Part M and Height Requirements

[dw3101]

Hi,

I believe Part M requires the breakers in an enclosure to be mounted between 1350 and 1450mm?

I'm intending to change my incoming supply to a TP&N supply so I can use a decent size ASHP and solar.. Due to the DNO not wanting the new service cable running under my garage floor in a duct, a sensible option seems to be an external meter box on the side of the garage - however I dont really want to mount the board low down and would prefer it up and out of the way and then have a sub-main to the house CU.

are there any workarounds regarding the height on other boards?

If I can get the route 'simplified' then I could do away with a submain for the house and mount the enclosure at an acceptable height within the proposed plant room.

Ta

David

 

[EFLImpudence]

Height recommendations only apply to new-builds and complete refurbishments.

It's your house - but the DNO will only do what they want.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Have you checked the flood risk for your area?

 

[ericmark]

I had arguments with the LABC over heights and they did back down and allow me to mount items lower, in my case it was the thermostat I wanted lower, so in my case my mother could see and work it in a wheel chair.

It seems if you can give a good reason, then it is flexible, such as keeping it out of reach of small children.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And floods.

 

[dw3101]

@ban-all-sheds I like your thought but I have no chance of that one washing (pun intended) as the house is at the top of a hill.. if it floods here then I'll be building an ark!

With regards to this "Height recommendations only apply to new-builds and complete refurbishments." I think timing is the key then - as we are planning on doing a total refurb - but having planning issues that we are appealing a at the moment - they wont effect my heating plans - so sounds key to get that work completed prior to the notifiable work starting.

Thanks

David

 

[EFLImpudence]

With regards to this "Height recommendations only apply to new-builds and complete refurbishments."

Even then, the height requirements are only recommendations.

This is all that Part M of The Building Regulations says:

Having said that, the height recommendations are actually quite acceptable when you get used to them.
They do not stop you having sockets and switches etc. wherever you want.

As I said, though, the DNO will not put the incoming supply anywhere they don't want to - nothing to do with Part M.

 

[JohnW2]

Even then, the height requirements are only recommendations. .... This is all that Part M of The Building Regulations says: ....

All true. However (personally having zero experience of this) I wonder whether (some/all/most) BCOs may take the view that if something does not 'comply' with the recommendations then it does not constitute the "reasonable provision" which is required by Part M?

In other words, I wonder how flexible BCOs are in relation to deciding what constitutes "reasonable provision"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Never assume those in charge know what they are doing.

 

[JohnW2]

Never assume those in charge know what they are doing.

Exactly my point - so, if they don't know what they are doing and/or have limited ability to think, I wondered if they (at least, some of them) may effectively deem that adherence with the 'recommendations' is what is required to achieve the "reasonable provision" required by Part M?

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

So what's the difference between 'complete refurbishment' and 'material alteration'?

 

[JohnW2]

So what's the difference between 'complete refurbishment' and 'material alteration'?

Dunno. The definition of "Material Alteration" in the Building Regs refers to 3(2) (as below), but they do not appear to talk about 'complete refurbishment' ....

As far as I can make out, it is saying that work is only a 'material alteration' if it turns something compliant into something non-compliant, or if it turns something non-compliant into something "even more non-compliant" - neither of which would seem to be very likely scenarios!

It seems that all that matters to the Building Regs (at least, in the context we are discussing) is whether or not the work constitutes a "material alteration" (presumably per above definition) - and, as above, it would seem (at least, to me) unlikely that any work, let alone a 'complete refurbishment', would constitute a 'material alteration' by that definition. If that is true, then Part M would presumably almost never apply to anything other than a new build.

What do you think?

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Did you notice that 'the requirements of this part do NOT apply to...a material alteration'.

For what it's worth I think 'new build' is the deciding factor.

 

[JohnW2]

Did you notice that 'the requirements of this part do NOT apply to...a material alteration'. For what it's worth I think 'new build' is the deciding factor.

Yes, of course I noticed it - that "NOT" is obviously the crucial basis of what I just wrote, namely ....

.... If that is true, then Part M would presumably almost never apply to anything other than a new build.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

it would seem... unlikely that any work... would constitute a 'material alteration' by that definition.

The Building Regs stated: 'the requirements of this part do not apply to...a material alteration'.

Therefore it would seem to follow that Part M does apply. (Which for the record I don't believe.)