Is moving a light switch in the kitchen allowed/notifiable?

[acmedone]

Do the regs allow this?

The kitchen light switch is in an inconvenient position, shown as x in

http://tinyurl.com/74bz268

and it would be nice to move it by about a foot to y. It is annoying to reach round from the door and as the fridge goes in this corner it has to be spaced away from the wall to give access.

I would fit a surface box onto the end timber of the studding (so the switch now faces west, instead of north) and run a cable through the cavity into the old box. The old box covered with a blanking plate.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes it's allowed.

Yes it's notifiable.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Do the regs allow this?

Yes you are allowed to move that switch to the location that you want.
But as you will be altering a circuit within the kitchen, it becomes notifiable, which for the extent of work needed, it can be quite costly going via building controls application, it would be cheaper to employ an electrician that can self cert work.

 

[acmedone]

Yes it's allowed.

I wondered whether there was some curious rule about feeding a cable through a hole in a stud timber.

Yes it's notifiable.

Pertinent to the "Should Part P be scrapped?" thread. What a totally stupid piece of bureaucracy.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I wondered whether there was some curious rule about feeding a cable through a hole in a stud timber.

OK - maybe I should have said "It's allowed as long as you do it safely, and to that end I would strongly advise complying with BS 7671 when you do it. Regarding concealed cables you should read these:

• http://www.voltimum.co.uk/files/gb/attachments/niu/l/attachments/c5-43.pdf
  
  
• http://web.archive.org/web/20061110111450/http://www.niceic.org.uk/downloads/concealedcables.pdf
  
  
• IEE article
  
  
• Current Wiring Regulations requirements for concealed cables."

Pertinent to the "Should Part P be scrapped?" thread. What a totally stupid piece of bureaucracy.

You asked if it was notifiable.

I assumed you wanted to know, so I gave you the right answer.

What you do about that is up to you.

 

[acmedone]

Pertinent to the "Should Part P be scrapped?" thread. What a totally stupid piece of bureaucracy.

You asked if it was notifiable.

I assumed you wanted to know, so I gave you the right answer.

I did want to know, thankyou. It's not a criticism of your answer (unless you are a prominent member of the committee that agreed these rules).

 

[acmedone]

Yes it's notifiable.

On a slightly related note. In the bathroom, the light switch was originally outside the door. I pulled the cable up and shortened it to fit a cord operated switch inside the bathroom. There is no cable (either dead or live) left in the old switch box so just plastered over it.

What would the bureaucrats make of this?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Pertinent to the "Should Part P be scrapped?" thread. What a totally stupid piece of bureaucracy.

(I'm not the biggest fan of bureaucracy but -)

That may be so but you have chosen the smallest alteration to which the rules apply.
This could have been done purposely as a hypothetical example to ridicule the rules.

It is in a kitchen.
What distance of switch movement would you think necessary before the rules should come into force.

The fact is, without knowledge, you could have joined the cables badly, finished the wall so the cables were invisible and run the extended cable anywhere.
Thus not doing it safely.

If you don't want to notify get an electrician who will know how to do it.

 

[acmedone]

Pertinent to the "Should Part P be scrapped?" thread. What a totally stupid piece of bureaucracy.

(I'm not the biggest fan of bureaucracy but -)

That may be so but you have chosen the smallest alteration to which the rules apply.
This could have been done purposely as a hypothetical example to ridicule the rules.

No, it is a genuine question. I don't blame the respondant for the answer.

It is in a kitchen.

What's so special about a kitchen? The rules allow for sockets to be scattered around the worktop that are in easy reach of the sink. It's probably considered unsafe to use a toaster near a steel sink. Is safety affected just because a bureaucrat has a piece of paper in his hand?

The fact is, without knowledge, you could have joined the cables badly, finished the wall so the cables were invisible and run the extended cable anywhere. Thus not doing it safely.

Not abiding by the rules does not make something unsafe.

If you don't want to notify get an electrician who will know how to do it.

Given the bureaucracy, I shall put up with the inconvenience of the present situation.

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, it is a genuine question. I don't blame the respondant for the answer.

Yes, I appreciate that. I was just pointing it out.

What's so special about a kitchen? The rules allow for sockets to be scattered around the worktop that are in easy reach of the sink. It's probably considered unsafe to use a toaster near a steel sink. Is safety affected just because a bureaucrat has a piece of paper in his hand.

We aren't quite sure (re. kitchens) but that is the way it is.

Not abiding by the rules does not make something unsafe.

True but I was referring here to the electrical rules rather than the law about notifying.

Given the bureaucracy, I shall put up with the inconvenience of the present situation.

So, the law (however silly) seems to have worked.
As you are uncertain of how to do the work safely, i.e. in compliance with the electrical regulations, you are not going to do it.

I suppose that was the intention of Part P but the unfortunate part with this, and other laws, is that those who don't care don't care.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

On a slightly related note. In the bathroom, the light switch was originally outside the door. I pulled the cable up and shortened it to fit a cord operated switch inside the bathroom. There is no cable (either dead or live) left in the old switch box so just plastered over it.

What would the bureaucrats make of this?

Call building controls and ask them?

 

[JohnW2]

On a slightly related note. In the bathroom, the light switch was originally outside the door. I pulled the cable up and shortened it to fit a cord operated switch inside the bathroom. There is no cable (either dead or live) left in the old switch box so just plastered over it. What would the bureaucrats make of this?

To get a sort-of definitive answer ('sort-of' because the answer could vary according to exactly who you asked!), you'd obviously have to ask 'them', but ....

...if (as I would have thought) a switch counts as 'fixed electrical equipment', then 1(a) of Schedule 4 could be interpreted as meaning that it is non-notifiable, whether in a bathroom or anywhere else. It says nothing about the replacement having to be 'like for like', or in exactly the same location as the item it is replacing - and what you describe does not involve any new fixed cabling or a CU. Others may (probably will) disagree.

Kind Reggards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

But would it be considered an extension of a circuit within a special location,
as that part of the existing circuit was not originally within the bathroom?
It was not a replacement to an existing component.
As it is not maintenance or repair work, would it be deemed a replacement?

 

[JohnW2]

But would it be considered an extension of a circuit within a special location, as that part of the existing circuit was not originally within the bathroom?

Some might argue that way, but it's equally possible to argue that work which consists of shortening an existing cable cannot possibly be regarded as 'an extension'.

It was not a replacement to an existing component.

Some would argue that replacing one light switch with another (slightly different, but with exactly the same function and exactly the same cable) constituted 'replacement of an existing component'.

As it is not maintenance or repair work, would it be deemed a replacement?

I see nothing in I(a) of Schedule 4 that says that it only applies to maintenance or repair work. Indeed, I'm sure that many replacements of accessories, non-notifiable by virtue of 1(a), are done for reasons of fashion/aesthetics, nothing to do with maintenance or repair.

I really haven't a clue as to what interpretation is in the minds of those who wrote Schedule 4, but I can see a perfectly reasonable argument that the work we are discussing would be consistent with the words they chose to write in 1(a).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

As schedule 4 was produce to make the understanding of non-notifiable work easier, which I don't think it does.
That does not mean that non-notifiable work has altered from Table1.
So going on building regulation guidances

Work that need not be notified:
Re-fixing or replacing the enclosure of an existing installation component.
Non-notifiable work (like for like), repair and maintenance jobs are generally not notifiable, even if carried out in special locations.
Additional notes
(a) Notifiable jobs include extensions to circuits in special locations

(h) However work is notifiable only if it involves fixed wiring and the installation of a new circuit or the extension of a circuit in a kitchen or special location or associated with a special location.

Which brings me back to even though cable has been shortened that the terminations were not originally made within the bathroom, therefore I deduce (others may not) That the circuit has been extended to the bathroom and a replacement has not been made, as it never existed within that area.

PS can't wait until the schedule 4 table gets posted and like for like gets lambasted