Wiring into an external garage one meter from house?

[Paul_C]

I will be contacting the local building control to hear there take on the matter - and will relay information that everyone has provided!

You can't rely on them to know the rules properly either, but my bet is they'll tell you it's notifiable because of all the guidance notes etc. already discussed above (and because in light of that they're not going to miss any opportunity to try and take your money if they can).

If you have any thought, even the slightest, that you might want to do the job without notifying, then I would strongly suggest that any inquiries you make to the local authority you do so in a general, anonymous fashion which cannot identify you personally or your address.

 

[JohnW2]

So how many people who think that the underground cable to the garage is notifiable will agree that the intra-house extension run along the outside wall is also notifiable?

I think that most (but clearly not all!) of us are agreed that the law is not explicitly clear (absent definitions, for a start), and therefore requires interpretation - and it is in the nature of interpretations that they will vary according to who is doing the interpreting.

In terms of common sense, I would not be surprised if the intent had been to distinguish between the situations you described - i.e. for 'intra-house' wiring which happened to be run in conduit along the outside of a wall to be non-notifiable, but that a proposal to install outdoor fixed wiring which was buried (or run along a wall/fence, or overhead) to be notifiable.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

I think that most (but clearly not all!) of us are agreed that the law is not explicitly clear (absent definitions, for a start), and therefore requires interpretation - and it is in the nature of interpretations that they will vary according to who is doing the interpreting.

Thank you!!

This is exactly the point that I was trying to put over with my post regarding the two scenarios.........if you take it as read, then it becomes ridiculous, it requires 'INTERPRETATION'.

Whose interpretation???

Well let's see,

In the one corner we have me, (a working electrician), NAPIT, (who I am registered with), The Secretary of State (via Document P), The LABC, (with their definition of 'Lighting/Power outdoors') and the IEE, with their 'Electricians guide to the Building Regs'.

The interpretation of the above list of people is that installation of a cable outdoors (crossing a 'garden') is notifiable.

In the second corner we have BAS - his interpretation, (with very little support), is that it is not notifiable.

I wonder who the judges and lawyers would take any notice of???

 

[JohnW2]

I think that most (but clearly not all!) of us are agreed that the law is not explicitly clear (absent definitions, for a start), and therefore requires interpretation - and it is in the nature of interpretations that they will vary according to who is doing the interpreting.

Thank you!! This is exactly the point that I was trying to put over with my post regarding the two scenarios.........if you take it as read, then it becomes ridiculous, it requires 'INTERPRETATION'.

Indeed, as I responded at the time, I agree. However, the bit of what I wrote (as quoted by you above) which probably pleases you less is that I recognise that when interpretation is necessary, there will inevitably be differing interpretations. That's why legislation should remove as much as possible need for interpretation.

[quoteWhose interpretation??? Well let's see, .... In the one corner we have me, (a working electrician), NAPIT, (who I am registered with), The Secretary of State (via Document P), The LABC, (with their definition of 'Lighting/Power outdoors') and the IEE, with their 'Electricians guide to the Building Regs'. The interpretation of the above list of people is that installation of a cable outdoors (crossing a 'garden') is notifiable.
In the second corner we have BAS - his interpretation, (with very little support), is that it is not notifiable.
I wonder who the judges and lawyers would take any notice of???

Well, we (nearly all of us!) know what interpretation we would like the judges and lawyers to make, but it unfortunately doesn't always work like that. The primary duty of a court in this sort of situation is to attempt to interpret the meaning of 'the words' of the law, not decide what the law should have said (or what experts and expert bodies feel the law should have said) - so one could expect all sorts of semantic debate about the meaning of words like installation etc. If a court felt that it was satisfied that it had reached a 'correct interpretation' of the words of the law, that will be the court's ruling, even if it were clear that a lot of 'expert opinion' did not believe that the law should say that. A court is not allowed to 'modify' a law to be more like what they felt the law should have said (but didn't).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

In terms of common sense, I would not be surprised if the intent had been to distinguish between the situations you described - i.e. for 'intra-house' wiring which happened to be run in conduit along the outside of a wall to be non-notifiable, but that a proposal to install outdoor fixed wiring which was buried (or run along a wall/fence, or overhead) to be notifiable.

I'm not so sure. In both cases we have a cable which starts indoors, runs part way outside, then goes back inside again. The only difference is that in one case both ends are in the same building and in the other they're in different buildings. The definition in schedule 4 that we're considering makes no explicit distinction between intra- and inter-building cables, only about whether the installation is outdoors or not, so surely it's logical to assume that no such distinction was intended? If the intent had been to make feeders to separate outbuildings a special case, isn't it reasonable to assume that the regulations would say as much? And from the practical, common-sense point of view, how is a cable running outside along the wall of the house connecting two different rooms within the house any different in principle from the same cable running along a wall to some other building?

So as I look at it, if the official interpretation of "special installation" were deemed to exclude the intra-house wiring on the exterior surface of the house, then logically it must exclude the outdoor cable running between two buildings as well, and BAS would be correct. If the outdoor feeder cable is deemed to be part of a "special installation" and thus notifiable, then the cable connecting two parts of the same building must be as well. Given that there is no distinction made about whether any wiring connects two separate buildings or not, only whether it is outdoors, then anything else would be completely inconsistent.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That would seem to make a mockery of 1 a (i),

It is all laughably badly written.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not so sure. .... And from the practical, common-sense point of view, how is a cable running outside along the wall of the house connecting two different rooms within the house any different in principle from the same cable running along a wall to some other building?

I personally don't (think it's any different). If I were writing the rules and wanted to make a distinction, I think the distinction I would make would be between (i) cable attached to the outside wall of a building (and suitably protected) throughout its 'outdoor' length, wherever it was going from/to and (ii) cables which were buried, attached to fences, overhead etc. Whether I would want to make that distinctiuon is a rather different matter.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

It is all laughably badly written.

Quite. That surely is the point.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

That would seem to make a mockery of 1 a (i),

Well, all of para. 1 applies to a replacement anywhere. The extensions to an existing circuit exempted by para. 2 are subject to conditions about not being in a kitchen, bathroom, etc., plus this troublesome "outdoor electric power installation," however it's interpreted.

And just to throw something else into the pot, remember that if the cable from house to outbuilding were already there, then replacing it would undoubtedly be exempt from notification under 1(b), subject to it being for "a single circuit only."

 

[Alarm]

And just to throw something else into the pot, remember that if the cable from house to outbuilding were already there, then replacing it would undoubtedly be exempt from notification under 1(b), subject to it being for "a single circuit only.

Sorted, sling a old bit of SWA across the gap, photo it and bingo!

 

[JohnW2]

And just to throw something else into the pot, remember that if the cable from house to outbuilding were already there, then replacing it would undoubtedly be exempt from notification under 1(b), subject to it being for "a single circuit only."

...provided that you made sure that it was damaged

As for "a single circuit only", that's another one which isn't well (at all!)defined. If there were a CU with MCBs for sockets and lighting (or even just an FCU for lighting off a socket circuit) in the outbuilding then I suppose it could be argued that the cable to the outbuilding was serving 'more than one circuit'?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As for "a single circuit only", that's another one which isn't well (at all!)defined. If there were a CU with MCBs for sockets and lighting (or even just an FCU for lighting off a socket circuit) in the outbuilding then I suppose it could be argued that the cable to the outbuilding was serving 'more than one circuit'?

Yes, but as you have decided it doesn't need notifying you may just as well install a new circuit rather than replace the damaged one.

 

[Paul_C]

...provided that you made sure that it was damaged

Of course! But I have to ask why that clause was added to the regulations anyway. Just get the replacement cable ready to go then slam a spade into the old one. There's nothing there that says anything about how it gets damaged! Not that once the old cable is ripped out anyone would know whether it was damaged or not anyway.

The replacement clauses in para. 1 pretty much provide a get-out for many other things that way: Want to add 6 ft. of cable to an additional socket in your kitchen? In most cases once it's done nobody will know that there wasn't already a cable and socket there and that you didn't just replace them. Much of the work which clearly is notifiable is just totally unenforceable anyway.

As for "a single circuit only", that's another one which isn't well (at all!)defined. If there were a CU with MCBs for sockets and lighting (or even just an FCU for lighting off a socket circuit) in the outbuilding then I suppose it could be argued that the cable to the outbuilding was serving 'more than one circuit'?

As debated recently:
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2080932#2080932

 

[Electrifying]

This last post by Paul C kind of sums up why these discussions regarding Schedule 4 and what is/isn't notifiable come about.

It's nothing to do with wanting to understand the Building Regs and follow them correctly.

It's all about DIYers and un-registered sparks, looking for whatever loopholes they can, in order to avoid notification.

You see, with my opinion on this particular matter, I have nothing to lose.
If I notify the cable crossing the garden and it turns out it didn't require notifiaction.....who cares.
And it costs me about £2.50 to do it.

If the OP doesn't notify, and it did require notification, he'll save some money, but he's breaking the law.

Schedule 4, if read how it was intended, describes very minor work that can be done without notifying building control.
Obviously, no matter how it was written, there would always be a way to twist what they had implied.

Let's face it, apart from the CU, kitchen and bathroom, a DIYer could rewire his whole house, including garage and summerhouse, without notification........do you really think that's what Schedule 4 is implying??

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but as you have decided it doesn't need notifying you may just as well install a new circuit rather than replace the damaged one.

Eh? 'Installing a new circuit',anwhere, is always notifiable, isn't it?

Kind Regards, John.