Extending cables

[JohnW2]

Very true. Yet a blanking plate could be used - if it was technically allowed.

As you imply, I don't think it is strictly complaint with 522.6.202 - but it's something I have done, and would be happy to do again.

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkwright]

Yes, but you seem to have missed my point. I totally agree with you that so long as the accessory is visible, there's no problem. However, as I said, the issue is that (as per what I encountered) it's possible for the accessory to be removed (and plastered over, leaving no clue) whilst a cable is till travelling through the (now not visible) box.

Kind Regards, John

But that's just bad workmanship that 'shouldn't' ever be allowed to happen.

 

[sparkwright]

Hang on, this opens up another scenario.

So we can have a cable joint (in connector blocks) behind a blanking plate.

But we can't have a continuous cable behind a blanking plate.

(Where cable is less than 50mm behind surface)

Is that what we are saying?

 

[JohnW2]

But that's just bad workmanship that 'shouldn't' ever be allowed to happen.

I suppose it shouldn't, but I can see how it can happen, since the alternative might involve a lot of (potentially pretty disruptive) work.

Imagine that you were the person who was faced with the task, and didn't want to be guilty of the "bad workmanship" I encountered. This was in a conspicuous place on my living room wall (where the then owner presumably didn't want an accessory, or even blank plate - probably for the same aesthetic reason that he/she wanted the switch removed). You had removed a light switch (the ends of the cable were still there, and were dead - so the other end must have been disconnected), but then there was this 'other cable' (goodness knows from/to where) passing through the back box. What would you have done?

The way to avoid this possibility of such "bad workmanship" is to not allow a 'non-connected' cable to pass trough a back box in the first place.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Hang on, this opens up another scenario. So we can have a cable joint (in connector blocks) behind a blanking plate. But we can't have a continuous cable behind a blanking plate. (Where cable is less than 50mm behind surface). Is that what we are saying?

I don't know about 'we' - but, yes, that is what 522.6.202 appears to be saying.

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkwright]

But it's the big MIGHT again, isn't it?

One could say you shouldn't run cables concealed in a zone 150mm from a corner, someone MIGHT remove the adjoining wall, thus making the cables no longer in a safe zone.

 

[JohnW2]

But it's the big MIGHT again, isn't it? ... One could say you shouldn't run cables concealed in a zone 150mm from a corner, someone MIGHT remove the adjoining wall, thus making the cables no longer in a safe zone.

True, although I suppose it's far more likely that someone might remove an accessory than a wall.

However, more to the point, BS7671 cannot do anything about people removing walls (any more than it can stop people installing baths in small rooms containing several sockets!), but it CAN 'do something' about what is allowed to go through back boxes.

For what it's worth, I've always felt that the 150mm zones are a bit daft - particularly in kitchens and bathrooms, they are often the very places where one often wants to drill holes!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I was on a site fairly recently where a wall had been removed. The resulting gash suddenly turned into a convenient place to run several cable TV cables feeding the flats above, buried and plastered over and totally invisible.