Socket heights when rewiring

[mic2876uk]

Hello,

From what I believe sockets can be fitted at any height (as long as the flex isn't interfered with when plugging in) during a rewire of a dwelling that is not new.

However when my 3rd party approver came he said they should be a minimum of 450mm, I fitted them all at 300mm as I find 450mm a bit height and obtrusive.

He was concerned when he submitted everything to BC they would flag that as an issue but I cannot find anything on part p or part m that says for an existing dwelling or extension I should have to comply with 450mm as minimum height

 

[Risteard]

It is not correct to state that they can be fitted at any height.

The non-compliance must not be made any worse - i.e. they cannot be fitted lower than they already are (or higher for light switches).

But ultimately if you are having a third-party sign-off then you need to do what that third party requires of you. It is entirely their prerogative.

 

[mic2876uk]

Where does it say that below 450mm is non compliant, the screen shot only says;

"Approved Document M recommends that in new dwellings only, switches and socket-outlets for lighting and other equipment should be between 450mm and 1200mm from finished floor level"

From what that states it only recommends that sockets are situated between 450-1200mm and that, that recommendation only applies in a new building.

Not to mention that part M is applicable to the access and use of buildings things that were not considered during the construction of my 1930's house.

 

[JohnW2]

"Approved Document M recommends that in new dwellings only, switches and socket-outlets for lighting and other equipment should be between 450mm and 1200mm from finished floor level". From what that states it only recommends that sockets are situated between 450-1200mm and that, that recommendation only applies in a new building.

Indeed. As you say, it is only a recommendation and, in any event, the emntirity oif Approved Doc M is only guidance. The only actual law is Part M of the Building Regs, and all that says which is relevant is ...

That is obviously vague in the extreme, since there can be any amount of debate about what constitutes "reasonable provision". The practical problem is that, ultimately it is the interpretation which the individual Building Officer chooses to make!

There is exactly the same issue with all electrical work, since Part P similarly only requires "reasonable provision" (to avoid danger to persons or property). However, that case there is at least BS7671 to fall back on, since compliance with BS7671 is regarded as a means of making that "reasonable provision".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

This is a bit like the RCBO discussion in that someone has read (or heard of) part of a guidance document and forever after that part shall be gospel - completely ignoring any qualifying clauses.

Similarly Part F:

and its accompanying Approved Document guidance is taken to mean that fans are compulsory.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It is not correct to state that they can be fitted at any height.

Yes, it is. It is his house.

The non-compliance must not be made any worse - i.e. they cannot be fitted lower than they already are (or higher for light switches).

They can be if they are at present too high.

But ultimately if you are having a third-party sign-off then you need to do what that third party requires of you. It is entirely their prerogative.

Mmmm. Really? You put up with any old jobsworth who is misinterpreting the rules. That doesn't sound like you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The non-compliance must not be made any worse - i.e. they cannot be fitted lower than they already are (or higher for light switches).

That is not true.

But ultimately if you are having a third-party sign-off then you need to do what that third party requires of you. It is entirely their prerogative.

Their job is to ensure and certify compliance with the regulations.

They may not impose their own personal desires onto others.

 

[JohnW2]

The non-compliance must not be made any worse - i.e. they cannot be fitted lower than they already are (or higher for light switches).

I'm not sure where that came from but, in any event, don't forget that we are now in an era in which the non-conformity in question may not actually constitute a "non-compliance", since that has become a matter of opinion/judgement ...

Non-compliance. A non-conformity that may give rise to danger.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

BS7671 definitions are immaterial for something which arises out of the Building Regulations and not BS7671.

 

[Risteard]

Mmmm. Really? You put up with any old jobsworth who is misinterpreting the rules. That doesn't sound like you.

I don't have to because I don't need a third-party to assess certify the installation.

However if I told someone to do something in that capacity I would not be amused by them questioning it. My word is law. If I asked them to jump off a cliff I would expect them to ask me which cliff they must jump off.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Can't argue with that even if it is nonsense.

 

[JohnW2]

BS7671 definitions are immaterial for something which arises out of the Building Regulations and not BS7671.

True. Where do the Building Regs say that "non-compliance must not be made worse" by new work - and, indeed, where do the Building Regs say anything at all explicit about what accessory heights would be "non-compliant" in the first place?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

(3) Building work shall be carried out so that, after it has been completed—

(a)any building which is extended or to which a material alteration is made; or

(b)any building in, or in connection with, which a controlled service or fitting is provided, extended or materially altered; or

(c)any controlled service or fitting,

complies with the applicable requirements of Schedule 1 or, where it did not comply with any such requirement, is no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than before the work was carried out.

 

[JohnW2]

... but what about "... where do the Building Regs say anything at all explicit about what accessory heights would be "non-compliant" in the first place?"

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Nowhere