought not to have the option to not to use it.

Perhaps "required to be available" would be a better way of describing it?

Sure, but my understanding was that the requirement for electrical ventilation usually only arises in situations in which there is no natural light - hence, linking the extractor to the fan to tyhe light is a pretty sure way of making sure that it is operational whenever the room is occupied (and for the run-on period thereafter).

Well, you could have a bathroom provided with natural light by some means but which doesn't have an openable window for ventilation. Granted it's probably unusual, but it's possible.

It also appears that a new version of the Part F Approved Document was published last October, and while I haven't read through all of the relevant sections yet, I think I did notice something in the new dwellings section about providing mechanical ventilation in all bathrooms now (not that anything in the Approved Document is mandatory, of course).

But my view is that the now-common practice of linking the fan to the light switch is generally not a particularly good idea whatever the situation. For an internal bathroom with no natural light, the fan will run unnecessarily when somebody pops in quickly for a minute during the night. If the fan is set to run on for 15 minutes, that's particularly annoying. For a bathroom with a window, the same thing will happen during the hours of darkness, plus you have the situation where if you then want to run the fan during the day, you have to switch the light on as well even though you don't need it. I want an exhaust van in my bathroom, but I would always have it wired to its own switch so I can turn it on when, and only when, I want it to run, and completely independently of any lighting.

However, if the OP doesn't mind his house being damp and smelly (although not that bad, really) what has it to do with the government?

Precisely - Things like this are none of the government's business.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But if the Government decide they are then your anti-government opinions are irrelevant.

 

[Paul_C]

But if the Government decide they are then your anti-government opinions are irrelevant.

In that case, when the government has imposed so many petty restrictions that even you start to object to them, presumably you will be quite happy if we all just say "The government has decided, so your anti-government opinions are irrelevant."

 

[JohnW2]

It also appears that a new version of the Part F Approved Document was published last October, and while I haven't read through all of the relevant sections yet, I think I did notice something in the new dwellings section about providing mechanical ventilation in all bathrooms now (not that anything in the Approved Document is mandatory, of course).

That doesn't surprise me. There's a growing interest in dampness etc., in addition to whatever were the original (probably health) reasons for ventilation requirements.

But my view is that the now-common practice of linking the fan to the light switch is ...

Yes, I understand yor view, and largely agree with it. I've just been expressing surprise that it's 'allowed'.

However, if the OP doesn't mind his house being damp and smelly (although not that bad, really) what has it to do with the government?

Precisely - Things like this are none of the government's business.

Whilst I am the very last person to give any support to the Nanny State, if the government belives that this is a health issue, then I think it probably is their business. You wouldn't expect to be allowed to have an 'open sewer' running through your house, would you? Indeed, you could just as easily argue that frankly dangerous electrical installations are also none of a government's business. I think, even for someone who things like me about the Nanny State, there have to be some controls. One of the issues of course that (unlike the inquitous seatbelt and crash helmet legislation for adults, where no third parties are involved), regulations have to take into account that the property may have different occupiers next week.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

unlike the inquitous seatbelt and crash helmet legislation for adults, where no third parties are involved

Of course not.

There are absolutely no extra financial or emotional costs to anybody else whatsoever when people are more seriously injured in road accidents than they would otherwise be, are there.



You idiot.

 

[JohnW2]

unlike the inquitous seatbelt and crash helmet legislation for adults, where no third parties are involved

Of course not. There are absolutely no extra financial or emotional costs to anybody else whatsoever when people are more seriously injured in road accidents than they would otherwise be, are there. You idiot.

I don't want to go over that seriously off-topic issue again, but (since you're not stupid) I'm sure you know what I meant .... Of course there are major collateral effects (financial, emotional or whatever) of injuries/deaths due to not wearing seatbelts or crash helmets - but no different from the collateral consequencies of injuries/deaths associated with smoking, drinking, over-eating, climbing mountains, doing DIY, jumping out of aircraft, gardening, crossing roads etc. etc. etc. - none of which have been outlawed by legistlation.

Returning to topic, my point was that whilst one could argue that the present owner of a property should have the 'right' to have a property which contains direct (not 'collateral') risk to his/her health/life (whether due to the electrical installation, 'air quality' or whatever), they might not be the sole occupier - and may well be replaced by a different occupier in the future.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

Whilst I am the very last person to give any support to the Nanny State, if the government belives that this is a health issue, then I think it probably is their business.

So would it also be the government's business to dictate what foods we eat and to mandate a specific diet because the government believes it's a health issue? Would it also be the government's business to make certain vaccinations and surgical procedures compulsory because the government believes it's a health issue?

I think, even for someone who things like me about the Nanny State, there have to be some controls.

To prevent the actions of one person from directly harming another, and to prevent the actions of one person from violating the rights of another, yes. But never under the excuse of it being "for your own good."

One of the issues of course that (unlike the inquitous seatbelt and crash helmet legislation for adults, where no third parties are involved), regulations have to take into account that the property may have different occupiers next week.

And it may have the same occupier for the next 30 years. There was a recent thread on another forum about Part M and socket/switch heights, and this same argument was raised (in fact one proponent of Part M even went so far as to try and justify it with the ridiculous claim of "it's not really your house at all").

I don't believe that what some future owner of the house may want is a valid argument for trying to force things upon the current owner. If somebody thinking about buying that house at some point in the future doesn't like whatever provisions are there - be it the height of the sockets, the way a bathroom fan is controlled, or anything else - then he's perfectly at liberty to change it or to negotiate with the seller to allow for the changes he wants.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So would it also be the government's business to dictate what foods we eat and to mandate a specific diet because the government believes it's a health issue?

Possibly.

Would it also be the government's business to make certain vaccinations and surgical procedures compulsory because the government believes it's a health issue?

They already do make certain vaccinations compulsory, and rightly so.

To prevent the actions of one person from directly harming another, and to prevent the actions of one person from violating the rights of another, yes. But never under the excuse of it being "for your own good."

Feel free to leave the country, you Tea Party nutcase.

And it may have the same occupier for the next 30 years. There was a recent thread on another forum about Part M and socket/switch heights, and this same argument was raised (in fact one proponent of Part M even went so far as to try and justify it with the ridiculous claim of "it's not really your house at all").

It's not. It's part of the housing stock of this country.

But, of course, you don't give a *** about anything or anybody if that means you have to accept that you live in a society.

I don't believe that what some future owner of the house may want is a valid argument for trying to force things upon the current owner.

I do.

If somebody thinking about buying that house at some point in the future doesn't like whatever provisions are there - be it the height of the sockets, the way a bathroom fan is controlled, or anything else - then he's perfectly at liberty to change it or to negotiate with the seller to allow for the changes he wants.

I'm sure that there's a cave for you somewhere in the US Mid West where you can hide behind your guns waiting for The Man to come and deprive you of something.

 

[JohnW2]

Wildly off-topic, but .....

To prevent the actions of one person from directly harming another, and to prevent the actions of one person from violating the rights of another, yes. But never under the excuse of it being "for your own good."

Is that not precisely the view I've been expressing?

I don't believe that what some future owner of the house may want is a valid argument for trying to force things upon the current owner. If somebody thinking about buying that house at some point in the future doesn't like whatever provisions are there ....

Do you believe that there should not be any regulation of safety-related matters in buildings? Do you, for example, think the owner of a property should be free to undertake structurally dangerous alterations?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

They already do make certain vaccinations compulsory, and rightly so.

Not in this country (or many countries) - at least, not yet. Anyway, issues involving minors (unable to make decisions about their own 'best interests') are a much more complicated area.

Kindest Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

First of all I should not have used the word 'damp'.
It is condensation which, if it does not disperse naturally, obviously can lead to mould, and so health issues, but that would be the fault of the occupants for not attending to the problem.

Extractor fans are also fitted in single WCs where there is no condensation so, apparently, the law says you must remove the smell. I cannot see this as being a health risk.

Whilst extractor fans are a piffling example, merely because something is the 'law' does not by default mean it is good, wise, sensible or needed.
It has been passed by those who have been admitted to the legislature by those in charge because they have previously shown that they will toe the line.
Exceptions who slip through the net find themselves held to ridicule throughout their career.

There are many bad laws - some nonsensical. Look around the still primitive countries and/or the past.
Few bad laws have been repealed without a lengthy protest nor, in most cases, some violence.