Spur - socket and Fused Spur from Ring?

[JohnW2]

I have no desire to make it impossible - my point was simply that as soon as it ceases to be impossible, whether the current in any part of the circuit is "likely to exceed Iz for long periods" it becomes an individual judgement

No - it becomes a design issue which the designer has to address, and has to do so using reasonable skill and judgement, and be sure to the best of his knowledge and belief that he has ensured that under the intended conditions of use, the load current in any part of the circuit is unlikely to exceed for long periods the current carrying capacity (Iz) of the cable.

I am struggling to understand your "No". In what sense does what you describe not constitute "individual judgement" - as you say. it is a judgement, and it is made by an individual ("the designer"), so why is it not an "individual judgement"?!!

The regulations are not supposed to be a cookbook, tick-the-boxes exercise.

Maybe you haven't followed all of this thread. This part of the discussion (started by PBC_1966) is about whether the regulations are, should be or "are supposed to be", on one hand, a 'cookbook' or, on the other hand, a set of stated objectives with the designer left to make up his/her mind about details of how to achieve those objectives. ... or (as things seem to be) a mixture of the two.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

re

Notifying ≡ applying for permission

Not at all.

Applying for permission = Asking somebody if you may do something because that somebody has the power to either grant or refuse your request.

Notifying = Telling somebody that you are going to do something.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In the context of the Building Regulations, notifying means telling LABC what you are going to do, describing how you will ensure compliance with the relevant regulations, and seeking permission from them to go ahead.

 

[stillp]

I've never had the need to notify anything. Do they actually grant permission, or do they just acknowledge receipt of the notification?

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

I think BAS forgot to mention: 'sending them money'.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am struggling to understand your "No". In what sense does what you describe not constitute "individual judgement" - as you say. it is a judgement, and it is made by an individual ("the designer"), so why is it not an "individual judgement"?!!

Sorry - I, possibly wrongly, drew an inference that you were dismissing the importance of it as it was [implied]merely[/implied] "individual judgement".

Judgement is just what the designer has to exercise.

Maybe you haven't followed all of this thread. This part of the discussion (started by PBC_1966) is about whether the regulations are, should be or "are supposed to be", on one hand, a 'cookbook' or, on the other hand, a set of stated objectives with the designer left to make up his/her mind about details of how to achieve those objectives. ... or (as things seem to be) a mixture of the two.

Mmm.

I suppose they are. Can they/should they be otherwise? I'm not sure that there is a dissonance between requiring Ib ≤ In ≤ Iz and for a ring final requiring that to be considered to have met that, under the intended conditions of use the load current in any part of the circuit must be unlikely to exceed for long periods the current carrying capacity of the cable.

 

[PBC_1966]

In the context of the Building Regulations, notifying means telling LABC what you are going to do, describing how you will ensure compliance with the relevant regulations, and seeking permission from them to go ahead.

Unless it's something which also requires planning consent, they have absolutely no legal power to tell you that you may not go ahead, so it's not a case of "seeking permission." You are simply telling them that you are going to go ahead.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK - call it "approval" then if that makes you happier

The fact is that you have to tell them how you will comply. IF they do not agree with you, yes, you may go ahead regardless, and yes, they will make you rip it out/down and do it right.

The fact is that you are asking "is it OK if I do this?" and they are giving you their answer. If their answer is "no" you would have to be spectacularly stupid to ignore them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And BTW - Building Regulations approval and Planning Permission are totally separate and unrelated.

 

[JohnW2]

I am struggling to understand your "No". In what sense does what you describe not constitute "individual judgement" - as you say. it is a judgement, and it is made by an individual ("the designer"), so why is it not an "individual judgement"?!!

Sorry - I, possibly wrongly, drew an inference that you were dismissing the importance of it as it was [implied]merely[/implied] "individual judgement". Judgement is just what the designer has to exercise.

As you say, it's a judgement, undertaken by an individual (the designer), which it why I referred to it as 'individual judgement'. I did not mean to imply anything beyond that.

Maybe you haven't followed all of this thread. This part of the discussion (started by PBC_1966) is about whether the regulations are, should be or "are supposed to be", on one hand, a 'cookbook' or, on the other hand, a set of stated objectives with the designer left to make up his/her mind about details of how to achieve those objectives. ... or (as things seem to be) a mixture of the two.

Mmm. I suppose they are. Can they/should they be otherwise?

Well, they theoretically could be otherwise (one of the two, I presume rather tongue-in-cheek, extreme possibilities which PBC_1966 postulated), but I personally don't think that they sensibly could be otherwise.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

And BTW - Building Regulations approval and Planning Permission are totally separate and unrelated.

I'm aware of that, and that was rather the point I was making - That one asks for permission to go ahead with some building project which is subject to planning consent, but that when it comes to doing something which is not so covered the only legal requirement is to notify, i.e. to tell the local authority that you are going to do the work.

The way you asked the OP whether he had asked for permission to put up a floodlight came across as suggesting that he was obliged to do so, as if planning consent were needed for it. And as the OP hasn't mentioned anything about building regulations with regard to the project as a whole, even notifying for the installation of said floodlight doesn't come into it.

Well, they theoretically could be otherwise (one of the two, I presume rather tongue-in-cheek, extreme possibilities which PBC_1966 postulated), but I personally don't think that they sensibly could be otherwise.

And I agree. If you go to my facetious extreme there would be so little regulation beyond "make it reasonably safe" that you'd be hard pressed to call them a set of regulations. If you specify absolutely every last detail about how things should be done, you leave no room for the person designing and installing to apply his own judgment to some situation which doesn't fit the very specific situations which have been included within the regulations. I think the question comes down to at which point between the two extremes we should be aiming at to get a suitable balance

 

[JohnW2]

Well, they theoretically could be otherwise (one of the two, I presume rather tongue-in-cheek, extreme possibilities which PBC_1966 postulated), but I personally don't think that they sensibly could be otherwise.

And I agree. If you go to my facetious extreme there would be so little regulation beyond "make it reasonably safe" that you'd be hard pressed to call them a set of regulations. If you specify absolutely every last detail about how things should be done, you leave no room for the person designing and installing to apply his own judgment to some situation which doesn't fit the very specific situations which have been included within the regulations. I think the question comes down to at which point between the two extremes we should be aiming at to get a suitable balance

Exactly. I think that we (at least, you and I) are totally agreed about that - and the moving of some things from 'the regs' to guidance in Appendices might well represent them attempting to 'fine tune' where that point is.

Kind Regards, John