Spur off unused cooker socket

[oddballodd]

My dining room used to be a kitchen and in one corner is a cooker socket/outlet plate. On the consumer unit it is labelled up as a 30A. Can I take a spur off this for a new double socket ?

Even better would be to also change the cooker socket for a normal double if that is possible

(The new kitchen has a gas cooker BTW)

Cheers

Owen

 

[JohnW2]

My dining room used to be a kitchen and in one corner is a cooker socket/outlet plate. On the consumer unit it is labelled up as a 30A. Can I take a spur off this for a new double socket ? Even better would be to also change the cooker socket for a normal double if that is possible.

Assuming that the cable of the circuit is adequate for 30A (at least 4 mm²) (which it certainly should be), then, yes, you could change the cooker switch/socket for an ordinary double socket.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

You can, but the cooker circuit should be RCD protected - all sockets have to be RCD-protected.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Assuming this circuit is a radial circuit (which I would guess it is)
Then this circuit can be used as a type A2 circuit with a 30A protective device, this would require at least 4.0mm twin and earth cable, the existing cooker outlet can be changed to socket outlet also. But permitted safe zone must be used if cable is not buried 50mm or within wall or surface mounted (clipped or in containment)
Plus the requirement for RCD protection.
//www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:installation_techniques:walls

 

[oddballodd]

Thanks for the quick replies, I will carry out those checks before I proceed.

 

[JohnW2]

...Then this circuit can be used as a type A2 circuit with a 30A protective device, this would require at least 4.0mm twin and earth cable, the existing cooker outlet can be changed to socket outlet also. But permitted safe zone must be used if cable is not buried 50mm or within wall or surface mounted (clipped or in containment) Plus the requirement for RCD protection.

Indeed, as I and others have said.

A common sense view would be that if the cable is not (never has been) in safe zones (or >50mm deep or protected), then changing what's on the end of the cable doesn't represent any increase in risk. Indeed, particularly if the existing cooker switch incorporates a socket, it could perhaps be argued that 'replacing the accessory' does not necessarily invoke the need for the cable to be re-routed into safe zones - but that might be a contentious view.

As for RCD protection, the regs certainly do generally require it for sockets, and I would certainly not encourage people to not have RCD protection - but, if it happened that all the other sockets in the house are without RCD protection then, again, applying common sense ..... !! If one was concerned about the regs (and the circuit wasn't RCD protected), I suppose one could use an RCD socket just for this one new socket.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

My comments regarding safe zones were referring to the extension of the circuit rather than the existing, but I can see how this may have been misinterpreted.
As far as RCD protection, I would not recommend that it was not applied.

 

[JohnW2]

My comments regarding safe zones were referring to the extension of the circuit rather than the existing, but I can see how this may have been misinterpreted.

Fair enough - but do you agree that if the OP merely changes the cooker switch/socket/outlet to a double socket (without any new/extended wiring) then certainly common sense, and probably also the regs, would not require the cable to be re-sited into safe zones?

As far as RCD protection, I would not recommend that it was not applied.

AsI said, nor would I - but do you accept my point that having RCD protection for just one 'new' socket if all the other sockets in the house were not RCD protected would not actually represent much of an increase in safety?

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

but do you agree that if the OP merely changes the cooker switch/socket/outlet to a double socket (without any new/extended wiring) then certainly common sense, and probably also the regs, would not require the cable to be re-sited into safe zones?

I would agree with regards to safe zones and if the existing outlet plate was also used as socket outlet(historically), I would have thought common sense would prevail with respect to RCD protection, providing this outlet was not open for external use.

AsI said, nor would I - but do you accept my point that having RCD protection for just one 'new' socket if all the other sockets in the house were not RCD protected would not actually represent much of an increase in safety?

I accept that the likelihood of a risk would not be much increased, unless as above, "Can be used for external equipment".

 

[JohnW2]

I would agree with regards to safe zones and if the existing outlet plate was also used as socket outlet(historically), I would have thought common sense would prevail with respect to RCD protection, providing this outlet was not open for external use.

Glad you agree.

As I said, nor would I - but do you accept my point that having RCD protection for just one 'new' socket if all the other sockets in the house were not RCD protected would not actually represent much of an increase in safety?

I accept that the likelihood of a risk would not be much increased, unless as above, "Can be used for external equipment".

I wasn't even thinking that anyone would suggest that adding one more non-RCD-protected socket (in a house in which no sockets were RCD protected) would increase risk!! What I was suggesting was that having just one ('new') socket, in a dining room, RCD protected (but all the others in the house not RCD protected) would not represent an appreciable decrease in risk.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I wasn't even thinking that anyone would suggest that adding one more non-RCD-protected socket (in a house in which no sockets were RCD protected) would increase risk!! What I was suggesting was that having just one ('new') socket, in a dining room, RCD protected (but all the others in the house not RCD protected) would not represent an appreciable decrease in risk.

Well the risk would be less if this socket was RCD protected, so must be an increased risk without it.
The value of the risk would be hard to determine, with regards to usage in reference to all the other socket outlets.

 

[JohnW2]

I wasn't even thinking that anyone would suggest that adding one more non-RCD-protected socket (in a house in which no sockets were RCD protected) would increase risk!! What I was suggesting was that having just one ('new') socket, in a dining room, RCD protected (but all the others in the house not RCD protected) would not represent an appreciable decrease in risk.

Well the risk would be less if this socket was RCD protected, so must be an increased risk without it.

Hmmm. If we were talking about an existing socket, then what you say would obviously be true - although the difference in risk between having all sockets in a house unprotected and having just one socket (particularly a socket in a 'low risk room') protected would presumably be very small.

However, that's not what I was talking about - I was talking about change in risk when one added an additional socket. Do you really believe that, say, a house with 26 non-RCD-protected sockets would be associated with a higher 'risk' than the same house with 25 non-RCD-protected sockets?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

It's only logical that there would be an increase in risk, as you are adding an additional risk. How risky that additional risk is, to the grand scheme of things would be difficult to calculate.
But if that risk was positioned in a more risky location than the other potential risks, again an increased factor would be calculated.

 

[JohnW2]

It's only logical that there would be an increase in risk, as you are adding an additional risk.

I can't agree with that - I think it's flawed logic. If a household has a certain number of appliances, uses them a certain number of times per day/week/whatever, switches them on/off a certain number of times and 'interacts with' them and their connections to the electricity supply a certain number of times, then the level of risk is the same regardless of how many sockets to plug them into one has to choose from. Increasing the number of sockets will not, per se, increase risk. [indeed, increasing the number of sockets may actually decrease risk slightly, by reducing 'trailing leads' and reducing the 'wear'on each of the sockets]. Do you disagree?

But if that risk was positioned in a more risky location than the other potential risks, again an increased factor would be calculated.

I agree with that, but it's a different issue. We are currently talking about an additional socket in what is probably a 'low risk' location (a dining room).

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I would need to do a full risk assessment to give you an affirmative/ negative answer.