Height of Sockets and Switches

[salem2000]

I agree.

When I wired my loft conversion. Didn't mind the hight of sockets, being the lazy bar steward I am, I now don't have to bend so far but the switches do look odd.

Couldn't get a stair lift in if you wanted to, and mine was a bungi.

 

[andemz]

thanks saleem that was a very good comment you made at the end

 

[ban-all-sheds]

..I guess this is a welcome to the world of the IEE as i have noted people stating that some key features of the new regs are ludicrous

Nothing to do with them - it's a Building Reg, not an Electrical one.

 

[AdamW]

Standard 5 foot lightswitches really wouldn't be a problem for many wheelchair users. So, this regulation is for a subset of a minority in other words not many people. If someone buys a house, and they are unable to reach 1500mm light switches then they will probably require thousands of pounds worth of adaptation work done to the house anyway. Surely lowering light switches to bring them into the reach of an individual is more suitable than ensuring ALL houses have lightswitches that are unergonomic and unaesthetic to the majority of the population! Why not lower kitchen work surfaces too? My standard-height work surface would make it difficult for a wheelchair user to safely use the hob.

I, like it seems andemz, feel a little discriminated against here! One of my problems is that I have large feet and thus find it difficult to keep balance on some staircases (more so at 11:30 on a Friday night, funny that!). Then when I get into bed they hang over the end and get cold. Now I don't see any regs on stair treads being deeper and beds made longer! I don't even get any NHS issue bed-socks to keep them warm!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK - here's the plan.

Above every switch and below every socket, install boxes at the heights you want, and have the cables run through them on their way to the "correct" ones, and plaster over them.

After Mr Building Control has done his final inspection, and before you do the final decoration, knock away the plaster, cut the cables, pull the discarded ends out, install the accessories where you want and plaster over the other set of boxes. Bit of a fag, but it might be the only way to get what you want.

 

[Big_Spark]

I hate to **** on the parade, but there is NO stated Minimum or maximum height for sockets or switches in either BS7671 or the Building Regs. Some Engineers often claim this to be the case, but it is simply not true.

There are guidance notes that give recommended heights in the case of the disabled, however this only relates to premises designed specifically to cater for wheelchair users.

There are recommendations that make a noise about certain heights, namely 450mm centre fixing for sockets and 1500mm centre fixing for switches, but these are only guides and need not be adhered to.

In domestic premises there are no such guides.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, this is what Part M of the Building Regulations has to say:

Application of Part M
0.1 The requirements apply if:
a. a non-domestic building or a dwelling is newly erected;

So not necessarily an extension, andemz will be pleased to hear

What it says about extensions is:

Extensions and material alterations: dwellings
0.2 Under regulation 4(2), where any building is extended, or undergoes a material alteration, the building work must be carried out so that after it has been completed the building complies with the applicable requirements of Schedule 1, or, where it did not fully comply with any applicable requirement, it is no more unsatisfactory than before.

0.3 This rule applies to domestic as well as to non-domestic buildings.

Under the Limits on Application in Part M, Part M does not apply to an extension of, or a material alteration of, a dwelling. However, an extension of a dwelling, or a material alteration of a dwelling, must not make the building less satisfactory in relation to Part M than it was before.

0.4 Under regulation 3, the expression "material alteration" is defined by reference to a list of "relevant requirements" in schedule 1. That list includes Part M. This means that an alteration of a dwelling is a material alteration if the work would result in the dwelling not complying with Part M where previously it did. Alternatively, if the dwelling did not previously comply with Part M, the dwelling should not be more unsatisfactory in relation to Part M after the material alteration. It is irrelevant whether or not the dwelling was subject to Part M at the time of its construction.

I would take that to mean that if the building already has sockets halfway up the wall, then any extension must also, but if it didn't have them then the extension doesn't need them.

So that's where Part M applies, and what Part M says about sockets etc is:

Section 8: Accessible Switches and Socket Outlets in the Dwelling

Objective

8.1 The aim is to assist those people whose reach is limited to use the dwelling more easily by locating wall-mounted switches and socket outlets at suitable heights.

Design considerations

8.2 Switches and socket outlets for lighting and other equipment should be located so that they are easily reachable.

Provisions

8.3 A way of satisfying Requirement M1 would be to provide switches and socket outlets for lighting and other equipment in habitable rooms at appropriate heights between 450mm and 1200mm from finished floor level.

 

[Big_Spark]

Ban, are you just being a muppet or are you simply spoiling for an argument where one des not exist?.

Nothing you have posted, with the exception of the last paragraph states a height for anything, except to say it should be accessible. The last part you posted gives RECOMMENDED heights in specific situations.

NOW READ MY POST AGAIN FFS.

Cutting and posting parts of Part M to make yourself look smart doesn't wash, those comments in isolation mean nothing. These comments refer to "special locations" and not domestic premises. You cannot build every home in the UK with an assumption that one day a disabled person may move in.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ban, are you just being a muppet or are you simply spoiling for an argument where one des not exist?.

Neither. Well, not the latter, and I hope not the former

Nothing you have posted, with the exception of the last paragraph states a height for anything, except to say it should be accessible. The last part you posted gives RECOMMENDED heights in specific situations.

Well the whole point of what I posted was to set the context of that last paragraph. Yes, those heights are only "recommendations", and if you wish to provide an alternative method of accessibility, and convince the Building Inspector that your alternative method meets the requirement of accessibility then you are free to do so. You will struggle - you'll find that lots of Local Authorities have interpreted Part M as "must". For example, this (if I dare paste something without being accused of wanting to look smart) is from Cardiff's website ( here ):

"All new buildings (including dwellings from 25/10/99) and some extensions to buildings (but not extension to dwellings) must allow for people with disabilities to access and use them. From 25/10/99 all new houses are required to have electrical switches and sockets between 450mm and 1200mm above floor level."

As I said, you are of course free to argue that sockets and switches not mounted between those heights are accessible, or have an alternative way of providing accessibility. And I'm sure you have the right of appeal when the Building Inspector insists on you sticking to the recommendations of the Building Regs.

NOW READ MY POST AGAIN FFS.

OK, I will.

I hate to **** on the parade, but there is NO stated Minimum or maximum height for sockets or switches in either BS7671 or the Building Regs. Some Engineers often claim this to be the case, but it is simply not true.

I did not fake that text which I copied from the ODPM website - it really did come from Approved Document M, and it really does state minimum and maximum heights. "A way of satisfying Requirement M1 would be to provide switches and socket outlets for lighting and other equipment in habitable rooms at appropriate heights between 450mm and 1200mm from finished floor level." It may only have the force of an example of one way of satisfying a requirement, but it does state minimum and maximum heights.

There are guidance notes that give recommended heights in the case of the disabled, however this only relates to premises designed specifically to cater for wheelchair users.

There are recommendations that make a noise about certain heights, namely 450mm centre fixing for sockets and 1500mm centre fixing for switches, but these are only guides and need not be adhered to.

In domestic premises there are no such guides.

So why does this say
"DETR Circular 8/98 (Welsh Office Circular 32/98 ) dated 3 November 1998 drew attention to the Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 1998. Those regulations introduce a modified Part M into Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 1991. This applies requirements on access and facilities for disabled people to the design and construction of new dwellings."?

Cutting and posting parts of Part M to make yourself look smart doesn't wash, those comments in isolation mean nothing.

1) I'm not doing it to make me look smart, but if you make claims which I have good reason to believe are incorrect I'm not going to be bullied into not looking for material which supports me. The selected comments were, I hoped, the points which were relevant to the issue of whether Building Regulations specified minimum and maxiumum heights for switches and sockets. The full text is available here .

These comments refer to "special locations" and not domestic premises.

There are plenty of examples in the sections I copied which make it abundantly clear that they are talking about "dwellings".

You cannot build every home in the UK with an assumption that one day a disabled person may move in.

Why can't you? I think you'll find that if the Govt say you must, then you must. I'll use one final quote from Document M, which explains why they are doing this:

"People, regardless of disability, age or gender, should be able to:

a. gain access to buildings and to gain access within buildings and use their facilities, both as visitors and as people who live or work in them;

b. use sanitary conveniences in the principal storey of a new dwelling.

The provisions are expected to enable occupants with disabilities to cope better with reducing mobility and to 'stay put' longer in their own homes.

The provisions are not necessarily expected to facilitate fully independent living for all people with disabilities."

So unless you do mandate that every new dwelling is built with appropriate accessibility and usability features where possible, you won't further that aim.

 

[AdamW]

People, regardless of disability, age or gender,

Blimey, I would like to see how you can prove compliance on that one. Surely "regardless of disability" means you need to be able to open the door and switch on the lights even if you have no use of your limbs.

I would love to see the court case: a new dwelling is built and the inspector certifies that it passes the regs. Someone moves in and is unable to gain access and use facilities on their own.

Now, as the building inspect has said the house meets the above regs, he must therefore be saying that the occupant does not count as "people".

If the UK was a few thousand miles to the left, there would be some million-pound law suits coming out of this one.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry - I left off the last sentence of the paragraph I copied, not out of any nefarious motive, but because it was not relevant to the topic being debated.

It sort of addresses your concern, but does introduce a contradiction to do with "regardless of disability"....