Apologies for the fact that I've posted something similar elsewhere on the forum, but it was in a thread that had gone cold.
I wonder if anyone could comment on this arrangement:
In other words, I'm including spurs for the extractor hood (although there is no spur cable as such, instead the cooker cable simply passes through a switched FCU) and for the gas hob ignition.
I know that elsewhere on this forum the usual recommendation is to spur off the ring main for the ignition, but I really want to avoid having yet another isolation switch above the worktop (already got four: cooker, microwave, washing machine and dishwasher), especially as it for something as minor as the hob ignition. The arrangement above would mean that the single cooker switch would isolate the ignition and the oven. All the cabling on the radial is in 6mm2.
I guess some would say that running the extractor and ignition off the cooker circuit could overload it but:
1) The spurs for the ignition and the extractor both use FCU's not ring main sockets, therefore there is no way that in the future someone could plug something in and overload the circuit.
2) The combined drain of the extractor and the ignition are well below the potential drain of a "cooker switch with socket" arrangement which is regularly used.
3) I shall be installing a sub-3kW single oven, so it will all be well below the rating of the circuit anyway. I will thus have to use a ring main socket instead of the cooker outlet shown in the picture.
I know it seems a bit odd to not just use the ring main for the cooker. But until I get round to having my house re-wired I'm stuck with a three-bedroom house on a single 30amp ring, including the kitchen! I'm a bit worried about overloading the ring, so I thought it best to preserve the cooker radial, even if this means terminating it in a socket.
Is this permissable?
I wonder if anyone could comment on this arrangement:
In other words, I'm including spurs for the extractor hood (although there is no spur cable as such, instead the cooker cable simply passes through a switched FCU) and for the gas hob ignition.
I know that elsewhere on this forum the usual recommendation is to spur off the ring main for the ignition, but I really want to avoid having yet another isolation switch above the worktop (already got four: cooker, microwave, washing machine and dishwasher), especially as it for something as minor as the hob ignition. The arrangement above would mean that the single cooker switch would isolate the ignition and the oven. All the cabling on the radial is in 6mm2.
I guess some would say that running the extractor and ignition off the cooker circuit could overload it but:
1) The spurs for the ignition and the extractor both use FCU's not ring main sockets, therefore there is no way that in the future someone could plug something in and overload the circuit.
2) The combined drain of the extractor and the ignition are well below the potential drain of a "cooker switch with socket" arrangement which is regularly used.
3) I shall be installing a sub-3kW single oven, so it will all be well below the rating of the circuit anyway. I will thus have to use a ring main socket instead of the cooker outlet shown in the picture.
I know it seems a bit odd to not just use the ring main for the cooker. But until I get round to having my house re-wired I'm stuck with a three-bedroom house on a single 30amp ring, including the kitchen! I'm a bit worried about overloading the ring, so I thought it best to preserve the cooker radial, even if this means terminating it in a socket.
Is this permissable?