Security Lighting on external walls

[Pensdown]

It's not the IET that make legislation...

Quite right BAS. It's worth pointing out that the IET publication conflicts with Approved Document part P..

Peoples interpretations will always vary which is why it's better to read and understand the actual regulations first.

IMO the various Guides should only be used to either confirm or question ones own interpretation.

I think the recent culture of letting others do the reading and then working to their interpretation is very worrying.

My comments are general and they are not directed at you.

 

[Stoday]

Peoples interpretations will always vary which is why it's better to read and understand the actual regulations first.

IMO the various Guides should only be used to either confirm or question ones own interpretation.

I think there's a distinction between regulation and legislation.

I would agree with Pens as far as regulations are concerned but legislation is a different matter. The law attributes meanings to words that may not be the same as an ordinary person would expect. It's called legalese — it contains current and old english and a smattering of latin. The Approved Documents interpret the law called the building regulations and are written by the same governmental department that wrote the legislation. I think that gives the ADs definitive authority. Well, better than anyone else's interpretation anyway.

 

[Stoday]

If you really think that junction boxes and lights etc are so readily available with what you think are "exposed connections" that they require that special clarification in the guidance then carry on. Personally I think that the use anywhere of a junction box or light with what you think are "exposed connections" would contravene so many Wiring Regulations that it could never happen. I've also never seen a junction box or light with what you think are "exposed connections", but then I've not seen every product on the market.

Maybe you could show me one?

Of course I can!

A BC or ES lampholder that's not in an enclosing fitting. Bet you've got some in your house BAS!

As for exposed connections, I would include a junction box cover that could be removed without a tool.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A BC or ES lampholder that's not in an enclosing fitting.

So you can get lampholders which when properly installed leave the connections exposed?

I didn't know that and no I haven't got any. I do have a couple of batten holders, but when screwed into place the connections are no longer exposed.

I can see that if you removed the integral shroud from a pendant lampholder that would leave the connections exposed, but then you could also remove the top of a BS 1363 plug and leave the connections exposed - don't know what point you're trying to make, as all the laws and regulations concerning the use of BS 1363 plugs assume that you won't do that....

As for exposed connections, I would include a junction box cover that could be removed without a tool.

I wouldn't.

But let's say you are right.

Here we have two external lamps, A & B.

They are identical in all respects except that to gain access to the terminals for A you need to use a screwdriver to allow a hinged panel to open, and with B it has the hinged panel held shut by a catch which you can open with your fingers.

According to your definitions, installing A is non-notifiable but installing B is notifiable.

Please explain the the logic behind this, and why it has a consistent and safety-related basis which it's reasonable to believe that the people writing the AD felt necessary to clarify because of the significant differences between the skills needed, or the risks involved, in installing A vs B.

 

[Stoday]

A BC or ES lampholder that's not in an enclosing fitting.

So you can get lampholders which when properly installed leave the connections exposed?

That's how the lamp connects to the supply. Indeed, there are only two types of lamp that do not require connections, induction lamps and some types of cold cathode lamp. Please remove the lamp from your batten holder, stick your finger up the lamp hole and ask someone to switch on. Please.

Anyway, the point is moot. The issue is whether cabling along an outside wall to a light fitting is notifiable or not. BAS has made his point that neither joint boxes nor lighting fittings have exposed connections, therefore they do not fall foul of Additional Note (i).

It's clear from considering Additional Notes (g), (i) and (j) that the criterium is whether the cable crosses the garden or not. If it does, it's notifiable; if it does not (subject to other circumstances) it's not notifiable.

when it says in Table 2 Additional Notes i that outside lighting is not notifiable provided that there are no exposed outdoor connections it does not mean "exposed" as in open to the elements, uncovered, open to touch - it means are they made outside, i.e. does any cable run outside and then go into the light.

Quotation from Lewis Carroll: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

According to your definitions, installing A is non-notifiable but installing B is notifiable.

Please explain the the logic behind this, and why it has a consistent and safety-related basis which it's reasonable to believe that the people writing the AD felt necessary to clarify because of the significant differences between the skills needed, or the risks involved, in installing A vs B.

Neither the law nor regulations can possibly be logical or show significant differences when they seek to draw a line between almost similar shades of grey.

For example, we all, I think, accept that the inside of an attached garage is not outdoor. Even if the garage door is open. But what if one wall is left out? Not much more than an open door eh? Now if two walls are missing? Three? It's now a car port, but is it outside? Are you going to define a building with only one wall and a roof as outside?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's how the lamp connects to the supply. Indeed, there are only two types of lamp that do not require connections, induction lamps and some types of cold cathode lamp.

That's not what I, or I suspect 99.99999999999999999% of people mean when they use the word "connections".

So in your strange dictionary, what does "connections" mean for something other than a luminaire, for example an air conditioning unit or a radon fan? It can't be where a lamp base makes contact, so what is it?

Please remove the lamp from your batten holder, stick your finger up the lamp hole and ask someone to switch on. Please.

Tw@.

Anyway, the point is moot. The issue is whether cabling along an outside wall to a light fitting is notifiable or not. BAS has made his point that neither joint boxes nor lighting fittings have exposed connections, therefore they do not fall foul of Additional Note (i).

No, but they fall foul of the actual words in the actual law.

It's clear from considering Additional Notes (g), (i) and (j) that the criterium is whether the cable crosses the garden or not. If it does, it's notifiable; if it does not (subject to other circumstances) it's not notifiable.

How can that possibly be clear when (j) isn't talking about cables which come within the scope of Part P in the first place?

According to your definitions, installing A is non-notifiable but installing B is notifiable.

Please explain the the logic behind this, and why it has a consistent and safety-related basis which it's reasonable to believe that the people writing the AD felt necessary to clarify because of the significant differences between the skills needed, or the risks involved, in installing A vs B.

Neither the law nor regulations can possibly be logical or show significant differences when they seek to draw a line between almost similar shades of grey.

If you've got two possible alternative interpretations of something, one introduces illogicalities and inconsistencies, and you can't think of a reasonable way to explain why it should be that way, and the other one does not have any of those problems then the first one must be wrong.

Going back to your notion that "connections" means the lamp base terminals, and your definition of "exposed", then according to you a luminaire which doesn't require a tool to change the lamp is notifiable, but one where a tool is required is not. Even if every single other aspect of the items is identical.

Since changing the lamp can have no possible bearing on the difficulty or the safety issues of installing the item, why do you think it makes a difference to whether it is notifiable?

Surely your definition doesn't introduce an illogicality or inconsistency, does it?

And we can also, quite easily, imagine a luminaire where a strong man could change the lamp without needing a tool but an old woman with arthritis in her hands could not.

So according to you the notifiable/not-notifiable choice now hinges on the results of a strength test carried out by the person(s) who will be changing the lamps.

Hmmmmmmmm.......

For example, we all, I think, accept that the inside of an attached garage is not outdoor. Even if the garage door is open.

Neither is a detached garage.

But what if one wall is left out? Not much more than an open door eh?

But crucially it is permanently open, so there is a significant difference.

Now if two walls are missing? Three? It's now a car port, but is it outside? Are you going to define a building with only one wall and a roof as outside?

Yes.

 

[Stoday]

It's clear from considering Additional Notes (g), (i) and (j) that the criterium is whether the cable crosses the garden or not. If it does, it's notifiable; if it does not (subject to other circumstances) it's not notifiable.

How can that possibly be clear when (j) isn't talking about cables which come within the scope of Part P in the first place?

(j) says "The installation of a socket outlet on an external wall is notifiable, since the socket outlet is an outdoor connector that could be connected to cables that cross the garden..."

Returning to the issue, you now appear to have conceded that cables installed on an outer wall which form part of a wall mounted lighting installation are not notifiable according to Approved Document part P. You also declare that they fall foul of the Building Regulations themselves.

This is a question of what's included in the definition of a special installation. The 2004 amendment (SI 3210) included "a garden lighting or power installation". This was changed in 2006 to "an outdoor lighting or power installation". "Outdoor" isn't defined, so it's open to interpretation.

The AD is an approved interpretation of what the law says. Indeed it is written by the same governmental department that produces the law, so it's reasonable to assume that it's interpretation of what's meant is correct. Accordingly, lighting attached to a dwelling's walls and the cabling thereto are not considered to be "outside".

But BAS considers his opinion of what the law says to be superior to the ex cathedra declaration of the AP. Incredible!

 

[Pensdown]

Peoples interpretations will always vary which is why it's better to read and understand the actual regulations first.

IMO the various Guides should only be used to either confirm or question ones own interpretation.

I think there's a distinction between regulation and legislation.

I would agree with Pens as far as regulations are concerned but legislation is a different matter. The law attributes meanings to words that may not be the same as an ordinary person would expect. It's called legalese — it contains current and old english and a smattering of latin. The Approved Documents interpret the law called the building regulations and are written by the same governmental department that wrote the legislation. I think that gives the ADs definitive authority. Well, better than anyone else's interpretation anyway.

Just to clarify, I mean all of the various published "Guides to The Building Regs", including the IEE's and the NIC's and not the AD. I would suggest that the SI is read before the AD.