Removing a socket from a ring main

[ban-all-sheds]

If the reasoning behind "connecting" a cable to an accessory creating a safe zone is to be anything other than arbitrary, then yes.

Otherwise in the situation where one cable was electrically connected to an accessory, and another was following exactly the same route but just "passing through", the first cable would be OK and the second would not, despite being in exactly the same place, and "protected" against inadvertent damage in exactly the same way as the first.

Which would be nonsense.

 

[JohnW2]

If the reasoning behind "connecting" a cable to an accessory creating a safe zone is to be anything other than arbitrary, then yes.

Fair enough. In that case I'd be interested to hear whether others agree with you or not. Although I have been 'persuaded away from' that viewpoint, I'm perfectly open to being 'persuaded back' to my original view!

Otherwise in the situation where one cable was electrically connected to an accessory, and another was following exactly the same route but just "passing through", the first cable would be OK and the second would not, despite being in exactly the same place, and "protected" against inadvertent damage in exactly the same way as the first. ... Which would be nonsense.

IIRC, it was a scenario close to that which resulted in the discussion which changed my view. I agree that it's a bit of a 'nonsense' to suggest that, whilst that situation exists, one cable is in a safe zone but the other isn't. However, the concern expressed was that if the 'connected' accessory (and its cables) were subsequently removed (and the 'hole' made good), one would be left with a situation in which there was a buried cable which was no longer in a safe zone. Insisting that any cable enjoying a safe zone has to be electrically connected to/within whatever was creating that safe zone is one way to reduce/minimise the risk of that situation ever arising.

However, as I said, I've very much open to changing my view back to yours, if that proves to be the consensus view.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

It would take a little investigation, but there may be a fairly easy solution.

If, on removal of the socket and box behind the proposed range, it can be determined with the use of cameras, mirrors, cable finders etcetera that all cables feeding the socket go up to the top of the wall, another hole can be cut in the plasterboard in line with these cables, they can be fished out and terminated at high level, rendering the lower level cabling disconnected, safe and redundant.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, the concern expressed was that if the 'connected' accessory (and its cables) were subsequently removed (and the 'hole' made good), one would be left with a situation in which there was a buried cable which was no longer in a safe zone. Insisting that any cable enjoying a safe zone has to be electrically connected to/within whatever was creating that safe zone is one way to reduce/minimise the risk of that situation ever arising.

Well - that argument does make sense, but you destroyed it by saying that a JB behind a blanking plate would also qualify as "connected to an accessory"

 

[JohnW2]

Well - that argument does make sense, but you destroyed it by saying that a JB behind a blanking plate would also qualify as "connected to an accessory"

[DA mode]Only if the JB were 'MF' (otherwise 'something would have to be done about' the joint after remove the plate, since the JB could not simply be 'plastered in') - and, as I said, I really don't see why anyone would use an MF JB in that situation.[/DA mode]

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It would take a little investigation, but there may be a fairly easy solution.If, on removal of the socket and box behind the proposed range, it can be determined with the use of cameras, mirrors, cable finders etcetera that all cables feeding the socket go up to the top of the wall, another hole can be cut in the plasterboard in line with these cables, they can be fished out and terminated at high level, rendering the lower level cabling disconnected, safe and redundant.

Indeed. In fact, if the cable could be completely fished out at high level, there wouldn't even be any 'low level cabling' left. Even better, discover where the cables go above the ceiling, and join/terminate them there.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

[DA mode]Only if the JB were 'MF' (otherwise 'something would have to be done about' the joint after remove the plate, since the JB could not simply be 'plastered in') - and, as I said, I really don't see why anyone would use an MF JB in that situation.[/DA mode]

Can you explain why the sort of person who would remove a blanking plate over a cable, and plaster it in, or would remove a blanking plate over a MF JB and plaster it it, would not just as readily do ditto to a non-MF JB, without doing anything about it?

 

[riveralt]

[DA mode]Only if the JB were 'MF' (otherwise 'something would have to be done about' the joint after remove the plate, since the JB could not simply be 'plastered in') - and, as I said, I really don't see why anyone would use an MF JB in that situation.[/DA mode]

John what's [DA mode]?
Why does it keep popping up on your replies?

 

[JohnW2]

John what's [DA mode]? Why does it keep popping up on your replies?

...[I'm playing Devil's Advocate here because, as I said, it was others who persuaded me, fairly recently, that this was the case]

As I've said, until not too long ago my view/interpretation of the regs was the same as the view that BAS is now presenting, but I was persuaded otherwise (but not 'totally convinced') by some of those here. I'm therefore having to argue, as Devil's Advocate, on behalf of those who 'persuaded' me.

As a matter of interest, what is your view? It was your post which actually triggered all this discussion about safe zones. In that post, you seemed to be implying that you subscribe to BAS's view (and my 'previous view') that a blank plate alone can create a safe zone, even if the cable just passes through/behind that plate, with no (electrical) 'connections' there. Is that your view/interpretation?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Can you explain why the sort of person who would remove a blanking plate over a cable, and plaster it in, or would remove a blanking plate over a MF JB and plaster it it, would not just as readily do ditto to a non-MF JB, without doing anything about it?

I suppose the sort of person who was trying to be compliant with the regs and who knew that, whilst 'plastering in' a cable or MF JB was not, in itself, non-compliant, 'plastering in' a non-MF JB would be non-compliant?

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

As a matter of interest, what is your view? It was your post which actually triggered all this discussion about safe zones. In that post, you seemed to be implying that you subscribe to BAS's view (and my 'previous view') that a blank plate alone can create a safe zone, even if the cable just passes through/behind that plate, with no (electrical) 'connections' there. Is that your view/interpretation?

Based on my own experiences I take the view that it is better to have some form of indication that cables exist hidden behind walls than none at all.
Yes someone can come along later, removes it and fill in the hole. But in doing so they can see a cable is behind the blank and I believe they then take on the responsibility for the wiring becoming hidden again.

 

[JohnW2]

Based on my own experiences I take the view that it is better to have some form of indication that cables exist hidden behind walls than none at all.

I wouldn't think that anyone could disagree with that.

Yes someone can come along later, removes it and fill in the hole. But in doing so they can see a cable is behind the blank and I believe they then take on the responsibility for the wiring becoming hidden again.

That would be true in the context of this present thread. However, what has been suggested in the past is that merely screwing a blank plate onto an (apparently intact) wall creates a safe zone. In that situation, a person subsequently removing the plate would not see a cable, or even a hole, and therefore might not even suspect that there are buried cables. What would you feel about that?

Needless to say, the previous discussions have been about regulatory compliance, not only safety and common sense - with people 'persuading' me that what I previously thought was compliant actually wasn't. Do you feel that a cable in an alleged 'safe zone' created by blank plate over a (visible) intact cable is compliant (with 522.6.101), and, if so, would your answer be different if the cable were not visible behind the plate?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Scotsandy]

It would take a little investigation, but there may be a fairly easy solution.

If, on removal of the socket and box behind the proposed range, it can be determined with the use of cameras, mirrors, cable finders etcetera that all cables feeding the socket go up to the top of the wall, another hole can be cut in the plasterboard in line with these cables, they can be fished out and terminated at high level, rendering the lower level cabling disconnected, safe and redundant.

Thanks Securespark. If this were practicable (I'll have to wait for a day off to go fishing) would such a connection need a blanking plate to identify it, even if I used a MF connector?

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks Securespark. If this were practicable (I'll have to wait for a day off to go fishing) would such a connection need a blanking plate to identify it, even if I used a MF connector?

There are actually two different issues here. Firstly, something visible (e.g. a blanking plate) would be needed to create a safe zone for the cable if the end of the cable (i.e. the new JB or whatever) was more than 150mm from the ceiling (the top 150mm of a wall is always a 'safe zone'). If it was right up high (within 150mm of ceiling) then such 'identification' would therefore theoretically not be required.

Secondly, there's the issue of accessibility. Theoretically, an MF junction box can be totally hidden and inaccessible (e.g. behind the plastboard, and maybe even tiled over). However, if (as I presume will be the case) that JB will still be part of a sockets circuit, I personally would not want it to be 'totally hidden and inaccessible' - just in case (despite being 'MF') something ever went wrong with it. However, that's a matter of how 'cautious' one is - as I've said, regulations do not require it to be 'findable' or accessible.

As I mentioned a few posts back, if you could locate the cables in question under the floorboards of the floor above, that would be an ideal place to join/terminate the cables (with an MF JB) - you could probably pull the cables all the way up from the socket (after disconnecting it!) - but even if you had to cut them off, they would simply be 'dead' in the wall.

One other thought - I don't suppose you are thinking of having any sort of light or extractor/hood (maybe not allowed with stove?) or suchlike above the stove/range, are you? If you were, then these 'fished out cables', connected to a fused connection unit (non-conspiculously up high, and creating a 'safe zone' for any cable above) would probably be the ideal source of an electricity supply for them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

If the cables were, as John suggests, pulled right up to the under-floor void position, that would be ideal.

They could then be made off in an MF box then there would be nothing in the wall to identify or protect with a blank plate.

If that were not possible, high-level termination is the next best thing. The hole cut to pull out the cables at the required height could be used to mount the dry lining box to house the connections.

I don't know the geography in this kitchen, but, if there was a wall unit above the range, then the cables could be used to feed an accessory running under-cupboard lighting or alternatively the JB could be mounted up there.

Edit: Sorry John, you've already suggested this. I wrote this last night and forgot to post!