halogen spots and fluorescent tube on same circuit?

[dude_diy]

Hi, thanks in advance for any replies. Im wanting to change the lights in my bathroom and wanted to know can you install a fluorescent tube light and halogen spot lights on the same circuit working from the same switch. Would this work and should the spots be wired in before the tube light or vice versa? I would be using just 1 tube light and 4-5 spots at 50w each.

thanks

 

[Taylortwocities]

Yes you can, assuming there is not too much load on the fuse for the lighting circuit

It doesn't matter which goes first, the lights are wired in parallel, so why would it matter?

Don't forget that you'll need to RCD protect all of these lights and that ALL electrical work in bathrooms is notifiable . See //www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:part_p:diy_electrical_work_and_the_law

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What lighting do you have right now in the bathroom? If you've not already got 200W of halogen lighting then installing those spotlights will be illegal.

What's above the bathroom? If it's a loft space, have you thought about the things you'll need to do to maintain the insulation and stop moist air getting into the loft whilst at the same time avoiding fire risks?

Finally, have you considered the fact that spot lights, as their name says, are for spot lighting of small areas or particular display items - they are not designed for, and are useless at, general room lighting?

 

[Steve]

If you've not already got 200W of halogen lighting then installing those spotlights will be illegal.

On what basis? Which part of which law or act would it break?

Finally, have you considered the fact that spot lights, as their name says, are for spot lighting of small areas or particular display items

The basin, the bath, the shower, the john.

But I agree, there is no point in having both strip and halogen lighting. It will be immensely bright. The fluorescent strip will be adequate, and this will save you heaps of money.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

On what basis? Which part of which law or act would it break?

Building Regulation 4(2).

 

[Steve]

[code:1]Requirements relating to building work
4.
(2)Building work shall be carried out so that, after it has been completed—

(a)any building which is extended or to which a material alteration is made; or
(b)any building in, or in connection with, which a controlled service or fitting is provided, extended or materially altered; or
(c)any controlled service or fitting,

complies with the applicable requirements of Schedule 1 or, where it did not comply with any such requirement, is no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than before the work was carried out.[/code:1]

There are ways to make it comply. Plasterboard boxes, drop ceilings etc.

 

[RF Lighting]

Wouldn't an IP65 fitting satisfy that part of the building regs?

they are not designed for, and are useless at, general room lighting?

No, a properly designed down lighter installation utilising the correct fittings and lamps is actually incredibly good at general room lighting.

 

[Jacobssi]

I still don't understand

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There are ways to make it comply. Plasterboard boxes, drop ceilings etc.

Interesting notion.

How would things like that do anything about the problem that the lighting would be less energy efficient than before?

 

[dude_diy]

Thanks for the reply's......current lighting there is just a simple pendant light.

I was wanting get the strip light installed in a ceiling recess over the sink. The light would be concealed but would be partially boxed in by the plaster board. is this legal?

The ceiling is already lowered with another rough ceiling before the loft space, I also intend to put a plaster board cileing on top of that with adequate space and clearance for spots?

Any further comments?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Thanks for the reply's......current lighting there is just a simple pendant light.

So you're going from a maximum of 100W to over 200W to light the same room.

Any further comments?

It's all notifiable, and non-compliant, which is not a handy combination.

 

[RF Lighting]

Thanks for the reply's......current lighting there is just a simple pendant light.

So you're going from a maximum of 100W to over 200W to light the same room.

I did exactly that in my bathroom. It was quite gloomy before with just a 60W centre light, and there were dark areas, especially in the shower. Now it is nice and bright, with an even coverage of light through out the whole room.

Any further comments?

It's all notifiable, and non-compliant, which is not a handy combination.

Yes, the work is notifiable, but it is compliant with the building regulations, so no problems there.

 

[Jacobssi]

[quote="ban-all-sheds";p="1490556"
the problem that the lighting would be less energy efficient than before?[/quote]

So if you increase the wattage it's non compliant? Because it's less energy effiecent?[/quote]

 

[Steve]

Any further comments?

It's all notifiable, and non-compliant, which is not a handy combination.

Ban, can I just say, I dont find this tone appropriate for giving advice on this site. All you have done on this thread is shout down dude_diy's ideas as non-compliant. Rather than do this, and make him worried and not want to come back, why not try suggesting ways of making the installation compliant and more efficient? Perhaps he doesn't know what he's doing wrong. This is why we are here, not simply to say "you cant do that its non-compliant". Feel free to set up your own forum, "http://banallsheds.isthiscompliant.com", where you could solely give answers as above, or perhaps even give a link to your useful introduction to part p! But here, we help people, not belittle them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

PART L CONSERVATION OF FUEL AND
POWER
L1 Reasonable provision shall be made for the
conservation of fuel and power in buildings
by -
.
.
(b) providing fixed building services
which—
(i) are energy efficient

It's hard to see how changing the lighting so that it consumes more than double what it did before has not made it less compliant with L1 than it was before.