Rewiring specifications

[JohnW2]

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?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[Paul_C]

So if the sockets were originally mounted at 300mm affl, lowering the new sockets to 200mm affl would not comply with part M.

But there is no requirement to comply with Part M.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[Paul_C]

So your saying they can be lowered to 200mm?

Yes. Part M in Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations says that:

The requirements of this Part do not apply to -

(a) an extension of or material alteration of a dwelling

If you look in regulation 2, Interpretation, it says:

“material alteration” has the meaning given in regulation 3(2)

So turning to that section:

(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these Regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result—

(a) in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or

(b) in a building or controlled service or fitting which before the work commenced did not comply with a relevant requirement, being more unsatisfactory in relation to such a requirement.

(3) In paragraph (2) “relevant requirement” means any of the following applicable requirements of Schedule 1, namely—

Part A (structure)
paragraph B1 (means of warning and escape)
paragraph B3 (internal fire spread—structure)
paragraph B4 (external fire spread)
paragraph B5 (access and facilities for the fire service)
Part M (access to and use of buildings).

Leaving aside arguments about what exactly "more unsatisfactory" could be taken to mean and assuming that the suggested heights in the Approved Document are absolute for compliance with Part M, and that anything moved further outside these limits than before would therefore be "worse," then this regulation has defined that the move counts as a material alteration for the purposes of the building regs.

If you take sockets which are at 18" (and thus compliant with Part M) and move them down to 15", you've made a material alteration as defined in 3(2)(a) by taking something which complied before and making it not comply now. If you take sockets which are already at 15" and move them down to 12", you've made a material alteration as defined in 3(2)(b) by taking something which did not comply before but which is now "less satisfactory."

So in either case, the regulations state explicitly that what you have done is to be considered a material alteration. Regulation 3 applies generally to all buildings, so if you were moving these sockets from 18 to 15", or from 15 to 12" in a non-dwelling, then it would be a violation of the building regs.

But when it comes to an existing dwelling, the exemption in Schedule 1 states that Part M does not apply to a material alteration thereof. And regulation 3 has already established that the lowering of sockets we're talking about is a material alteration.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[JohnW2]

But you are completely wrong, you have made the installation less compliant, and that is clear breach of part M.

If Paul is correctly quoting the bits of legislation (which I assume he is), I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand what you think is the significance of being 'less compliant' with legislation you are not obliged to comply with at all.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

I haven't bothered reading the rest of your straw clutching response.

Perhaps you can be bothered to read a summary of the two basic facts then:

1. By the definitions given within the building regulations, the lowering of sockets you described is a material alteration.

2. The building regs. state that Part M does not apply to a material alteration of a dwelling.

But you are completely wrong, you have made the installation less compliant, and that is clear breach of part M.

It would be, in cases to which Part M applies. That doesn't include an existing dwelling.

 

[Paul_C]

If Paul is correctly quoting the bits of legislation (which I assume he is),

Just in case anyone doubts it (not you, of course, John!), here's the full statutory instrument:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/pdfs/uksi_20102214_en.pdf