Location of switches for fixed kitchen appliances.

[telectrix]

What's a draw?

oh, come on pete:

 

[slpjslpj]

Are there any building reg's that stipulate where sockets and or switches can go? --- In existing domestic dwellings?

How about installing socket and s/spur immediately under plumbing connections to kitchen sink? Which current electrical reg's cover that? Now we all know those compression fittings never leak, so there's no possibility of water dripping onto the socket or spur is there. :-

PS. I don't have access to the current regs, that's why I'm asking what are in effect I admit, stupid questions.

 

[telectrix]

Are there any building reg's that stipulate where sockets and or switches can go? --- In existing domestic dwellings?

How about installing socket and s/spur immediately under plumbing connections to kitchen sink? Which current electrical reg's cover that? Now we all know those compression fittings never leak, so there's no possibility of water dripping onto the socket or spur is there. :-

PS. I don't have access to the current regs, that's why I'm asking what are in effect I admit, stupid questions.

you could say that a socket in a ground floor room directly below a shower on the first floor could be subject to water ingress caused by a leak or a teenage daughter using the shower as a spraygun.

 

[slpjslpj]

Seriously? That's a bit different I would suggest. But as I said earlier, I guess times have changed and perhaps today modern electricians think installing a socket immediately under a plumbing connection is perfectly fine. Doesn't matter at all that when the plumbing connection is undone for any reason that any water remaining in the pipes will flow all over the socket, unless measures are taken to prevent it, and of course the power switched off, just in case. After all, the socket and spur faces can be removed the water drained out again.

So much better, and better practice to have sighted the socket and spur away from the potential soaking, and no extra effort, other than thought. Hey ho.

But as I said, thanks all.

 

[Wilko]

On the lighter side, this silly choice of location for FCU etc makes me think we should create a companion IS scale to go with the existing IP. Instead of a scale ingress protection it would be an Installation Silliness scale. This one would rate up a far way

 

[Spud28]

Im sure that there was a basic rule in the BS7671 on site guide regarding switch locations for kitchen appliances, I cant find my copy atm though

 

[Des 56]

Seriously? That's a bit different I would suggest. But as I said earlier, I guess times have changed and perhaps today modern electricians think installing a socket immediately under a plumbing connection is perfectly fine. Doesn't matter at all that when the plumbing connection is undone for any reason that any water remaining in the pipes will flow all over the socket, unless measures are taken to prevent it, and of course the power switched off, just in case. After all, the socket and spur faces can be removed the water drained out again.

So much better, and better practice to have sighted the socket and spur away from the potential soaking, and no extra effort, other than thought. Hey ho.

But as I said, thanks all.

 

[Des 56]

It seems you are of the opinion that water and electricity,"never the twain shall meet"

The danger lies when protection from occurrences/accidents/negligence is insufficient or may not exist
I recall in the fifties we had these machines that washed clothes,they used motors with open vents, switches and controls that mingled with water hoses and even a tub of water,they were designed in such a way that the two never made contact,but unfortunately in this world all is not always as it should be and they were protected by fuses,voltage trips,earthing etc,just in case

Even these days we fill a cylinder with water,then heat it with electric and spray it over ourselves whilst standing bare footed over a drain

modern and older electricians think installing a socket immediately under a plumbing connection is perfectly fine.
Looking at the above statement in the context of history and functionality,it seems the statement does not reflect what is expected and what measures we take to try and ensure that if it goes ---- up,no one gets harmed
Yes, sockets can and always have been permitted under a plumbing connection.the measures to protect against fault are whats important

 

[slpjslpj]

I didn't come on here for an argument, only to find out was in the current regs. Hence unless someone comes up with a pertinent regulation or two about the questions I asked, this will be my last post.

It is common sense to minimise risk. Putting sockets under plumbing connections that notorious for leaking, and inevitably spill water when undone, is simply not an intelligent means of reducing risk. Obviously circuit and human protection by fuses and these days rcds is employed. But unless there is a compelling reason, -- and in this case there is not -- why deliberately install an ordinary socket under an area that is prone to get wet? If "modern" electricians think that installing ordinary sockets in a potentially wet area is a quite reasonable thing to do, then I don't think much of the common sense of those that do. And the same goes for older electricians.

Whilst circuit control measures to protect against faults do indeed matter, that does not obviate the need to use ones brain when one has a choice about where to place sockets/spurs etc.

And no I do not consider myself old fashioned in this respect.

 

[Toneyz]

Hi you was looking for some reason a regulation try 512.2 external influences for a start page 117 BYB also page 138 proximity to non-electrical services

 

[slpjslpj]

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for that, I'll try googling those you mention, as I don't have a copy of the current regs.

Don't suppose you could cut and paste the test here could you? If not, thanks anyway, and I'll find some one who has a copy. Regards.

 

[Santa]

When I had my house re-wired, I had most of the kitchen sockets fitted a few inches up from the work surface.

A while later I had to replace the dishwasher which lives under said work surface and paid the extra to have it fitted. The guys who came, happily connected the plumbing, but wouldn't cut the moulded plug off to push the flex up through the hole on the surface. "Sorry guv - yer gotta be qualified to do that" was the comment.

 

[Paul228]

I was always under the impression all switching ( isolation and functional) had to be accessible.
But can not find what constitutes as accessible.
All my white goods are plugged into an unswitched single socket under the work surface. Each socket is connected directly to a switched fused spur which is above the work surface.
Having said that, my kitchen is massively over spec'd. 17 double sockets, Fed by 2ring cuts and a radial feed to the cooker location ( even though my cooker is gas). But it's easier to put it in and not need it then our lass suddenly deciding she now wants a double electric oven ...
I can't legislate for the thought process of her indoors.

 

[Midwest]

Ohhh I missed this one, spent too much time on the 'FCU behind bath panel' thread

I do have a chuckle when people say sockets etc can't/shouldn't be installed anywhere things that might, on the off chance, leak water. That would pretty much prevent electrics & plumbing being installed in a property together.

Next time I do a kitchen refurb', I'm going to demand that the kitchen designer provides a cupboard purely for me to install a socket outlet for the appliances, and nothing else most go in that cupboard, or I won't plug the appliance in. Also, I will tell the home owner, that they must have isolation switches above the worktops, don't care if they like it or not. So there

 

[Octopus]

IT wouldn't take much effort to add to the 18 th edition a thought out, sensible definition of "accessible"

Then this stupidity would be resolved.

A plug behind white goods is not accessible.... Imho