Like for Like??

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

This might not be relevant but --

It might not be, depending on where FCU is installed?
That's why I got involved, the original question and following posts, were regarding the fitting/cabling to an outside light and whether this was deemed notifiable.
So I stepped in with my size tens....

The real issue here is where the FCU or S/FCU is located, if it's in the kitchen it will be notifiable as you are altering a circuit which comes under the same regulations as special locations/special installations.
If the cable to the outside light fitting, enters the fitting directly without any external joints and the light is fitted to the side of your house, it's not notifiable.
So the matter would be where is the FCU or S/FCU going to be installed?

So it may not be relevant but might.
We need to know where the alteration/addition to the circuit is being carried out?

 

[AmateurFiFi]

Many thanks to you all.

THe Socket from which the light originates is in the dining room, although next to the kitchen which has no door. There is definitely a wall though between kitchen and dining room - its one of the part "open concept situations with the only internal door downstairs being between the stairs and the lounge.

The circuit does not feed any of the sockets within the kitchen which is fed via its own ?ring final - its fused by a 32 amp mcb but i have not investigated in any more detail.

So to summarize my understanding as long as the kitchen is not involved, and as long as I am "repairing" the outside light and associated circuit then there is no need for notification?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's correct.

 

[Paul_C]

So to summarize my understanding as long as the kitchen is not involved, and as long as I am "repairing" the outside light and associated circuit then there is no need for notification?

There is no real need anyway, since nobody will know exactly what was there before, so even if it were notifiable, most people would just fix it and not get involved with council red-tape and pay out £150 to £400 for the "privilege" (yes, one area has a notification fee that high).

However, if you're really worried about being able to say in good faith that you believe the work was not notifiable, then I would say you can do that with the situation you describe - So long as that outside cable running to the light is damaged, in order to justify its replacement under the exemption in 1(b) quoted above. And remember there's nothing which restricts how or why the cable was damaged to make that replacement exempt. So if your conscience really feels the need to actually create the situation necessary for 1(b) to apply, you can always become a little "careless" as you're putting up the ladder to replace the light fitting, right?

Here's the schedule from the building regulations which sets out all the exempt works, by the way:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/schedule/4/made

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

So to summarize my understanding as long as the kitchen is not involved, and as long as I am "repairing" the outside light and associated circuit then there is no need for notification?

That is true, you just need to install either a FCU which is suitably down rated to protect the cable, then install a functional switch or install a Switched FCU (down rated) which can serve both purposes, as a FCU and a functional switch.

 

[Stoday]

For some strange reason building controls decided not to offer the title of special location to the kitchen area, don't ask me why but that is how it is.

The reason is that some extra rules are common to both kitchens and special locations. Others only apply to special locations and not to kitchens.

 

[Paul_C]

In other words, the whole of schedule 4 (which sets out the jobs which are not notifiable) is a completely inconsistent mish-mash of badly written rules which make practically no sense.

 

[JohnW2]

For some strange reason building controls decided not to offer the title of special location to the kitchen area, don't ask me why but that is how it is.

The reason is that some extra rules are common to both kitchens and special locations. Others only apply to special locations and not to kitchens.

Indeed - and the actual explanation of the 'strange reason' PoD mentioned is that the Building Regs have been lazy in not defining 'special locations' themselves, but are actually referring to BS7671-defined 'special locations' (which do not include kitchens).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Paul_C]

but are actually referring to BS7671-defined 'special locations' (which do not include kitchens).

And also keep in mind that the current building regulations refer specifically to BS7671:2008. Should the definition of a "special location" change in a future revision of BS7671, then the building regs. definition will not change, unless and until such time as the building regs. are also revised to reference the revised standard.

 

[JohnW2]

And also keep in mind that the current building regulations refer specifically to BS7671:2008. Should the definition of a "special location" change in a future revision of BS7671, then the building regs. definition will not change, unless and until such time as the building regs. are also revised to reference the revised standard.

Indeed - there obviously may be a lag period before the Building Regs 'catch up' with the issue of new versions of BS7671, but it will happen eventually. The ('old') version of the Part P SI which appears in this forum's wiki refers tp BS7671:2001.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In other words, the whole of schedule 4 (which sets out the jobs which are not notifiable) is a completely inconsistent mish-mash of badly written rules which make practically no sense.

They may make practically no sense to you, but not everybody suffers from the same handicaps as you do.

 

[Paul_C]

They may make practically no sense to you, but not everybody suffers from the same handicaps as you do.

Anyone who looks at schedule 4 logically can see that it's full of inconsistencies, not to mention things which are extremely badly worded. Anyone who doesn't suffer from the handicap of assuming that it must be perfect to begin with and then tries to twist around what it actually says to what he thinks it should have said, that is.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We've been down this road before, and I'm not prepared to do it again.

You did, and always will, reject interpretations which remove internal inconsistencies, and did, and always will, seek to create ones which deliberately increase and introduce them.

Your motive has never been, and never will be, to try and arrive at what makes the most sense, it has always been, and always will be, to arrive at what is the most ludicrous because you see, in the Building Regulations, the jack boot of a dictatorship crushing your freedoms.

 

[Paul_C]

You did, and always will, reject interpretations which remove internal inconsistencies, and did, and always will, seek to create ones which deliberately increase and introduce them.

No, I just read what is written. It's not my fault if it says something you don't agree with, or indeed something I don't agree with. It's not my fault if it's so poorly written that it creates glaring inconsistencies that anyone else can see but that you try to eliminate by applying further inconsistencies such as making up your own definition of a term ("fused spur" for example).

And you're really not in a good position to argue about inconsistency when you came to the conclusion that of two identical installations one could comply with Part P while the other does not.

 

[Stoday]

There are several ways to interpret part P with different outcomes and different degrees of validity.

The basis of my interpretation is to find any plausible excuse to avoid the need for notification, in particular exploiting the differences between the Statutory Instrument and Approved Document.

My aim is to have an answer should a new owner of my house question the lack of notification. Only a court can determine if an excuse is invalid and no one is going to pay the cost of getting the court to do so.