Part P and building control

[Stoday]

The guidelines are clearly wrong.

The non-professional people who call an FCU a "fused spur" also tend to call a ring final circuit a "ring main".

They are also clearly wrong.

 

[Paul_C]

No non-loony would try and claim that 2(c) allows you to add sockets etc without notification but not the cables needed to make them work because cables aren't listed as being exempt.

So why claim that without the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii) adding a socket on a non-fused spur would be exempt, but adding an FCU to make it a fused spur instead would not? Why should we assume that a cable is implicitly exempt but an FCU is not, when both would be a necessary part of the work which consists of adding sockets?

So that you can install telephone & network etc cabling without it being notifiable.

Were 3(a) not present you couldn't run phone cables anywhere.

And you may recall that in these "clear, consistent, and logical" regulations, the original published version of the rules exempting various works had obviously had so little thought applied to it that much of this work would have been notifiable. Even running bell wire from a battery-powered doorbell to the push-button at the door would have been notifiable work!

 

[Paul_C]

http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_en__426GB426&q=%22fused+spur%22

//search.diynot.com/forum_sear...0&author=&search=Search+Forum&stype=0[/QUOTE]


http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=RJ45

//search.diynot.com/forum_search.php?all=&phrase=RJ45

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So why claim that without the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii) adding a socket on a non-fused spur would be exempt, but adding an FCU to make it a fused spur instead would not? Why should we assume that a cable is implicitly exempt but an FCU is not, when both would be a necessary part of the work which consists of adding sockets?

So you think it would work OK if fused spurs (whatever you take that to mean) were not explicitly exempted, and that the installation of an FCU would just be an intrinsic part of the installation of whatever it was supplying?

And you may recall that in these "clear, consistent, and logical" regulations, the original published version of the rules exempting various works had obviously had so little thought applied to it that much of this work would have been notifiable. Even running bell wire from a battery-powered doorbell to the push-button at the door would have been notifiable work!

Indeed, but it would still have been self-consistent.

But so what? I hope you're not trying to claim that because the provisions of Schedule 2B/4 have changed at times that must mean they are always wrong.

 

[Paul_C]

So you think it would work OK if fused spurs (whatever you take that to mean) were not explicitly exempted, and that the installation of an FCU would just be an intrinsic part of the installation of whatever it was supplying?

What do you mean by "work O.K." exactly? Do you mean that it would end up with the result that you could add a spur (fused or non-fused) to feed sockets or lights, but no any other hardwired load, as you say it means anyway? If that is what was intended, then yes. Why shouldn't an FCU be an ancillary, implicitly exempt, part of the work like a simple joint box would be?

But so what? I hope you're not trying to claim that because the provisions of Schedule 2B/4 have changed at times that must mean they are always wrong.

I'm pointing out that they are not always right, as a hastily introduced amendment in December 2004 to put right the "battery doorbell" blunder demonstrates.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What do you mean by "work O.K." exactly?

I mean do you think that Schedule 4 would not contain any inconsistencies, or would always define exactly what you think the notifiability/non-notifiability rules should be?

Do you mean that it would end up with the result that you could add a spur (fused or non-fused) to feed sockets or lights, but no any other hardwired load, as you say it means anyway?

That isn't what I said it means.

Whatever is downstream of an FCU is governed by exactly the same requirements for what is upstream.

whatever you add downstream of an FCU is governed by exactly the same requirements as it would be if the FCU was not there.

the presence of an FCU makes no difference to the status of what is downstream of it. If it's notifiable without an FCU it is notifiable with one.

If it's not notifiable without an FCU it is not notifiable with one.

the inconsistency goes away as soon as you go with the idea that an FCU makes no difference to the notifiability of whatever is downstream of it

[You add the FCU (not in a kitchen etc). Non-notifiable.

You add whatever is controlled by the FCU. Notifiable or not depending on what Schedule 4 says about the <whatever>.

subject to meeting the requirements of 2(a) and 2(b) as well, a fused spur is exempted by 2(c)(ii).

Indeed it is.

The fused spur is.

Not also any electrical equipment known to man which you might then decide to connect to it.

So again, what exemption has that reference to fused spurs added if, as you claim, a fused spur is non-notifiable only if feeding lights or sockets?

Where have I claimed that?

I've said all along that a fused spur is a discrete item. It may or may not be notifiable, but whether it is or not is not affected by what connects to it and the notifiability of what connects to it is not affected by it.

But by your version of what "fused spur" means, even that isn't exempt if the fused spur extends beyond the FCU, e.g. to a flex outlet plate which is being fitted in anticipation of a future addition of some appliance.

But it doesn't extend beyond it - I've told you that several times.

I've also told you, several times, that the installation of a fused spur is completely separate from the installation of anything connected to it, and that its notifiability is self-contained, unaffected by and unaffecting the notifiability of anything connected to it, because the notifiability of that is also self-contained.

How many times do I have to tell you that before you stop deliberately ignoring it and repeating your same old deliberately obtuse objections to it which are based on notifiability of things not being independent?

How many times do I have to tell you that the notifiability of a fused spur is not affected by, is nothing do do with, and does not affect, the notifiability of anything else before you stop asking things like "if the reference to a fused spur is not intended to exempt something other than sockets and lights on a fused spur, why does there need to be a reference to fused spurs at all?"?

Just how many times do I have to say that the notifiability of installing a fused spur is not affected by, nor does it affect, the notifiability of what it supplies before you stop ignoring that or playing it back in a corrupted form so you can claim I'm saying something different?

Why shouldn't an FCU be an ancillary, implicitly exempt, part of the work like a simple joint box would be?

Do you think that if it were that Schedule 4 would not contain any inconsistencies, or would always define exactly what you think the notifiability/non-notifiability rules should be?

I'm pointing out that they are not always right, as a hastily introduced amendment in December 2004 to put right the "battery doorbell" blunder demonstrates.

As I asked earlier, please separate the issues of whether what is and is not notifiable is a sensible situation, and whether the way that Schedule 4 is written is internally consistent and does describe the notifiable/non-notifiable regime as is.

Before the amendment in December 2004 the regime defined may have been daft, but the definition of it was not inconsistent.

 

[Paul_C]

I mean do you think that Schedule 4 would not contain any inconsistencies, or would always define exactly what you think the notifiability/non-notifiability rules should be?

I think that it would "work O.K." by meaning what you are taking it to mean anyway, with the single exception of being able to install a fused spur which isn't actually connected to a load.

Do you mean that it would end up with the result that you could add a spur (fused or non-fused) to feed sockets or lights, but no any other hardwired load, as you say it means anyway?

That isn't what I said it means.

But it is. You are saying that sockets and lights are specifically exempted, and that therefore they are exempt from notification when being added by way of a fused spur. You are also saying that connecting any other hardwired load to a fused spur is notifiable, because there is no specific exemption for connecting any such equipment, and that the exemption for a fused spur does not extend beyond the FCU. You've just quoted many of the places in which you've said that.

Why shouldn't an FCU be an ancillary, implicitly exempt, part of the work like a simple joint box would be?

Do you think that if it were that Schedule 4 would not contain any inconsistencies, or would always define exactly what you think the notifiability/non-notifiability rules should be?

It would still contain inconsistencies, just as does it the moment.

Take the cable and junction box as examples. If cable were somehow classed as a "non item" which was, in itself, entirely outside the notification requirements, then there would be no need for the inclusion of the exemption in 1(b) for replacing a damaged cable. So we have to assume that cable is notifiable, unless specifically exempted in any given situation (which is logical, considering that it forms part of the electrical installation which is governed by the regulations).

So when we come to adding lights or sockets under the exemption in 2(c), we need something which also explicitly or implicitly exempts the installation of the associated cable from notification. There is no explicit mention of cable in 2(c), so the only exemption which can be assumed is one implicit in the exemption for "work which consists of" installing the extra socket or light.

So what about a junction box? It's not mentioned in schedule 4 at all. If "work which consists of" adding a socket can reasonably be taken to include the installation of the necessary cable, then it's also reasonable to assume that the fitting of any necessary joint box is implicitly exempt as well.

So what if you want to repair a damaged cable with a junction box? There's no specific exemption for that. Either there's an inconsistency in the regulations in assuming that a junction box is somehow a "non item" and not worth mentioning at all, or an inconsistency in providing an exemption for replacing a damaged cable in its entirety but not for cutting at the damaged point and making good with a junction box.

As I asked earlier, please separate the issues of whether what is and is not notifiable is a sensible situation, and whether the way that Schedule 4 is written is internally consistent and does describe the notifiable/non-notifiable regime as is.

Schedule 4 has to describe what is notifiable versus what is not notifiable because that's the only place which exempts certain jobs. The issue is over the interpretation of schedule 4.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think that it would "work O.K." by meaning what you are taking it to mean anyway, with the single exception of being able to install a fused spur which isn't actually connected to a load.

So if a fused spur is as incidental as a junction box etc, and you're replacing a fan in a kitchen which is currently on an unfused spur from a socket circuit, with enough slack in the cables for an FCU to be added:

1. Work consisting of -

(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of -
(i) any new fixed cabling, or
(ii) a consumer unit;

So replacing the fan is non-notifiable, adding an FCU is incidental, therefore you've ended up, with your scheme, being able to add an FCU into a kitchen and it being non-notifiable.

But you've also said that to connect a light not in a kitchen to an FCU already there is notifiable.

And you don't think that there's an inconsistency there?

But it is.

NO IT IS NOT.

OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN I HAVE SAID THAT THE TWO ARE NOT RELATED OR CONNECTED OR INTERDEPENDENT IN ANY WAY.

OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN I HAVE SAID THAT WHETHER OR NOT INSTALLING AN FCU IS NOTIFIABLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IT IS SUPPLYING IS NOTIFIABLE.

OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN I HAVE SAID THAT WHETHER OR NOT INSTALLING A <WHATEVER> IS NOTIFIABLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER IT IS SUPPLIED BY AN FCU.

You are saying that sockets and lights are specifically exempted, and that therefore they are exempt from notification when being added by way of a fused spur.

Yes.

You are also saying that connecting any other hardwired load to a fused spur is notifiable, because there is no specific exemption for connecting any such equipment,

Yes there is - the replacement of fixed equipment, for example.

It would still contain inconsistencies, just as does it the moment.

It contains none when my interpretation is used.

Take the cable and junction box as examples. If cable were somehow classed as a "non item" which was, in itself, entirely outside the notification requirements, then there would be no need for the inclusion of the exemption in 1(b) for replacing a damaged cable.

I thought you wanted cables to be incidental/ancillary/included/whatever in the exemptions for sockets, lights, switches and fused spurs in paragraph 2.

Not anywhere and for everything.

So if someone were replacing a shower with a more powerful one you want the replacement of the cable all the way from the CU with a larger one to be non-notifiable?

So what if you want to repair a damaged cable with a junction box? There's no specific exemption for that. Either there's an inconsistency in the regulations in assuming that a junction box is somehow a "non item" and not worth mentioning at all, or an inconsistency in providing an exemption for replacing a damaged cable in its entirety but not for cutting at the damaged point and making good with a junction box.

Or the regime they actually want is that you can replace a damaged cable but not carry out a repair because the latter introduces too many possibilities of bodges, poor connections, non-compliant buried JBs etc?

 

[Paul_C]

So if a fused spur is as incidental as a junction box etc, and you're replacing a fan in a kitchen which is currently on an unfused spur from a socket circuit, with enough slack in the cables for an FCU to be added:

1. Work consisting of -

(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of -
(i) any new fixed cabling, or
(ii) a consumer unit;

So replacing the fan is non-notifiable, adding an FCU is incidental, therefore you've ended up, with your scheme, being able to add an FCU into a kitchen and it being non-notifiable.

It would depend to which exemptions the addition of an FCU may be considered incidental and implicitly exempt as comprising "work consisting of" whatever. If only to the exemptions for sockets and lights in 2(c), then in your example it would still be notifiable because of 2(a).

But if "work consisting of" in 2(c) provides exemptions not only for the specific accessories listed but also for incidental items necessary to do the job, such as junction boxes and cable, then why shouldn't the same phrase applied to replacements include the same implicit exemptions? Yes, it would mean that the addition of the FCU in the kitchen is not notifiable. So what? Why shouldn't that be what's intended?

If "work which consists of adding sockets" also conveys an implicit exemption for the associated cable and joint boxes, then why wouldn't "work consisting of replacing any fixed electrical equipment" convey the same implicit exemptions?

Is the provision of the FCU an incidental part of the work which consists of replacing the fan? Yes.

Does the work include the provision of new fixed cabling? No.

Does it involve the provision of a consumer unit? No.

So it's exempt. What's wrong with it working that way?

OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN I HAVE SAID THAT WHETHER OR NOT INSTALLING AN FCU IS NOTIFIABLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IT IS SUPPLYING IS NOTIFIABLE.

OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN I HAVE SAID THAT WHETHER OR NOT INSTALLING A <WHATEVER> IS NOTIFIABLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER IT IS SUPPLIED BY AN FCU.

But you have not satisfactorily explained why 2(c)(ii) makes reference to a fused spur as a specific addition to a circuit if not to exempt something fed by that fused spur as part of it. Other than your erroneous claim that "fused spur" means "fused connection unit," which it does not.

You are also saying that connecting any other hardwired load to a fused spur is notifiable, because there is no specific exemption for connecting any such equipment,

Yes there is - the replacement of fixed equipment, for example.

O.K., replacements excepted. We're talking about additions though.

Take the cable and junction box as examples. If cable were somehow classed as a "non item" which was, in itself, entirely outside the notification requirements, then there would be no need for the inclusion of the exemption in 1(b) for replacing a damaged cable.

I thought you wanted cables to be incidental/ancillary/included/whatever in the exemptions for sockets, lights, switches and fused spurs in paragraph 2.

Not anywhere and for everything.

I said if cable were classed as some sort of "non item" which is excluded from notification in all cases. Clearly it isn't, otherwise there would be no need for the specific exemption in 1(b). So unless you want to interpret 2(c) as meaning that you can fit the sockets but not connect them to anything, which would be ridiculous, we must, therefore, assume that 2(c) also conveys an implicit exemption for adding the cables.

Or the regime they actually want is that you can replace a damaged cable but not carry out a repair because the latter introduces too many possibilities of bodges, poor connections, non-compliant buried JBs etc?

And an implicit exemption for junction boxes when adding sockets or lights to an existing circuit doesn't introduce the same possibilities?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It would depend to which exemptions the addition of an FCU may be considered incidental and implicitly exempt as comprising "work consisting of" whatever. If only to the exemptions for sockets and lights in 2(c), then in your example it would still be notifiable because of 2(a).

If 2(c) made no mention of fused spurs how would you arrive at the scenario where they would be included in the exemptions for sockets etc but not included in the exemption for replacing fixed equipment?

But if "work consisting of" in 2(c) provides exemptions not only for the specific accessories listed but also for incidental items necessary to do the job, such as junction boxes and cable, then why shouldn't the same phrase applied to replacements include the same implicit exemptions? Yes, it would mean that the addition of the FCU in the kitchen is not notifiable. So what? Why shouldn't that be what's intended?

So you think that what's intended is that an entirely new FCU can be added into a kitchen, but if you have an existing one the mere act of removing it from the wall to connect a light you're installing which is not in the kitchen, (and therefore not notifiable itself) becomes notifiable because it's work in the kitchen? Even though you also believe that the cable for the light is "incidental"?

And this interpretation tends toward no inconsistencies, rather than an increase in them?

If "work which consists of adding sockets" also conveys an implicit exemption for the associated cable and joint boxes, then why wouldn't "work consisting of replacing any fixed electrical equipment" convey the same implicit exemptions?

Is the provision of the FCU an incidental part of the work which consists of replacing the fan? Yes.

Does the work include the provision of new fixed cabling? No.

Does it involve the provision of a consumer unit? No.

So it's exempt. What's wrong with it working that way?

So I can add a new FCU if I'm replacing a fan, because replacing the fan is non-notifiable.

I can add a new FCU if I'm replacing a light because replacing a light is non-notifiable.

But I can't connect to an existing FCU to add a light outside of the kitchen even though adding the light outside of the kitchen is just as non-notifiable as replacing the fan or the light inside it?

And that reduces inconsistencies in Schedule 4 rather than increases them?

But you have not satisfactorily explained why 2(c)(ii) makes reference to a fused spur as a specific addition to a circuit if not to exempt something fed by that fused spur as part of it. Other than your erroneous claim that "fused spur" means "fused connection unit," which it does not.

But you have not satisfactorily explained why 2(c)(ii) makes absolutely anything downstream of an FCU non-notifiable. Other than your erroneous claim that "fused spur" means "fused connection unit and absolutely anything connected to it", which it does not.

O.K., replacements excepted. We're talking about additions though.

You can't just dismiss part of Schedule 4 because all of a sudden it doesn't fit with your theory of why, or if, fused spurs should be mentioned in it.

I said if cable were classed as some sort of "non item" which is excluded from notification in all cases. Clearly it isn't, otherwise there would be no need for the specific exemption in 1(b). So unless you want to interpret 2(c) as meaning that you can fit the sockets but not connect them to anything, which would be ridiculous, we must, therefore, assume that 2(c) also conveys an implicit exemption for adding the cables.

Yes, as part of the exempted work of adding the lights, switches, sockets or fused spurs.

Because work consisting of nothing but cabling has no exempt work with which it's associated it would need its own exemption. No inconsistency.

1(a)(ii) reinforces the position of associated cabling being included in whatever the item it's connected to by excepting new cabling in that instance, i.e. effectively saying "the normal inclusion of new cables for sockets, switches, lights and fused spurs doe not apply in this case". No inconsistency.

And an implicit exemption for junction boxes when adding sockets or lights to an existing circuit doesn't introduce the same possibilities?

It does indeed.

And what if you use a junction box to tap into the existing circuit? I don't see an explicit exemption for installing a junction box, so does that mean that if you use a junction box an otherwise non-notifiable job suddenly becomes notifiable?

Given the regulatory issues surrounding the inappropriate use of junction boxes then maybe that is the case, and maybe that's a good idea.

Such a reading would be in the right direction regarding inconsistencies rather than the wrong way.

 

[Paul_C]

If 2(c) made no mention of fused spurs how would you arrive at the scenario where they would be included in the exemptions for sockets etc but not included in the exemption for replacing fixed equipment?

Because we're assuming that the exemption in 2(c) for adding a socket implicitly exempts the provision of the new cable needed to feed that socket, whether a fused spur or a non-fused spur.

The exemption for replacing fixed equipment in 1(a) stipulates that it does not involve the addition of any new fixed cabling.

So you think that what's intended is that an entirely new FCU can be added into a kitchen, but if you have an existing one the mere act of removing it from the wall to connect a light you're installing which is not in the kitchen, (and therefore not notifiable itself) becomes notifiable because it's work in the kitchen? Even though you also believe that the cable for the light is "incidental"?

The new cable for a light may be implicitly exempt under the provision of 2(c), but if it's in a kitchen then 2(a) is not satisfied.

And this interpretation tends toward no inconsistencies, rather than an increase in them?

As I've said before, there are inconsistencies however one interprets schedule 4.

So I can add a new FCU if I'm replacing a fan, because replacing the fan is non-notifiable.

If we assume that an FCU is just as much an incidental accessory which is needed for "work consisting of replacing" as a junction box, or even a "choc block" used to make connections within the fan, yes.

I can add a new FCU if I'm replacing a light because replacing a light is non-notifiable.

Ditto.

But I can't connect to an existing FCU to add a light outside of the kitchen even though adding the light outside of the kitchen is just as non-notifiable as replacing the fan or the light inside it?

Then you are adding a light, not replacing one, and it involves work in a kitchen. So it's not exempt as a replacement under 1(a), and the while the work satisfies the requirement of 2(c), it does not meet the requirement of 2(a).

But you have not satisfactorily explained why 2(c)(ii) makes absolutely anything downstream of an FCU non-notifiable. Other than your erroneous claim that "fused spur" means "fused connection unit and absolutely anything connected to it", which it does not.

It certainly means more than just an FCU, as you have claimed. Although you've also said that the fused spur stops at the FCU, implying that the feeder cable is part of a fused spur.

In reality, a fused spur certainly comprises the feeder, the FCU, and any wiring on the load side of the FCU, e.g. running from the FCU to a switched flex outlet plate.

The only dispute then is whether any load connected to the fused spur is to be considered a part of the fused spur itself. The guidance note in the Approved Document suggests that for the purposes of the building regulations, it is. Yes, I know you say that the guidance is wrong, but as it's the only official interpretation of what the reference in 2(c)(ii) is supposed to mean, that's all that anyone can go on.

And as I've explained before, if the reference to a fused spur is not intended to convey that meaning as set out in additional note (h) of the Approved Document, then all it would exempt is the provision of the cable, FCU, any downstream cable, and then a flex outlet or other junction box to which the load is, ultimately, to be connected.

If the connection of the load (not a socket or light) is then notifiable, what would be the point of exempting the installation of the fused spur in the first place?

You can add all the wiring for the fused spur, right up to the final box, and that's not notifiable, but if you want to connect your fan, heater, or whatever to the end of that fused spur, you have to notify anyway?

And to use a phrase which has been thrown around a lot, you don't think that raises an inconsistency?

You can't just dismiss part of Schedule 4 because all of a sudden it doesn't fit with your theory of why, or if, fused spurs should be mentioned in it.

I'm not dismissing it - But schedule 4 clearly treats replacements and additions differently.

Such a reading would be in the right direction regarding inconsistencies rather than the wrong way.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that you believe that the exemptions for adding sockets and lights don't implicitly exempt the provision of joint box to feed them as well?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because we're assuming that the exemption in 2(c) for adding a socket implicitly exempts the provision of the new cable needed to feed that socket, whether a fused spur or a non-fused spur.

We aren't - you are.

And when you do you create inconsistencies.

The exemption for replacing fixed equipment in 1(a) stipulates that it does not involve the addition of any new fixed cabling.

What does that have to do with any incidental addition of a new fused spur?

Would you like to claim that the stipulation in 1(a) about no new fixed cabling implies a stipulation of no new fused spurs, in order to try and fix the inconsistency you've created?

Your fiddling just mushrooms, doesn't it. I wonder why that is?

The new cable for a light may be implicitly exempt under the provision of 2(c), but if it's in a kitchen then 2(a) is not satisfied.

If it's incidental to the item you're installing then it is incidental - it is unrecognised by Schedule 4 and completely bundled into, and inseparable from, the item which is recognised and which is explicitly dealt with.

So if the light is being installed outside of the kitchen and therefore non-notifiable then the incidental cable must also be non-notifiable.

You cannot, with consistency, say that if I'm adding a light outside of a kitchen then the addition is an atomic one of light and necessary cable, oh, but if I'm adding a light outside of a kitchen then the addition is not an atomic one of light and necessary cable.

As I've said before, there are inconsistencies however one interprets schedule 4.

There are for people, such as yourself, who actually don't want to interpret it in a way which does not have inconsistencies.

Then you are adding a light, not replacing one, and it involves work in a kitchen.

No it doesn't - the work is atomic, it cannot be in 2 places at once. Either the light, and all of it's associated cables etc are in the kitchen or they are not - that's what the whole concept of cables being implicit to the installation of the light is. You cannot, consistently, sometimes have the cables for a non-notifiable light also non-notifiable because they are an implicit part of the non-notifiable light and sometimes not.

So it's not exempt as a replacement under 1(a), and the while the work satisfies the requirement of 2(c), it does not meet the requirement of 2(a).

Yes it does, because the light you're adding is not in the kitchen.

It certainly means more than just an FCU, as you have claimed. Although you've also said that the fused spur stops at the FCU, implying that the feeder cable is part of a fused spur.

In reality, a fused spur certainly comprises the feeder, the FCU, and any wiring on the load side of the FCU, e.g. running from the FCU to a switched flex outlet plate.

Makes no difference - you still need the explicit mention of fused spurs to be able to add them.

The only dispute then is whether any load connected to the fused spur is to be considered a part of the fused spur itself. The guidance note in the Approved Document suggests that for the purposes of the building regulations, it is. Yes, I know you say that the guidance is wrong, but as it's the only official interpretation of what the reference in 2(c)(ii) is supposed to mean, that's all that anyone can go on.

I guess if you flatly refuse to go on what the law says, and instead rely on a document which does not define the law then that's all you can go on.

And as I've explained before, if the reference to a fused spur is not intended to convey that meaning as set out in additional note (h) of the Approved Document, then all it would exempt is the provision of the cable, FCU, any downstream cable, and then a flex outlet or other junction box to which the load is, ultimately, to be connected.

Yep.

Perfectly fine and perfectly inconsistency-free.

If the connection of the load (not a socket or light) is then notifiable, what would be the point of exempting the installation of the fused spur in the first place?

Because if, as I say, and if as you observe in your "if the reference.." above "fused spur" means an FCU, the cable supplying it (and, if you like the cable on the load side of it), the point of exempting the installation of the fused spur is so that the installation of one, outside of a kitchen etc, is non-notifiable.

What you've been doing all along is to try and fabricate a schema where you have to remove the explicit mention of fused spurs because you don't like the atomicity of [fused spur] [socket] [light] [switch]. To provide justification for that you deny that atomicity, the complain about the inconsistencies that your denial leads to, and then dismiss the inconsistencies that your removal of [fused spur] creates by referring to the ones that arise from your original denial, saying "there are inconsistencies however one interprets schedule 4".

You can add all the wiring for the fused spur, right up to the final box, and that's not notifiable, but if you want to connect your fan, heater, or whatever to the end of that fused spur, you have to notify anyway?

You have to notify the fixed appliance anyway.

Imagine connecting it without a fused spur. Where's the exemption in Schedule 4 for it?

And to use a phrase which has been thrown around a lot, you don't think that raises an inconsistency?

No - the fixed appliance is always notifiable. No inconsistency. By making the appliance and the fused spur atomic operations there is never any inconsistency.

I'm not dismissing it - But schedule 4 clearly treats replacements and additions differently.

Yes it does. But you kept on saying that I couldn't be right about what a fused spur was because they could never be added for something non-notifiable except for lights and sockets, which is why they should be implicit, and as soon as I gave you an example of how a fused spur could be defined as I said, and added for something other than sockets or lights you went into "but apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us" mode.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that you believe that the exemptions for adding sockets and lights don't implicitly exempt the provision of joint box to feed them as well?

It's a valid idea.

And tends towards consistency rather than away from it.

 

[Paul_C]

Because we're assuming that the exemption in 2(c) for adding a socket implicitly exempts the provision of the new cable needed to feed that socket, whether a fused spur or a non-fused spur.

We aren't - you are.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread, including you, try to claim that installing the cable which is needed to add a socket or light makes the work notifiable just because 2(c) doesn't mention cable explicitly.

The exemption for replacing fixed equipment in 1(a) stipulates that it does not involve the addition of any new fixed cabling.

What does that have to do with any incidental addition of a new fused spur?

If you are adding a spur to a circuit, then of necessity it involves the addition of new fixed cabling. The only way you could create a fused spur without adding cable would be to cut into an existing cable to create it from a non-fused spur.

Would you like to claim that the stipulation in 1(a) about no new fixed cabling implies a stipulation of no new fused spurs, in order to try and fix the inconsistency you've created?

My interpretation of adding an FCU while replacing a fan is perfectly consistent with the wording of 1(a).

1. Work consisting of—

(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment

Taken alone, that would include replacing the fan itself, replacing any cable necessary to do the job (e.g. if the existing cable were too short), adding a flex outlet plate or other joint box, and adding an FCU if necessary.

But then the regulation continues:

which does not include the provision of—

(i)any new fixed cabling

So no new fixed cabling allowed. Everything else mentioned above, including the provision of the FCU, is still part of the "work consisting of replacing any fixed electrical equipment," so still exempt.

The new cable for a light may be implicitly exempt under the provision of 2(c), but if it's in a kitchen then 2(a) is not satisfied.

If it's incidental to the item you're installing then it is incidental - it is unrecognised by Schedule 4 and completely bundled into, and inseparable from, the item which is recognised and which is explicitly dealt with.

Where are you suddenly getting the idea that cable and some other items are completely unrecognized by schedule 4?

So if the light is being installed outside of the kitchen and therefore non-notifiable then the incidental cable must also be non-notifiable.

Cable is incidental in the sense of being implicitly included in "work which consists of adding light fittings" etc. But if adding the cable is part of the work, and the cable (or part of it) is run/connected in the kitchen, then how can there be no work carried out in the kitchen?

You cannot, with consistency, say that if I'm adding a light outside of a kitchen then the addition is an atomic one of light and necessary cable, oh, but if I'm adding a light outside of a kitchen then the addition is not an atomic one of light and necessary cable.

An atomic addition?

Then you are adding a light, not replacing one, and it involves work in a kitchen.

No it doesn't - the work is atomic, it cannot be in 2 places at once. Either the light, and all of it's associated cables etc are in the kitchen or they are not - that's what the whole concept of cables being implicit to the installation of the light is.

Of course the work can be carried out in more than one place. If it involves the connection of a cable within a kitchen to run to something else in another part of the house, then part of the work is in the kitchen and part is not.

You cannot, consistently, sometimes have the cables for a non-notifiable light also non-notifiable because they are an implicit part of the non-notifiable light and sometimes not.

You can when you read what 2(a) says.

So it's not exempt as a replacement under 1(a), and the while the work satisfies the requirement of 2(c), it does not meet the requirement of 2(a).

Yes it does, because the light you're adding is not in the kitchen.

I see what you're trying to say here, but now you're effectively arguing that you can add any incidental accessory you like in a kitchen in order to feed a new light or socket elsewhere. Yet earlier, you were attacking my interpretation of 1(a) allowing the addition of an FCU in a kitchen for a replacement fan. Now who's being inconsistent?

Makes no difference - you still need the explicit mention of fused spurs to be able to add them.

Why? You've just acknowledged that cable is an incidental, included item (arguments over kitchen work etc. aside), even though it's not mentioned explicitly in 2(c).

"Work which consists of adding sockets" must, of necessity, include the provision of cable. If the sockets need to be run on a fused spur, rather than a non-fused one, then why would there be any reason to believe that the provision of the FCU is not included along with the cable, it being just as much a necessary part of the "work which consists of adding sockets" as the cable?

I guess if you flatly refuse to go on what the law says, and instead rely on a document which does not define the law then that's all you can go on.

But the law itself is open to interpretation, as this thread clearly demonstrates. You even want the law to mean "fused connection unit" when it says "fused spur."

And as I've explained before, if the reference to a fused spur is not intended to convey that meaning as set out in additional note (h) of the Approved Document, then all it would exempt is the provision of the cable, FCU, any downstream cable, and then a flex outlet or other junction box to which the load is, ultimately, to be connected.

Yep.

Perfectly fine and perfectly inconsistency-free.

So you're agreeing now that if I spur from a ring, run a cable to a new FCU, then continue with new fixed cabling to a new flex outlet box, intending to connect something to it at a later date, then this work, by itself, is not notifiable?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that you believe that the exemptions for adding sockets and lights don't implicitly exempt the provision of joint box to feed them as well?

It's a valid idea.

And tends towards consistency rather than away from it.

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread, including you, try to claim that installing the cable which is needed to add a socket or light makes the work notifiable just because 2(c) doesn't mention cable explicitly.

Because we're assuming that the exemption in 2(c) for adding a socket implicitly exempts the provision of the new cable needed to feed that socket, whether a fused spur or a non-fused spur.

A fused spur is not just a bit of cable.

If you are adding a spur to a circuit, then of necessity it involves the addition of new fixed cabling. The only way you could create a fused spur without adding cable would be to cut into an existing cable to create it from a non-fused spur.

Indeed.

you're replacing a fan in a kitchen which is currently on an unfused spur from a socket circuit, with enough slack in the cables for an FCU to be added

My interpretation of adding an FCU while replacing a fan is perfectly consistent with the wording of 1(a).

1. Work consisting of—

(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment

Taken alone, that would include replacing the fan itself, replacing any cable necessary to do the job (e.g. if the existing cable were too short), adding a flex outlet plate or other joint box, and adding an FCU if necessary.

But then the regulation continues:

which does not include the provision of—

(i)any new fixed cabling

So no new fixed cabling allowed. Everything else mentioned above, including the provision of the FCU, is still part of the "work consisting of replacing any fixed electrical equipment," so still exempt.

So you can add an FCU into an existing circuit in a kitchen to control a fan if you're replacing it, but you can't add one if you're not replacing the fan.

You think that's an interpretation with consistency?

Where are you suddenly getting the idea that cable and some other items are completely unrecognized by schedule 4?

If you are going to say that the cables associated with adding a socket are an intrinsic part of the socket, and they are covered by the socket exemption then clearly they don't have an independent existence in terms of recognition by Schedule 4 as items in their own right. The socket, the cables, the back-box or pattress - they are all a single item, bundled together as "work consisting of adding a socket", and not divisible.

Cable is incidental in the sense of being implicitly included in "work which consists of adding light fittings" etc. But if adding the cable is part of the work, and the cable (or part of it) is run/connected in the kitchen, then how can there be no work carried out in the kitchen?

Because you're adding one thing. You are adding a [socket+cables+box]. The cables and the box are an inseparable part of the socket - they cannot be viewed independently because as soon as you do that then you have to find an exemption for them in Schedule 4.

So if you're adding a [socket+cables+box] then you are adding one thing, and that is the thing exempted, or not, in 2. That's what I mean by "atomic". You can't regard [socket+cables+box] as [socket]+[cables]+[box] because if you do you'd need to find exemptions for all 3.

Since all the subsidiary components are bundled with the socket it's where the socket is being installed that matters. If you're installing the socket outside of the kitchen then the atomicity of the operation means that all of the components have to be regarded as being outside of the kitchen.

So yes - if the socket is outside the kitchen but is connected to a socket inside, it's the location of the additional socket that governs notifiability, and the "work consisting of adding a socket" is non-notifiable.

Just like extending a lighting loop from a kitchen light fitting is non-notifiable, as you said it was.

Of course the work can be carried out in more than one place. If it involves the connection of a cable within a kitchen to run to something else in another part of the house, then part of the work is in the kitchen and part is not.

If you want that then you have blown apart the whole idea of "work consisting of adding a socket" meaning that the [socket+cables+box] are all viewed as a single entity, notifiability of which is defined by 2.

As soon as you say I'm installing cable (notifiable) and a socket (not notifiable) then you've given the cable status in its own right and therefore you have to have exemption for it in it's own right.

You can when you read what 2(a) says.

2(a) says not in a kitchen.

You say that the cables are an inseparable part of the socket, or of the work consisting of adding the socket.

Therefore if the socket is not in the kitchen then how can an inseparable part of it be in the kitchen? If the socket is not in the kitchen how can an inseparable part of the work be somewhere else?

I see what you're trying to say here, but now you're effectively arguing that you can add any incidental accessory you like in a kitchen in order to feed a new light or socket elsewhere.

No I'm not.

What incidental accessory have I said you can add in a kitchen? A fused spur? Nope - I don't regard those as incidental, that's your theory.

A switch for a light in the conservatory? Nope - the switch is a non-incidental item in its own right, and if added to a kitchen would be notifiable.

About the only "incidental accessory" I can think of is a junction box, so if we assume for now that they are always associated with the explicit item you are adding, and aren't always notifiable because they have no explicit exemption of their own, then my view that when the socket etc that you're adding is outside of the kitchen all of the work is non-notifiable then it's non-notifiable whether you use a junction box or not.

Yet earlier, you were attacking my interpretation of 1(a) allowing the addition of an FCU in a kitchen for a replacement fan. Now who's being inconsistent?

You are, because an FCU is not an "incidental accessory", it's an explicit item in its own right, given recognition as such by being explicitly mentioned in 2(c).

Your view is the inconsistent one because you would allow an FCU to be added when replacing a fan but not when not replacing it.

Makes no difference - you still need the explicit mention of fused spurs to be able to add them.

Why? You've just acknowledged that cable is an incidental, included item (arguments over kitchen work etc. aside), even though it's not mentioned explicitly in 2(c).

Why?

Simple - because a fused spur is not an incidental included item like cables, it's a distinct item in its own right.

"Work which consists of adding sockets" must, of necessity, include the provision of cable. If the sockets need to be run on a fused spur, rather than a non-fused one, then why would there be any reason to believe that the provision of the FCU is not included along with the cable, it being just as much a necessary part of the "work which consists of adding sockets" as the cable?

Why?

Simple - because when you do that you create the inconsistency of being able to add an FCU onto a kitchen circuit if you're replacing a fan but not being able to add the same FCU onto the same circuit if you're not replacing the fan. You create the inconsistency of being able to add an FCU when replacing a built-in appliance but not being able to add a DP switch in exactly the same place.

In your world, if the words "and fused spurs" were removed from 2(c)(ii), what would happen if all you wanted to do was to add an FCU - no other work of which it could be an incidental part, e.g. if you found an unfused spur with more than one socket on, and so you wanted to add an FCU before the sockets?

But the law itself is open to interpretation, as this thread clearly demonstrates. You even want the law to mean "fused connection unit" when it says "fused spur."

If we say that "fused spur" means [supply cable + FCU + load cable] would that make a difference?

So you're agreeing now that if I spur from a ring, run a cable to a new FCU, then continue with new fixed cabling to a new flex outlet box, intending to connect something to it at a later date, then this work, by itself, is not notifiable?

"Agreeing now"?

Have I ever said otherwise?

Look again at the diagram here, for example.

Look at all the times I've said that installing an FCU is a job in its own right, it has its own determination of notifiability neither affected by nor affecting what it's connected to.

Is that a yes or a no?

Probably a no.

 

[Paul_C]

A fused spur is not just a bit of cable.

I've never said that it is. But you've claimed that "fused spur" means just an FCU, which does not include any cable at all. Should we take this comment as being an acceptance that you were wrong on that point?

So you can add an FCU into an existing circuit in a kitchen to control a fan if you're replacing it, but you can't add one if you're not replacing the fan.

You think that's an interpretation with consistency?

I don't think that the result of the interpretation is a set of rules with any consistency to them. But as I keep pointing out, you'll find similar inconsistencies throughout whatever varying interpretations of schedule 4 are used.

If you are going to say that the cables associated with adding a socket are an intrinsic part of the socket, and they are covered by the socket exemption then clearly they don't have an independent existence in terms of recognition by Schedule 4 as items in their own right.

I haven't suggested that the cables associated with adding a socket are an intrinsic part of the socket. I've said that they are an intrinsic part of "work which consists of adding a socket."

The socket, the cables, the back-box or pattress - they are all a single item, bundled together as "work consisting of adding a socket", and not divisible.

Yes, all part of the work, but not all part of the socket being added.

Because you're adding one thing. You are adding a [socket+cables+box]. The cables and the box are an inseparable part of the socket - they cannot be viewed independently because as soon as you do that then you have to find an exemption for them in Schedule 4.

You aren't adding one thing. You're adding a socket, plus the mounting box, plus the cable, plus clips, etc. The exemption in schedule 4 is in 2(c) as "work which consists of adding a socket," because you can't add the socket without also installing the cable and other necessary items.

You can't regard [socket+cables+box] as [socket]+[cables]+[box] because if you do you'd need to find exemptions for all 3.

And you'll find those exemptions in 2(c)(ii) - "Work which consists of adding a socket." That doesn't make the socket, box, cable, etc. all one item.

If you're installing the socket outside of the kitchen then the atomicity of the operation means that all of the components have to be regarded as being outside of the kitchen.

And the section of the regulations which states, or even implies, that is...... Where?

As soon as you say I'm installing cable (notifiable) and a socket (not notifiable) then you've given the cable status in its own right and therefore you have to have exemption for it in it's own right.

It's necessary to add cable to feed a new socket. Therefore adding cable is an integral part of "work which consists of adding a socket."

You say that the cables are an inseparable part of the socket, or of the work consisting of adding the socket.

Therefore if the socket is not in the kitchen then how can an inseparable part of it be in the kitchen? If the socket is not in the kitchen how can an inseparable part of the work be somewhere else?

Cables are not an inseparable part of the socket. They're a part of the work which consists of adding a socket.

What incidental accessory have I said you can add in a kitchen? A fused spur? Nope - I don't regard those as incidental, that's your theory.

But you've said that running the cable for a non-fused spur in a kitchen is exempt, if it's feeding a new socket or light elsewhere. So why should a fused spur be any different? Are you just arguing over whether the FCU itself is in the kitchen or not?

You are, because an FCU is not an "incidental accessory", it's an explicit item in its own right, given recognition as such by being explicitly mentioned in 2(c).

Not it isn't. Schedule 4 makes no explicit mention of an FCU whatsoever. It is implied by the reference to a fused spur in 2(c)(ii).

Simple - because when you do that you create the inconsistency of being able to add an FCU onto a kitchen circuit if you're replacing a fan but not being able to add the same FCU onto the same circuit if you're not replacing the fan.

Which is no worse than many of the other inconsistencies in the regulations.

You create the inconsistency of being able to add an FCU when replacing a built-in appliance but not being able to add a DP switch in exactly the same place.

Maybe not. Why shouldn't adding a switch where deemed necessary be an integral part of the work consisting of replacing equipment?

In your world, if the words "and fused spurs" were removed from 2(c)(ii), what would happen if all you wanted to do was to add an FCU - no other work of which it could be an incidental part, e.g. if you found an unfused spur with more than one socket on, and so you wanted to add an FCU before the sockets?

Then it would become notifiable. Is it inconsistent that you could add an entirely new fused spur to sockets without notification but not to add an FCU to convert an existing non-fused spur into a fused spur? Yes, of course it is. Just like many other things which are inconsistent in the regulations, with or without that reference in 2(c)(ii).

For example, you still haven't made any attempt to explain the apparent inconsistent use of the supposedly simple conjunction "and" in schedule 4.

If we say that "fused spur" means [supply cable + FCU + load cable] would that make a difference?

But you've said that a "fused spur" either (a) stops at the FCU, or (b) is just the FCU.

So you're agreeing now that if I spur from a ring, run a cable to a new FCU, then continue with new fixed cabling to a new flex outlet box, intending to connect something to it at a later date, then this work, by itself, is not notifiable?

"Agreeing now"?

Have I ever said otherwise?

Yes. You said that the fused spur is either just the FCU itself, or stops at the FCU. So according to either of your interpretations of "fused spur," where is the exemption for installing the flex outlet unit? It's not a socket, a switch, or a light. And what about the cable running from the load side of the FCU? If the fused spur doesn't go beyond the FCU, where's the exemption for that cable, since it can't then be an integral part of the work of installing the fused spur?

Look again at the diagram here, for example.

And the tags on that last diagram illustrate the point. The exemption for a fused spur should extend right up to the socket, as the cable downstream of the FCU is part of the fused spur. But if you changed the socket on that diagram for a flex outlet unit, the exemption under 2(c)(ii) for a socket would no longer apply. If the fused spur then stops at the FCU, what exempts the cable on the load side of the FCU and the flex outlet box?

Is that a yes or a no?

Probably a no.

Only probably? Why aren't you sure, when you seem quite sure about the rest of schedule 4?