Consume Unit position in new builds

[ipd1961]

Hi all
I have a little problem which I would be very grateful for any advice or assistance. I work for a Developers and we are building 21 new dwellings for a client. The architect has sited the CU's in some interesting positions and I have queried these but he is adamant that they are sited where he says. Some are situated in a tiny cupboard under the stairs, which would mean running a sub main. One was even located in a wardrobe in a first floor flat and another in a downstairs toilet. I have quoted Regs 132.12 and 513.1 of BS7671-2008 and also Regulation 15 of The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 but he will not move. He is also stating that any CU's in the hallway be mounted between 0.75 and 1.2 ffl as per Part M. This again brings into question chances of damage by accidental impact and prying fingers of children, especially the chance to push the test button. I am now at my wits end which was a very short journey as well as pulling out the last remaining hair I possess. any help would be greatly appreciated

 

[T&Earth]

ipd1961

Not sure what else you can do or say, get architect to sign off design part of EIC & departures from BS 7671, but at the end of the day if you feel its not safe perhaps let someone else do it.
T&E

 

[SPARTYKUS]

If risk of flood you can move it up the wall. Loads of conflicting grey areas in that red book

 

[ipd1961]

Cheers for that , the risk of flooding at this particular site is minimal although I would like to immerse the architect in water

 

[ipd1961]

We are contracted to carry out the installation, he has changed the CU positions after a conflict where one was sited behind an oven housing in the kitchen, so he then decided to change all the rest

 

[SPARTYKUS]

He sounds a prize muppet

 

[Adam W]

That sounds like a contradiction to me - situating the cu in a hallway to the part M heights is nice and accessible (if anything too accessible) yet putting them in a toilet or cupboard under the stairs is less accessible albeit not inaccessible.

Why does he want them in these particular positions?

 

[topquark]

I suspect he's assuming that you can still run the circuits inside the wall cavity. You may like to point out that this has not been allowable for some time now!

 

[ipd1961]

Hi All
This particular architect seems to be stuck in the 1960's and his last Regs was the 14th.The client is more responsive to ideas but the architect doesn't like being wrong, which is typical. Anyway onwards and upwards and the next meeting scheduled for tomorrow shall be very interesting as I am armed with BS7671-2008 and EAWR 1989, see if he can trump that

 

[glasgowbiker42]

as we say in sunny glasgow. i was in the trade twenty years before i realised that ****** architect was two words!

 

[telectrix]

it's like i always thought the football team was called partickthistlenil

 

[ipd1961]

That sounds like a contradiction to me - situating the cu in a hallway to the part M heights is nice and accessible (if anything too accessible) yet putting them in a toilet or cupboard under the stairs is less accessible albeit not inaccessible.

Why does he want them in these particular positions?

The response I have just had from him is that " that's where I want them and its not open to discussion" he seems oblivious to BS7671-2008 and EAWR 1989 and is a law unto himself. I have informed him that he will have to sign the certificate as he designed the installation and he is refusing point blank. Could be interesting when we come to sign off with Building Control

 

[ipd1961]

He sounds a prize muppet

Think his name is Mr T Watt

 

[telectrix]

might be an idea to have a word with the building inspector. see if he can knock a bit of sense into the fartitect

 

[Adam W]

The response I have just had from him is that " that's where I want them and its not open to discussion" he seems oblivious to BS7671-2008 and EAWR 1989 and is a law unto himself. I have informed him that he will have to sign the certificate as he designed the installation and he is refusing point blank. Could be interesting when we come to sign off with Building Control

I suspected that may have been the case - you come out with a load of regs and reasons why it shouldn't go there but his argument is he wants it there because he "just does and that's that".

As mentioned get him to sign as many waivers as you can to cover yourself (might even make him listen) and do what he wants, then if it hits the fan you can wave the waiver in his face and say "I told you so".