Cooker isolators and the 2M rule

[ericmark]

537.1.3 Each installation shall have provision for disconnection from the supply.
537.1.4 A main linked switch or linked circuit-breaker shall he provided as near as practicable to the origin of every installation as a means of switching the supply on load and as a means of isolation.
A main switch intended for operation by ordinary persons, e.g. of a household or similar installation. shall interrupt both live conductors of a single-phase supply.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What's that got to do with cooker switches?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was being sarcastic

I know.

 

[NotHimAgain]

What purpose is a cooker isolator intended to serve? Mechanical maintenance, emergency switching or functional switching?

Where does the 2M rule originate from? I've personally not seen it in BS7671, the OSG or the EGTTBR (it doesn't mean it's not there, just that I've not seen it). Manufacturers instructions?

I'm not arguing against the need for one as it's something I've always done and kept to within a 2M distance from the cooker.
It's also required for a cooker circuit to be installed without a cooker present.

Purpose - we used to kid people it was for emergency switching if they caught the chip pan alight .

Origin - regulation A29, 14th Edition.

Don't you young whipper snappers know anything

(PS:That doesn't include you securesparks - I just noticed that you have already mentioned the 14th Edition - mind you it probably originated before that)

 

[ericmark]

I had always been told it should not be above the cooker so in an emergency it could still be reached and my mother's cooker had eye level controls so any chip pan fire would prevent the cookers own controls being used but now I see most controls are at the front have not seen eye level grills with controls mounted at eye level for years so may be there has been a change in manufacture which means the installation no longer needs to protect against chip pan fires in same way?