But that's rather academic anyway - Who would be crazy enough to involve the local council just to add an exterior floodlight? Besides, surely it's not notifiable work anyway, unless being provisioned on a new circuit?
Yes, but (a) excessive intrusive outdoor lighting is something which neighbours, or even passers-by and 'do-gooders' might complain to the council about, and (b) it could be part of a project (e.g. building an extension) which did require notification.
Which was really my point. Are regulations supposed to be a set of rules developed by those who (supposedly) are competent to draft them as a minimum standard which must be achieved, or are they supposed to be a vague "do what you think best based upon your own knowledge and experience" suggestion?
In practice, most most regulations attempt to get as close to the former as is possible/practicable - since, as I said before, in the absence of a explicit definition of what is the 'minimum acceptable standard' If the former, then they need to cover all situations in as near-complete detail as possible, policing the regulations (i.e. determining whether someone has done work to an acceptable standard) becomes a much more tedious and messy business.
In terms of many things, explicit regulations (which, as you say, one hopes/expects will be drafted competently/explicitly) make sense. It would be a chaotic, and probably unsatisfactory, situation in which each electrician (and, indeed non-electrician) was free to make their own decision about such things as what cable CSA was acceptable in a given situation (with a givenn installation method), what disconnection times should be achieved and how large a hole in an enclosure was permissible etc. etc. etc. One of the problems with reliance on "the knowledge and experience" of the person involved is that that only really works (if ever) in relation to a highly regulated profession. It might be reasonable in relation to airline pilots or doctors, but not really in relation to electrical work, the requirements for knowledge skill and experience of people undertaking such work being only defined in the vaguest of terms.
I'll probably get slated again (maybe on Monday!) for saying negative things about electricians, but I do believe that, particularly given the nature of modern training (or, in some cases, 'training') at least a significant proportion of people undertaking electrical work would be pretty lost if they had to make their own decisions about things such as I mentioned (cable CSAs, disconnection times and IP issues).
It could just be that, in moving things into 'informative Appendices, 'they' (JPEL/64) are attempting to move in the direction of what they regard as a reasonable compromise - those who need/prefer to have specific guidance can then 'rely on' what is in those Appendices (as if they were 'regulations'), whilst others can use their knowledge, skill and experience to make their own decisions about details of things that are not mandated by the regs themselves. There's even some of that sort of 'choice' built into the regulations themselves. In determining the required CSA for a protective conductor, one can either undertake an adiabatic calculation or, if one is unable/disinclined to do that, one can work with the tabulated (and, generally, appreciably larger) 'default' values provided.
Kind Regards, John
