Wiring into an external garage one meter from house?

[JohnW2]

Thou shalt not kill on Mondays - does that mean you can the rest of the week?

That's the crunch, isn't it? If that's exactly what the law said, and if there were no other laws relating to the rest of the week then, yes, it would not be unlawful to kill on those other days - and the courts would be helpless. They can only interpret the words which are there in the law - if those words are clear, they cannot make rulings based on a common sense view of what the law should have said if it clearly doesn't say it.

The whole situation is absolutely daft and, as I said before, it's really no surprise that a lot of people have difficulty in taking Part P seriously, or 'respecting' it!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As you say quite often, just read what is written in schedule 4. So just reading what is written, where does anything say that is the case?

It doesn't. Just like it doesn't make non-notifiable the installation of flush boxes, grommets, cable clips, trunking, conduit, capping...

So if Schedule 4 is to work, if there is to be any point to it, if you are ever to be able to actually do anything non-notifiable then you have to disregard any cabling involved except where explicitly mentioned.

You have to regard the cable as indivisible from the socket (or whatever) in terms of it's notifiability, because if you do not, if you regard the work as having two components whose status has to be determined, i.e. the cable and the socket, then what will happen when you start at the top of Schedule 4 and read down it to find out about the cable?

You'll reach the end and not find that it is non-notifiable wherever it is.

You aren't installing a cable and installing a socket, you're installing a socket, and everything else associated with that is part of an operation which is atomic in the context of Schedule 4.

As the basic interpretation of 2(c), yes. The cable is a necessary part of the "work which consists of adding" the socket. If that was not meant to include the cable (and clips, back box, junction boxes etc.) then there would be almost no point in the exemptions in 2(c) being there at all, since adding sockets or lights would then still become notifiable because of the cable. So we have to take it that "work which consists of adding" the socket includes the cable and other ancillary bits and pieces, otherwise it would be ludicrous.

Exactly.

It's atomic.

You look at the work you are doing which is defined in Schedule 4, i.e. the socket, and you determine the status of the entire "work which consists of adding", and the installation of all of the components and materials which are involved in "work which consists of adding", by considering the status of the socket.

Is the socket outdoors? No. Then it's not notifiable, no matter where the cable originates, and no matter what route it takes.

Not separately, but as part of the overall job, i.e. as part of "the work which consists of adding" the socket.

If not separately, then it can only be assessed on the basis of the socket.

If it's not separate it has no independent existence within the scope of Schedule 4, and it cannot be assessed in any way which is separate from the socket.

The subject of para. 2 is "work." So by 2(a) the work must not be in a kitchen or a special location. By 2(b) it must not involve work on a special
installation. And by 2(c) it must be work which consists of adding a socket, light etc.

So by the actual wording of para. 2, the condition about not being a special installation doesn't apply only to the socket itself, it applies to the work which consists of adding the socket, and that work in turn includes the installation of the cable. So logically, 2(a) & (b) refer not only to the socket, but to every part of the extension, including the cable.

No - the work can't be in more than one place, i.e. the adding of the socket.

If you were going to be adding a socket in the garage, and your wife asked "what are you planning to do this morning?", would you say

"I'm going to add a socket in the garage"

or

"I'm going to add a socket in the garage and the garden"

?

For the cable to be discounted from being considered in 2(a) & (b), the wording would need to be changed so that the restrictions in those two clauses apply only to the actual socket, not to the "work which consists of adding" the socket, which includes the cable.

But then you'd not be able to install the cable.

That's the way I read para. 2, anyway.

But why?

When it means you inventing separations, or divisions of the work which are not there, when it means that doing so then leads to the creation of inconsistencies and grey areas which were not there before.

You are against the idea of notification and yet you create these artificial constructs which tend to make more work notifiable, you criticise Schedule 4 for inconsistencies and grey areas and yet you create these artificial constructs which tend to make more of them, and when I show you a logical and consistent way to work Schedule 4 which addresses your complaints you reject it, saying that it can't be right, and that what is right is the way which makes it worse.

Why?

I don't think it is, when you read para. 2 and see that the condition in 2(b) applies to the whole job and not just the socket.

But if you consider only the socket, and evaluate the job on the basis that the status of the socket is inherited by all the components not explicitly under consideration all of those problems go away.

OK - so what's "outdoors"?

Now that's another area where it seems the line could get rather blurry.

Well it could.

Or one could use the ordinary definition which ordinary people would ordinarily adopt and nearly all the problems will go away.

As will the ridiculous idea that a buried cable is outdoors.

Good question. Maybe because in a basement it's inside a room and when just buried in the ground it's not? What if one constructs a concrete cable duct, large enough to walk through (albeit hunched over somewhat) - Is that outdoors? Probably not. But then one could continue down to a duct only a couple of inches in diameter and argue that it's really a similar enclosed space below ground, just much smaller.

Yes, one could.

Or one could think about what would happen if you contracted a builder to construct an outdoor swimming pool for you, while you were absent from the property, and on your return found that he'd built it underground.

To what extent, I wonder, would protestations that "it's not inside the house therefore it must be outdoors" hold water (sorry) in your eyes?

Once you start opening it up to the elements then I would think most people would start to consider it as being outdoors (just slightly protected)
.
.
.
No roof or walls? I can't see it could be anything but outdoors then.

So are you saying that "outdoors" has to involve exposure to the wind and rain etc?

So - imagine I take a cable from my house, underground, exiting the line of the house under the side wall adjoining the driveway,and then along under the drive and up into the garage. At no point does the cable cross a garden.

Is it outdoors?

My inclination is to say yes, but as above, I can see a gray area somewhere between ducting and a full basement where it could be arguable.

Oh.

So are you saying that no exposure to the elements is needed for it to be outdoors - it actually depends on how much headroom there is for people to move along the route of the cable?

Or are you trying to introduce criteria which are not even hinted at by Schedule 4, let alone actually mentioned, criteria which, when introduced by you with zero basis in Schedule 4, create the sort of grey areas of which you are so critical?

Maybe they do go away, but that doesn't change what is written in schedule 4. You shouldn't be trying to apply an interpretation to schedule 4 just because it makes some ambiguities go away and more than somebody should be trying to apply an interpretation which "makes it work" in relation to what he believes should or should not be notifiable.

That depends on how reasonable you believe it to be that the people who wrote Schedule 4 intended it to work.

But even if we accept what you say, where does that leave people who apply interpretations which actually create problems?

Should they do that?

The only interpretation which should be used is that necessary to try and decide what schedule 4 actually says - Whether that results in greater or fewer ambiguities or inconsistencies is irrelevant.

Sorry - that last sentence is utter b******s.

If you're trying to decide what it says, then an approach which creates more ambiguities and inconsistencies has to be the wrong approach, unless you believe that the intention of the people who wrote it was to create something riddled with ambiguities and inconsistencies

I don't see that. You are not reading what schedule 4 says when you try to insist that the cable becomes an integral part of the socket being added, despite the fact that the wording in para. 2 in relation to a "special installation" refers to the whole job (i.e. the "work consisting of").

I am reading it.

That is exactly what I am reading.

What is the job? It's adding a socket.

Is the socket in a special location? No it is not.

But schedule 4 doesn't focus just on the socket. It refers to work which consists of adding the socket, which encompasses more than just the socket itself.

Schedule 4 does not decompose the work in any way whatsoever.

Schedule 4 does not regard the work as anything other than an atomic operation.

Note this - the term used is "work consisting of...".

Not "work including...".

It can be an integral part of the work, i.e. the whole job, while being discrete from the socket.

But it's only "the work consisting of " which is recognised as having an existence.

Why, when the regulations refer not just to the socket but to the entire "work which consists of adding" the socket?

Why?

Because that's all the regulations refer to.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It also comes back to the discussion - what should be notifiable but isn't?
There's just no logic.

I think this is part of the problem we are seeing here.

Trying to make Schedule 4 fit what they think should be notifiable but isn't.

 

[JohnW2]

I think this is part of the problem we are seeing here. Trying to make Schedule 4 fit what they think should be notifiable but isn't.

That's obviously a risk, but I think that most of us involved in this discussion have been careful to keep the two issues distinct. Certainly me - as I've said, if we're going to have notification, then I think that installing any cable buried underground in a garden should probably be notifiable, but I agree with you that the words of Schedule 4 probably don't say that (although even that isn't totally clear).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

You have to regard the cable as indivisible from the socket (or whatever) in terms of it's notifiability, because if you do not, if you regard the work as having two components whose status has to be determined, i.e. the cable and the socket, then what will happen when you start at the top of Schedule 4 and read down it to find out about the cable?

You'll reach the end and not find that it is non-notifiable wherever it is.

No you won't, because you're not looking for a separate exemption for the cable by itself, you're looking for an exemption which covers the whole job. In the case of extending to an extra socket in a living room, for example, where we would agree that the conditions in 2(a) & (b) are clearly satisfied, you reach 2(c)(ii) and find the exemption for "work which consists of adding socket outlets." The cable is part of that work, as is the box for the socket, clips, channeling, etc.

You look at the work you are doing which is defined in Schedule 4, i.e. the socket, and you determine the status of the entire "work which consists of adding", and the installation of all of the components and materials which are involved in "work which consists of adding", by considering the status of the socket.

But that's not what para. 2 says. 2(c) is the exemption for "work which consists of adding socket outlets," but the conditions attached to that exemption in 2(a) & (b) refer to the work as a whole, not just the socket.

Not separately, but as part of the overall job, i.e. as part of "the work which consists of adding" the socket.

If not separately, then it can only be assessed on the basis of the socket.

No, it can be assessed on the basis of being a necessary part of the overall job. It's not a separate job for which you need to find a specific exemption for adding the cable; it doesn't become an integral part of the socket; but it is an integral part of the job of adding the socket.

No - the work can't be in more than one place, i.e. the adding of the socket.

Of course the job can involve work in more than one place. If you extend from a living room socket through a wall to add a socket in the bedroom on the opposite side of the wall, you have to carry out work in both the bedroom and the living room.

If you were going to be adding a socket in the garage, and your wife asked "what are you planning to do this morning?", would you say

"I'm going to add a socket in the garage"
or
"I'm going to add a socket in the garage and the garden"

The former obviously - And if there is no power already in the garage, then the job necessarily involves running the cable. It doesn't make the cable an integral part of the socket, just an integral part of the whole job of adding the socket.

For the cable to be discounted from being considered in 2(a) & (b), the wording would need to be changed so that the restrictions in those two clauses apply only to the actual socket, not to the "work which consists of adding" the socket, which includes the cable.

But then you'd not be able to install the cable.

Sure you would. Let's re-write para. 2:

[code:1]2. Work which -

(a) consists of -

(i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing
circuit, or

(ii) adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an
existing ring or radial circuit;


(b) where the light fittings, socket outlets and fused
spurs being added are not -

(i) in a kitchen, or a special location;

(ii) part of a special installation.[/code:1]

The cable would still be exempt as part of the "work which consists of adding" the socket, as would the clips, any necessary joint boxes, etc. But now the conditions as to location are attached only to the socket, not to the whole job. So if para. 2 was written like that, I would agree that whether the cable runs through a kitchen or is considered to be part of a "special installation" would be irrelevant, since the conditions in the revised 2(b) apply only to the socket itself, not to the cable.

When it means you inventing separations, or divisions of the work which are not there,

But that's precisely it: My interpretation of the conditions in the actual 2(a) & (b) apply to the job as a whole, which I believe is what para. 2 says since those conditions refer to the "work," not just the socket. The cable can't be separated from the "work which consists of adding a socket," since it's a necessary part of that work.

You are against the idea of notification and yet you create these artificial constructs which tend to make more work notifiable,

Yes, I'm against the notification requirements, but I don't (I hope) let that influence the way I read and interpret schedule 4. Sometimes I've argued that something is not notifiable when the general consensus is that it is, sometimes I've argued that according to schedule 4 something is notifiable when the general consensus is that it's not.

you criticise Schedule 4 for inconsistencies and grey areas and yet you create these artificial constructs which tend to make more of them, and when I show you a logical and consistent way to work Schedule 4 which addresses your complaints you reject it, saying that it can't be right, and that what is right is the way which makes it worse.

Why?

Because I'm not trying to look for ways to "make it work," only to interpret what the words actually say. And when it comes to para. 2, the way I read it the conditions in 2(a) & (b) attach to the entire job (i.e. the "work which consists of"), not just the socket. Whether or not that makes something else more inconsistent is another matter, but I believe that's what the words say.

But if you consider only the socket, and evaluate the job on the basis that the status of the socket is inherited by all the components not explicitly under consideration all of those problems go away.

But you introduce another problem that the wording in para. 2 does not then actually mean what it says.

Or one could use the ordinary definition which ordinary people would ordinarily adopt and nearly all the problems will go away.

As will the ridiculous idea that a buried cable is outdoors.

Would we agree that if the cable were being run to the outbuilding overhead on a catenary wire, then it is most certainly outdoors? Then the argument is limited to the basic issue of the interpretation of para. 2 and whether that outdoor cable is part of an "outdoor electric power installation" or not.

So are you saying that no exposure to the elements is needed for it to be outdoors - it actually depends on how much headroom there is for people to move along the route of the cable?

No, I'm just saying that I think this is one thing which has a large gray, subjective area between the two obvious extremes.

The only interpretation which should be used is that necessary to try and decide what schedule 4 actually says - Whether that results in greater or fewer ambiguities or inconsistencies is irrelevant.

Sorry - that last sentence is utter b******s.

But, as John has said earlier, that is what the courts do (or are supposed to do) with legislation, should it ever come to it. They're not supposed to try and work out what parliament or the civil servants intended to say, or what they think the regulations should say in order to be fair and just. They're only supposed to rule on what the written words actually mean.

If you're trying to decide what it says, then an approach which creates more ambiguities and inconsistencies has to be the wrong approach, unless you believe that the intention of the people who wrote it was to create something riddled with ambiguities and inconsistencies

Maybe it was? Who knows? But that's the whole point: The courts aren't expected to try and second-guess what was intended and to "interpret" the regulations accordingly, only to rule on what the written regulations actually say. So when it comes to legal requirements, that what everybody else should expect as well.

What is the job? It's adding a socket.

Is the socket in a special location? No it is not.

Is any part of the work which consists of adding the socket in a special location? The answer might be yes even the socket itself isn't.

Note this - the term used is "work consisting of...".

Not "work including...".

But we've already agreed that "work consisting of adding" a socket has to include the cable, otherwise the installation of the new cable would not be exempt from notification.

But it's only "the work consisting of " which is recognised as having an existence.

And that includes the cable.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[Paul_C]

^^^^^^^^ Not my words, I hasten to add!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No you won't, because you're not looking for a separate exemption for the cable by itself, you're looking for an exemption which covers the whole job. In the case of extending to an extra socket in a living room, for example, where we would agree that the conditions in 2(a) & (b) are clearly satisfied, you reach 2(c)(ii) and find the exemption for "work which consists of adding socket outlets." The cable is part of that work, as is the box for the socket, clips, channeling, etc.

Indeed.

It is one job.

It is atomic.

The socket is in the living room, therefore the socket is not notifiable, and neither is any the installation of any other part or component no matter where it is, where it cones form, how it gets there and so on.

Every single feature of every single other item is subordinated to the socket.

If you are spurring from a socket in the kitchen, it's not notifiable because the work, in the context of Schedule 4, is adding the socket, and the socket is not notifiable.

If the socket is not notifiable then none of the work is notifiable.

But that's not what para. 2 says. 2(c) is the exemption for "work which consists of adding socket outlets," but the conditions attached to that exemption in 2(a) & (b) refer to the work as a whole, not just the socket.

That is exactly what Para 2 says.

The work is atomic - nothing else has any existence in the context of Schedule 4 except the socket.

It's not "work consists of adding socket outlets, cables, clips, grommets, flush boxes", it's not "work including adding socket outlets".

It's "work which consists of adding socket outlets"

Where's the socket outlet?

In the living room?

Is a living room a kitchen? Or a special location?

No.

So, as you say

The cable is part of that work, as is the box for the socket, clips, channeling, etc.

It's just a single item of work. It does not have component parts, some of which can be notifiable and some not.

It's a single item of work.

It is atomic.

The only thing that Schedule 4 concerns itself with is the socket. Nothing else is mentioned. Nothing else exists in the context of Schedule 4. Nothing else matters in the context of Schedule 4. Nothing else has a discrete notifiability status.

If the socket is in a living room then the work which consists of adding it is not notifiable.

No, it can be assessed on the basis of being a necessary part of the overall job. It's not a separate job for which you need to find a specific exemption for adding the cable; it doesn't become an integral part of the socket; but it is an integral part of the job of adding the socket.

Exactly.

So if the socket is in the living room then everything, in the context of Schedule 4, is in the living room, because, as you say, everything is an integral part of the job of adding the socket.

Everything is an integral part of work not in a special location etc.

Everything is non-notifiable.

Of course the job can involve work in more than one place. If you extend from a living room socket through a wall to add a socket in the bedroom on the opposite side of the wall, you have to carry out work in both the bedroom and the living room.

No - as you say everything not mentioned, the cables, the boxes etc etc are an integral part of the job of adding the socket.

And the socket is in one location - the bedroom.

So everything which is an integral part of it is also in the bedroom, in the context of Schedule 4.

The former obviously

Exactly.

You don't regard the job as anything other than adding the socket in the garage, and neither does Schedule 4

And if there is no power already in the garage, then the job necessarily involves running the cable. It doesn't make the cable an integral part of the socket, just an integral part of the whole job of adding the socket.

Exactly, and there's only recognition, in Schedule 4, of a single item of work consisting of adding a single explicitly identified thing - the socket.

So if the socket is not outdoors, then it is not notifiable, no matter how the cable gets to it.

But that's precisely it: My interpretation of the conditions in the actual 2(a) & (b) apply to the job as a whole, which I believe is what para. 2 says since those conditions refer to the "work," not just the socket.

The socket is the only item whose existence is recognised, and whose notifiabilty status is defined, by Schedule 4.

Everything else is integral to the work.

The work is atomic.

If the socket is not in a special location etc then, in the context of Schedule 4, the work consisting of adding it is, by definition, not in a special location.

The cable can't be separated from the "work which consists of adding a socket," since it's a necessary part of that work.

Exactly.

So the determination of its status cannot be separated from "work which consists of adding a socket".

Socket is the only item identified. Nothing can be separated from it.

If the socket is not somewhere which makes it notifiable then the work which consists of adding it is not notifiable.

Because I'm not trying to look for ways to "make it work,"

So you don't think it's supposed to work?

You don't think that if there are two ways to operate it, one which allows it to work and one which stops it working that the latter is the wrong way to operate it?

And when it comes to para. 2, the way I read it the conditions in 2(a) & (b) attach to the entire job (i.e. the "work which consists of"), not just the socket.

But earlier on you said

The cable can't be separated from the "work which consists of adding a socket," since it's a necessary part of that work.

So if it can't be separated then neither can its status.

If the socket isn't notifiable then the cable cannot be either.

But you introduce another problem that the wording in para. 2 does not then actually mean what it says.

No I don't - the wording in para 2 still means what it says because that's what it already says.

Would we agree that if the cable were being run to the outbuilding overhead on a catenary wire, then it is most certainly outdoors? Then the argument is limited to the basic issue of the interpretation of para. 2 and whether that outdoor cable is part of an "outdoor electric power installation" or not.

It's what it's serving and where which matters.

If it's serving a socket which is not outdoors then it is not part of an outdoor electric power installation, because,

The cable can't be separated from the "work which consists of adding a socket," since it's a necessary part of that work.

Just as, if the cable is indoors, but the socket is not then the "work which consists of..." is notifiable.

No, I'm just saying that I think this is one thing which has a large gray, subjective area between the two obvious extremes.

Consider again the swimming pool. How shallow would the depth of soil above it have to be before you conceded that the builder might have a point, and that it was a grey area as to whether he had or had not built you an outdoor swimming pool?

They're only supposed to rule on what the written words actually mean.

Exactly.

They look for meaning.

I look for meaning.

I have found meaning.

You are still struggling with meaninglessness because you aren't looking at it properly.

Is any part of the work which consists of adding the socket in a special location? The answer might be yes even the socket itself isn't.

It can't be - nothing else has, in the context of Schedule 4, any separate existence, or any different location.

But we've already agreed that "work consisting of adding" a socket has to include the cable, otherwise the installation of the new cable would not be exempt from notification.

Exactly.

So since the socket is the only item identified, it is the only item we need to consider.

There is no concept, in the context of Schedule 4, of different parts of the work - it's an atomic operation. It has no parts.

If the socket is not in a special location then the work consisting of adding it is not in a special location.

And that includes the cable.

Exactly.

The cable is included.

If the socket is in a bedroom then so is the cable.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I may have missed something after such lengthy posts but the definition of 'special location' does not mention a garden.

“special location” means a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath, a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations, seventeenth edition, published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2008().

 

[Paul_C]

It is one job.

Not disputed. I said as much above: It is "work which consists of adding a socket."

The socket is in the living room, therefore the socket is not notifiable, and neither is any the installation of any other part or component no matter where it is, where it cones form, how it gets there and so on.

I don't understand your bizarre interpretation that the cable somehow becomes part of the socket, and not just part of the overall job. Read para. 2 applying the basic rules of English sentence construction. The clauses in 2(a) & (b) apply to the "work" not just to the socket.

If the socket is not notifiable then none of the work is notifiable.

Even if it involves "work in a special location," to use your kitchen example? So you don't think that removing a socket in a kitchen, feeding a new cable to it, connecting to the terminals and replacing the socket constitutes work in a kitchen?

It's "work which consists of adding socket outlets"

And you've already agreed that to make any sense whatsoever, "work which consists of adding a socket" is implicitly including the cable and any other necessary items.

So if the socket is in the living room then everything, in the context of Schedule 4, is in the living room, because, as you say, everything is an integral part of the job of adding the socket.

That doesn't mean that every item installed as part of the job is in the living room though.

Everything else is integral to the work.

Yes, to the work. And the clauses in 2(a) & (b) apply to the work, i.e. the entire job.

You don't think that if there are two ways to operate it, one which allows it to work and one which stops it working that the latter is the wrong way to operate it?

I don't think either your view of this situation or mine makes schedule 4 "work" as a whole.

And when it comes to para. 2, the way I read it the conditions in 2(a) & (b) attach to the entire job (i.e. the "work which consists of"), not just the socket.

But earlier on you said

The cable can't be separated from the "work which consists of adding a socket," since it's a necessary part of that work.

So if it can't be separated then neither can its status.

I've said consistently that the cable is a necessary part of the work which consists of adding the socket. That doesn't make it an item which is indistinguishable from the socket itself.

If the socket is in a bedroom then so is the cable.

Even if the cable actually starts in a kitchen and runs through a hallway and living room to reach the bedroom? And you say that the cable is therefore in the bedroom, simply because the socket it feeds is in the bedroom? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[Paul_C]

I may have missed something after such lengthy posts but the definition of 'special location' does not mention a garden.

The mention about a garden was in reference to some of the notes in the approved document. As you say, it's not referred to in schedule 4 at all, which was the point I raised about how the approved document has a lot of things which contradict what the actual regulations say.

Schedule 4 refers only to an "outdoor lighting or electric power installation" as being a "special installation." Gardens don't come into it.

 

[MichaelTT]

Hello all,

In all honesty I'm lost with the current discussion.

Providing this doesn't affect the insurance I will be going ahead with the work. Can I ask however, if you could look at the installation I was originally questioning.

It was to run off the ring main with an FCU (13a) running from the house in SWA, down the wall then underground into the garage. From here there will be 6 Sockets that will create a "radial circuit" in the garage that will run between each other in 2.5mm T&E. From this there will be a further Switched FCU (6a) rating from the final socket, going to 3 fluorescent tube lights with 1.5mm T&E.

I'd really appreciate your advice.

 

[Paul_C]

In all honesty I'm lost with the current discussion.

Don't worry, as you can see there can be some slight disagreements about what schedule 4 actually means!

It was to run off the ring main with an FCU (13a) running from the house in SWA, down the wall then underground into the garage. From here there will be 6 Sockets that will create a "radial circuit" in the garage that will run between each other in 2.5mm T&E. From this there will be a further Switched FCU (6a) rating from the final socket, going to 3 fluorescent tube lights with 1.5mm T&E.

From the purely electrical point of view, that's fine. The wiring to the garage will not be a separate circuit as such, but a fused spur from the existing ring. Obviously with a 13A fuse at the origin, you'll be limited to 13A maximum load in the garage, even though you have six sockets. The fuse at the FCU for the lights will actually be 5A (you can't get 6A BS1362 fuses), but even for three 8 ft. 100W fluorescent fittings a 3A fuse would be adequate.

 

[MichaelTT]

Thanks Paul that really has helped!

The garage will not be used for heavy machinery, maybe just a plug in drill - maybe a heater in the winter and a car buffer as its only to work on a car. Will 13amps for the garage itself be adequate?

 

[Paul_C]

Will 13amps for the garage itself be adequate?

13A limits you to about 3 kilowatts maximum. Bear in mind that a fan heater fitted with a 13A plug can draw that much on full power, so you would need to consider exactly how much heating you might want to run, and whether simultaneously with other equipment. And whether you might want to add something else at a future date. Personally I would be thinking about running a dedicated circuit to the garage of 20 or 30A to allow for that, but obviously only you can decide whether you think you'll ever be likely to need to add more heating, a clothes dryer out there, heavier workshop machinery, etc.