Rewiring specifications

[1909]

Are there any requirements for placing new sockets and lights switches at a particular height? There seems to be no such requirement in the 17th Edition Regs; is there something elsewhere?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ericmark]

Do be aware the distances for domestic is different to commercial.
450mm to 400mm.

Also the heights don't really make sense, as with for example a thermostat it must be both over and under 1200mm as since it has a control must be under 1200mm and is needs looking at has to be over 1200mm and although sockets must be over 400mm they can also be floor mounted.

In real terms common sense must prevail and mounting the thermostat at around 800mm I did get query from building control but once I pointed out half way between height for mother in wheel chair and dad he accepted without any more issue.

Main thing make sure you can say why you have not complied. Due to mistake on finished floor height sockets upstairs were too low. I said it was to avoid them being smashed by bed head and I got the nod and passed.

Kidology rules OK

 

[riveralt]

Yes, its part M of the building regulations. It only applies to new builds and major refurbishments. But also talk to your local building control people to confirm their requirements.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADM_2004.pdf[/QUOTE]

When did it apply to major refurbishments as well?

I thought that the heights of switches and socket outlets only applied to all new dwellings. For a major refurbishment , like a rewire, there is no requirement to provide switches and sockets at the heights described providing upon completion the building is no worse in terms of the level of compliance with others parts of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[riveralt]

It always has depending on how the buidling is being modified.

Thanks for that but it raises a couple of issues for me:

I'm doing the first in a series of rewires for a property developer. The downstair rooms remain largely intact. but the upstairs is having the bathroom moved, each bedroom renovated and a loft room created.

Does this qualify as a major refurbishment?

Secondly, who determines whether or not it is to be classified as a major refurbishment - the property developer, the builder or the humble spark?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Ditto Holmslaw.

If you feel that there may be some non-compliance regarding what you have been asked to do, get instruction from the person ordering the work.
(Preferably by email)

Placing the 'not complying with part M' in your contract might be ok, but i would rather have the client tell me not to comply rather than me tell him/her that im not going to. Shifts the responsibility a bit.

CYA at all times when working for builders

 

[Paul_C]

When did it apply to major refurbishments as well?

It doesn't.

If you search through the Building Regulations, you'll find that the words "refurbish" and "refurbishment" do not appear at all. "Renovate" and "renovation" appear only in relation to thermal elements and in one other specific context which is not applicable to dwellings.

The entry for Part M in Schedule 1 taken in conjunction with the definitions elsewhere in the Building Regs. state quite clearly that as far as dwellings are concerned, Part M applies only to a new building. It does not apply to an extension or refurbishment, major or otherwise.

There also seems to be a lot of insistence about about mounting new sockets and switches at heights which are "no worse than existing" (however one cares to define that). The Approved Document for Part M even endorses this "requirement," but if you read the actual legislation carefully, it does not appear to mandate it.

 

[JohnW2]

There also seems to be a lot of insistence about about mounting new sockets and switches at heights which are "no worse than existing" (however one cares to define that).

That would be easy, wouldn't it - if one mounted sockets at exactly the same heights as the 'existing' ones, those heights couldn't possibly be 'worse (or better) than existing', whatever the definition, could they?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Have a look at page 11 of the pdf.

Do you mean the page which says that the requirements of Part M do not apply to an extension of or material alteration of a dwelling?

 

[Paul_C]

if one mounted sockets at exactly the same heights as the 'existing' ones, those heights couldn't possibly be 'worse (or better) than existing', whatever the definition, could they?

That would certainly cover it. Unless one wanted to argue that sockets at a specific height in one location are more or less easily accessible than sockets at the same height in a different location. But all of that is open to the issue which I've mentioned before that what is more easily accessible to one person might not necessarily be so easily accessible to another, since there are varying types of disabilities and restrictions of movement.

 

[riveralt]

LOL I have done six rewires/refurbishments since this one (15 months ago )...... though work is starting to dry up...
As far as LABC are concerned if it is not a new build then the no worse scenario applies.

 

[JohnW2]

That would certainly cover it. Unless one wanted to argue that sockets at a specific height in one location are more or less easily accessible than sockets at the same height in a different location. But all of that is open to the issue which I've mentioned before that what is more easily accessible to one person might not necessarily be so easily accessible to another, since there are varying types of disabilities and restrictions of movement.

Quite - it's one of those situations for which one size definitely does not fit all. Under those circumstances, I suppose the best that any regulations or guidelines can do is specify a range of heights that would suit 'the majority' - but it would be pretty crazy (and quite possibly in violation of the Disability Discrimination Act!) to have regulations which would prevent one from tailoring an installation to the specific needs of a specific user.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Paul_C]

(15 months ago )......

I'll take responsibility for not noticing that. For some reason when finding this old thread I read it as being from May of this year instead of May of last year. But nevertheless, I'll defend resurrecting it on the grounds which were mentioned on the forum recently.

As far as LABC are concerned if it is not a new build then the no worse scenario applies.

I don't believe it does. It's clear that's what a lot of building inspectors try to enforce, possibly because of the wording in the Approved Document which says as much, but I don't believe that's what the actual Building Regulations say. Careful reading shows that the rather general "make no worse" requirement does not apply to Part M when the building in question is a dwelling.