outdoor circuit extending from indoor circuit

All Spark123 is saying is that an unfused spur of a ring final circuit is not allowed to supply more than one accessory, which we all know to be the case. Why are you questioning that?
But the OP is wiring it in 4mm - do we still think that's the case?
I confess that I missed that, but last time I tried that argument I got shot down by many people. The deemed-to-satisfy provisions of Appendix 15 of the regs certainly don't mention the possibility of having multiple accessories on an unfused spur if it's wired in 4mm² cable - but I agree that does not, in itself, mean that it is not acceptable. As I've tried arguing in the past, in terms of CCC, it's obviously fine (no different from a 32A radial circuit), but the dissenters then start moaning about the potentially high point loading of the ring (and anticipating my next argument by saying that they would also moan if I took multiple 2.5mm² spurs off very close points in the ring!).

Kind Regards, John.
 
Sponsored Links
Loading of the ring is a seperate (design) issue - if the OPs spur happened to be connected to the mid-point of the 'ring', it would be even less of an issue.

What spark123 is referring to, though, is the need to protect a 2.5mm spur cable from overload - which is why the regs state that an unfused spur can only feed one single/double socket outlet.

As the Protective Device is there to protect the cable, then the 32A MCB (Ring Final\), will protect the OPs 4mm spur.

As I said - design is a different matter all together......I'd run a seperate circuit from the board, myself.
 
Loading of the ring is a seperate (design) issue - if the OPs spur happened to be connected to the mid-point of the 'ring', it would be even less of an issue.
Agreed - but, as I say, it's an argument which has been thrown at me when I've suggested this approach. As you say, I think their argument would collapse completely if it were attached to the mid-point of the ring.

What spark123 is referring to, though, is the need to protect a 2.5mm spur cable from overload - which is why the regs state that an unfused spur can only feed one single/double socket outlet.
Maybe, but far be it from me to attempt to work out what goes on in the minds of those who wrote the regs! As you say, protection of the 2.5mm² cable is certainly one issue. However, others suggest that it was also in the authors' minds that it would prevent excesive point loading of the ring (if not at mid-point) - arguing that, if a 4mm² unfused spur supplying multiple sockets were an option they were happy with, they would have included it in Appendix 15. That argument certainly doesn't convince me, but it still leaves a number of 'regs-obsessed' people (not me) believing that an unfused 4mm² spur feeding multiple sockets is 'non-complaint'.

Please remember that (now you've pointed out that it's 4mm² cable!) I am on your side about this one - but am merely pointing out what others have said when I've suggested it in the past!

Kind Regards, John.
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top