| Wiring, Theories and the Regulations Discussions on all electrical regulations in the UK. Including Part P, BS 7671, DPC BS7671:2008, BS 7671:2001 & 2004 Amendment No.2, IEE wiring regulations, 16th Edition and 17th Edition |
28-07-2008
|
#11 (permalink)
| | Respected Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 918
| Re: CU Max Height According to Building Regs the db i just put in would need the floor digging out to make it fit!!!(24 three phase ways)
do i have to build a ramp out front if i get any building work done on my house??? | | |
| |
28-07-2008
|
#12 (permalink)
| | Guest | Re: CU Max Height According to Building Regs well its all boll**s
i mean lets say you fit a fan in the bathrrom, you should fit a double pole isolator so you should have isolation for maintenance,
but you have to install the isolator low enough for a disabled person in a wheelchair to operate it
erm.....how do they get up the fan to clean it  
and like you say, great, they can isolate the lighting circuit, but how do they get up there to change the lamp in the ceiling rose
and before you start with 'offending disabled people' and they 'have the same rights as everyone else', my wife has had MS for a number of years, so believe me, I know what its about!  | | |
| |
29-07-2008
|
#13 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 67
| Re: CU Max Height According to Building Regs Still not convinced by the replies (with all due respect).
I understand that we have to conform to new regs and requirements - and they say max heights of 0.45 and 1.2m for sockets and CU´s (centre of the CU). If we are providing new installations or new circuits or new extensions to circuits then they must conform (no matter the inconvenience).
There is probably a bit of connundrum here between Part P, Part M and the 17th? What does the 17th say on this? | | |
| |
29-07-2008
|
#14 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 43
| Re: CU Max Height According to Building Regs weve got some MG 24w tp dbs with cts for metering & 160a tp contactor in bottom compartment controlled via em.stops,the bloody things are 1.5mtr high and take two to lift
yours benji | | |
| |
29-07-2008
|
#15 (permalink)
| | Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 10
| Re: CU Max Height According to Building Regs it wont apply for a commercial/industrial building as M regs only applies to dwellings (see page 68 of electricians guide to the building regs). db's in comm/ind should only be touched by the maintainance dept so wouldn't require them to be lower down | | |
| |
29-07-2008
|
#16 (permalink)
| | Guest | Re: CU Max Height According to Building Regs Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon9 Still not convinced by the replies (with all due respect).
I understand that we have to conform to new regs and requirements - and they say max heights of 0.45 and 1.2m for sockets and CU´s (centre of the CU). If we are providing new installations or new circuits or new extensions to circuits then they must conform (no matter the inconvenience).
There is probably a bit of connundrum here between Part P, Part M and the 17th? What does the 17th say on this? | no Dixon, sorry you are wrong
new circuits and new extensions do NOT need to conform
The approved documents to both Part M and Part P expressly say that; it is quite acceptable to mount them at a height inkeeping with the existing property
even in build it does not apply to the kitchen and garage
and part p and the 17th have nothing to do with each other! | | |
| |
30-07-2008
|
#17 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 67
| Re: CU Max Height According to Building Regs Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakey no Dixon, sorry you are wrong
new circuits and new extensions do NOT need to conform
The approved documents to both Part M and Part P expressly say that; it is quite acceptable to mount them at a height inkeeping with the existing property
even in build it does not apply to the kitchen and garage
and part p and the 17th have nothing to do with each other! | Well yes Shakey, I´m quite aware that the 17th and Part P or Part M aren´t directly connected!
Although ín the real world a domestic spark would need to be aware of part p, some sections of part M and the 17th, yes?!
I came across this on the web - interesting stuff and it pretty much backs up what I´m saying re "connundrum" above. (You will find that Part M has been ammended now anyway according to the author). The conclusions seem to be; it is not clear, CU height on new builds BUT best practice to put the CU at the new height: Steve Dyson explains why most new housebuilds fail to meet Part P and Part M of the Building Regulations.
When it comes to mounting consumer units, Part P and Part M of the Building Regulations have left many in the industry confused.
Traditionally, the consumer unit is positioned either high up on the wall out of eye line, in the downstairs toilet or perhaps in a cupboard under the stairs. Judging by much of the new build that we see, most people clearly still believe that this is where it should stay.
Unfortunately this does not meet with the requirements of either Part P or Part M. In fairness the legislation is hardly clear on the matter.
Part P section 1.6 states that: “Wall-mounted socket outlets, switches and consumer units should be located so that they are easily reachable where this is necessary to comply with Part M. Approved Document M shows ways of complying.”
This seems to be clear enough. Unfortunately, if you then refer to Part M, there is no overt mention of consumer units, hence the muddied waters. Here you need to dig deep, and it is probably not a surprise that few bother. If you want to comply with the Building Regulations, however, you must. Section 8 of Approved Document M, which applies to new dwellings, includes the objective of “assisting people whose reach is limited to use the dwelling more easily, by locating wall-mounted switches, socket outlets and other equipment at suitable heights, so that they are easily reachable for use.”
The NICEIC indicates that “other equipment” includes circuit breakers and therefore the consumer units that they are sited in.
Suitable heights for switches and socket outlets are between 0·45 m and 1·2 m from the finished floor level. However, a more limited height range of 0·75 m to 1·2 m above finished floor level is recommended for simple push button controls, isolator switches and circuit breakers that require limited dexterity. So the maximum height should be 1200 mm to the centre of the switches and controls. If you are using a multi-row enclosure, then all the devices must be within these height ranges.
In fairness, this clearly complies with the spirit of Part M. Consumer units should be accessible so that people can operate circuit breakers in an emergency and for the routine testing and resetting of RCDs. This means that they must be in reach as defined by Part M.
“It is time for the industry to be aware of all Part M requirements” In addition, they should not be installed in a lockable cupboard – which is, after all, hardly accessible. Any consumer unit that complies with BS EN 60439-3 and has switches that are located behind a cover is fit for purpose.
The NICEIC also makes the point that consumer units must be accessible for safe working. Regulation 15 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 states that to avoid injury “…adequate working space, adequate means of access and adequate lighting shall be provided at all electrical equipment on which, or near which, work is being done in circumstances which may give rise to danger.”
For a consumer unit, such work should include the measurement of maximum prospective fault current, a test that may give rise to danger. It should therefore be mounted at a height that allows adequate access for such work to be carried out safely. Mounting a consumer unit at a suitable height for inspection, testing and maintenance is also necessary for compliance with the accessibility requirements of Regulations 131-12-01 and 513-01-01 of BS 7671. You will note that this article only refers to new build. You do not need to move a consumer unit to Part M heights for a house rewire or for building an extension. It might, however, be considered best practice to do so. One final point, if a consumer units is fitted in the garage, then it must also comply with Part P and Part M. You should choose a position where it’s unlikely to be damaged. Back walls are generally better than side walls. It is time for the industry to be aware of all Part M requirements and to at least draw the main contractor’s attention to its legal obligations. The fact that this might cause some builders inconvenience is not an argument.
Arguments about aesthetics are not a barrier to complying with the regulations. Indeed, many boards have modern aesthetic designs. If a board sticking out of the wall will cause a hazard then install a flush fit unit.
Many of the issues which are currently surrounding Part M are due to be clarified by the end of this year. In the meantime, make sure that you at least draw attention to the regulations.
According to one recent blog, an electrician told the NICEIC inspector who rejected a consumer unit installation to shove Part M. While this may have been satisfying, it carries no legal weight.
Steve Dyson is Hager’s product manager for LV distribution | | |
| |
30-07-2008
|
#18 (permalink)
| | Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1
| Re: CU Max Height According to Building Regs I recently read a EDF document,dated 12/07,recommending a meter height of between
1.8m and 450mm,(it makes the the CU a handy step to read the meter!!)
In my early days i always flushed in the CU at eye level,in my case 1.8m,completely out of harms way,i could never understand anyone putting them down under bench height in a cubboard,maybe because i had trouble getting in to it!!.....KS | | |
| |
30-07-2008
|
#19 (permalink)
| | Respected Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 918
| Re: CU Max Height According to Building Regs dixon9,
thank you for the info | | |
| |
30-07-2008
|
#20 (permalink)
| | Respected Member
Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: york
Posts: 623
| Re: CU Max Height According to Building Regs yeah lot of good info there, cheers.
if i can just confirm something, ive got my nic inspection on the 22nd august and theyve got a consumer unit to look at, it was a direct replacement i did and it is located in a kitchen cupboard, low down. hoping this nic man int gonna start ranting about part m? shouldn do tho should he?!
also ive got a 3 ph board to install soon and looking today the only logical place for it is above a door frame (6ft 6 ish) and then continuing up another 4 ft to the top of the board, is this acceptable?
cheery | | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 PM. | |