Help needed powering a man cave in the garden.

[devs]

Hi guys, I'm looking for a more permanent power supply to my man cave. I currently run an extension lead to this:

I have this under the stairs in the garage that was once used for a water pump. I'm currently using it to power a light.

My plan is to bury 2.5mm armoured cable in pipes over to it and connect in.

Does anyone see any issues with this?

Thanks.

 

[Notch7]

My plan is to bury 2.5mm armoured cable in pipes over to it and connect in

I'm sorry to be negative but It's notifiable work, not something you are able to do yourself unless qualified.

In general:

Armoured cable doesn't need to go in conduit in the ground.

The cable size is determined by your anticipated load requirements and the voltage drop as worked out from the cable length.

The earthing arrangement needs consideration.

 

[devs]

Ah that’s a shame but appreciate your input on this.

Could I simply power to a socket via armoured rather than my standard over ground extension lead? I’m looking for something more permanent.

Thanks

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sorry to be negative but It's notifiable work, not something you are able to do yourself unless qualified.

We haven't yet got a clue as to what the OP's power requirements will be, and hence whether that existing circuit would be adequate, but ...

... if (having decided that it was adequate), the OP extended that existing circuit to his 'man cave', and if he is in England, what makes you think that it would be notifiable work?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Tigercubrider]

If you are keen to keep the costs down and use an electricianthen first contact one. Find one who would allow you to dig a trench to their specs and either fill it in after they run the cable, or bury the spec' cable or some trunking for them to pull through.

I could be wrong but you may be able to fix an armoured cable to a fence but I wouldn't.

You need someone who can evaluate what needs to be done while keeping their work to a minimum

 

[Notch7]

We haven't yet got a clue as to what the OP's power requirements will be, and hence whether that existing circuit would be adequate, but ...

... if (having decided that it was adequate), the OP extended that existing circuit to his 'man cave', and if he is in England, what makes you think that it would be notifiable work?

Kind Regards, John

My apologies to the OP if I've given incorrect information.

I was making the assumption it would be classed as a new circuit.

At what point is an old circuit, a new circuit? If an existing circuit gets terminated say a foot from the CU then repurposed as a new circuit....kind of a triggers broom circuit, would be a notifiable or not?

 

[EFLImpudence]

"Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by
the same protective device(s)."

At what point is an old circuit, a new circuit?

Your decision is as valid as anyone's.

If an existing circuit gets terminated say a foot from the CU then repurposed as a new circuit....kind of a triggers broom circuit, would be a notifiable or not?

Alterations and additions to circuits are notifiable only when in the zones of bathrooms etc.


It's not supposed to make sense.

 

[JohnW2]

I was making the assumption it would be classed as a new circuit.

Yes, I guessed that was most likely your thinking, which is why I asked.

At what point is an old circuit, a new circuit? If an existing circuit gets terminated say a foot from the CU then repurposed as a new circuit....kind of a triggers broom circuit, would be a notifiable or not?

That's an oft-debated question and, needless to say, there is no clear answer. However, I think that many would say that if the OPD remains the same (at least, the same rating), then it is not a 'new circuit'.

In terms of what you say, there have certainly been suggestions (maybe tongue-in-cheek, maybe serious) that a DIYer could achieve what was almost a complete re-wire without the need for notification if he/she got an electrician to install and new CU and run all the 'circuits' to JBs or single sockets very close to the CU - whereafter the DIYer would 'extend' all of those 'existing circuits', without the need for notification (except in bathroom zones)

Edit: As EFLI has just said, it may not be intended to make sense

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

"Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by
the same protective device(s)."


Your decision is as valid as anyone's.


Alterations and additions to circuits are notifiable only when in the zones of bathrooms etc.


It's not supposed to make sense.

protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s). So that would make fitting a FCU a new circuit, but not if from a ring final as it is clearly the final circuit hence the name, I think most feel if the MCB/RCBO exists already it's not new.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, it's all been said before - no one knows for certain.
By the way, for those who don't know, the definition is not mine but is from The Wiring Regulations.

The remaining notification requirements in England are clearly unnecessary and pointless.
Apart from replacing a consumer unit, the other notifiable requirements are just silly.

So whether people wrestle with the words to try and make out a job is notifiable or wrestle with the words to try and make out a job is not notifiable is up to them.

 

[JohnW2]

protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s). So that would make fitting a FCU a new circuit ....

We've been over that countless times and, as has been said, that one would be fine in a debating chamber, or in a bar with a glass in one's hand, it clearly was not the intent that fitting an FCU would create a 'new circuit' which thereby became notifiable work.

Even in the pre-2013 days when far more things were notifiable in England (and remain notifiable in your country, Wales, to this day), adding a "fuse spur" to a ring or radial circuit was one of the few types of electrical work which was explicitly NOT notifiable - so it clearly was not the intention that the 2013 relaxations (in England) that adding things connected via an FCU should become notifiable, when it hadn't been previously.

... I think most feel if the MCB/RCBO exists already it's not new.

Indeed, as I said above, I think that's what many, perhaps most, people would say - and it is certainly essentially my view.

However, there seem to be some people who feel that, even if the MCB/RCBO remains the same, a 'major re-purposing' renders it a 'new circuit' - although I personally can't see a lot of strength in that argument.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I agree with both @EFLImpudence and @JohnW2 the problem is of course we have definitions done by BS7671 and by the laws which do not always align with each other, the

“consumer’s installation” means the electric lines situated upon the consumer’s side of the supply terminals together with any equipment permanently connected or intended to be permanently connected thereto on that side;

has been another debated, with

Electrical installation (abbr: installation). An assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes.

Appliance. An item of current-using equipment other than a luminaire or an independent motor.

which is how electricians look at what should be tested under the testing and inspecting of in service electrical equipment (PAT testing) and an electric installation condition report (EICR) an this is not helped with the governments own guide lines.

What will be inspected and tested?
The ‘fixed’ electrical parts of the property, like the wiring, the socket-outlets (plug sockets), the light fittings and the consumer unit (or fuse box) will be inspected. This will include permanently connected equipment such as showers and extractors.
What about electrical appliances like cookers, fridges, televisions etc?
The Regulations do not cover electrical appliances, only the fixed electrical installations.
We recommend that landlords regularly carry out portable appliance testing (PAT) on any electrical appliance that they provide and then supply tenants with a record of any electrical inspections carried out as good practice.
Tenants are responsible for making sure that any of their own electrical appliances are safe.
See guidance on portable appliance testing (PAT).
Tenants and landlords may consider registering their own electrical appliances with a product registration scheme.

So the law seems to say anything which is "intended to be permanently connected" which would include fridge, freezer, washing machine, etc, where they are only unplugged for maintenance and the guidance says these are not tested with an EICR which would line up with IET/BSi ideas, also the law puts the DNO outside the EICR but the IET/BSi expects them to be inspected.

The idea is courts will decide, so anything which is unlikely to cause a court case in real terms you do what you think is fit. Which again in real terms means owner occupied do what you want, and use common sense. The only time we are really worried is with rented property or property where there are paid people working in them, be it carers, social services, ambulance, police, gardener, or handyman. Remember with an electric shock at work it has to be entered into accident book and the person must attend hospital and the hospital has to inform HSE.

As to rooms where others are not allowed, call it a man cave, or radio shack, I really don't know, I know anyone visiting a radio shack is not allowed to talk unless licensed or invited as their voice can be heard on radio waves, but I would also say it is a quarantine area nothing should be removed as may not be safe, and only skilled persons allowed unless invited as there may be items under repair which could cause injury, RF burns are very nasty they take ages to repair. Personally I would say code LIM with any EICR for a radio shack, which in real terms was like a man cave.

So simple, just use common sense, I am sure if any LABC inspector is made aware of some thing which does not comply, the result will be a verbal warning to make it comply, and a court case would only result if you refused or some one is injured. Even the council I found did not follow the Part P rules when doing work in a private home, so why worry.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with both @EFLImpudence and @JohnW2 the problem is of course we have definitions done by BS7671 and by the laws which do not always align with each other....

You have, of course, totally shifted the discussion. We were talking about the definition of a 'new circuit', which determines whether work is notifiable (in England), but you are now talking (yet again) about what comes within the scope of an EICR (or 'PRS inspection'). As you imply, the common features is the failure of either BS7671 or legislation to adequately define things, let alone define them in the same way! Anyway, in terms of the 'EICR/'PRS inspection' scope issue' which you have now moved onto ...

So the law seems to say anything which is "intended to be permanently connected" which would include fridge, freezer, washing machine, etc, where they are only unplugged for maintenance and the guidance says these are not tested with an EICR which would line up with IET/BSi ideas, also the law puts the DNO outside the EICR but the IET/BSi expects them to be inspected.

I don't think that the definition "in law" of the scope of an inspection required under the PRS legislation is particularly sensible, or has been thought through enough. To distinguish on the basis of "permanently connected" does not seem very appropriate, and "intended to be permanently connected" is even worse.

For a start, I suspect that many electricians would interpret "permanently connected" as meaning 'hard-wired' or 'part of the fixed electrical installation' (i.e. not connected via a plug/socket).

As for "intended to be permanently connected", what on earth does that mean? You imply that you believe that it applies to things like washing machines but I can tell you that my mother only ever 'plugged in' her washing machine, dryer etc. etc. when she needed to use them (and unplugged immediately after use) - so clearly did not 'intend' that they should be 'permanently connected'.

To facilitate easy transfer to a generator supply, rather than having a changeover switch my entire CH system (boiler, pumps, valves, control systems etc.) is connected by a BS1363 plug/socket, but it would not occur to me that all the wiring etc. was not part of my 'electrical installation. Conversely, I have many things which I personally definitely 'intend' to be 'permanently connected' to my installation's electrical supply (via plugs/sockets), but which I really don't think are intended to be part of an inspection of my 'electrical installation' - things like broadband routers and other IT equipment, alarm and monitoring systems, clocks etc. etc.

So simple, just use common sense, I am sure if any LABC inspector is made aware of some thing which does not comply, the result will be a verbal warning to make it comply, and a court case would only result if you refused or some one is injured.

You're jumping around topics again. LABC inspectors have nothing to do with the question of the scope of EICRs or 'PRS inspections'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[devs]

Aye aye chaps. Shifted discussion This is one for the pub.

I was simply wondering how to get juice to my man cave without running the risk of tripping over my current extension lead to the garage setup

 

[ericmark]

OK guilty as charged, all I was trying to say was reading regulations and laws does not really help, as you need a degree in English to work out what is being said, so just do it safe.