socket and switch heights?

[topquark]

I think, at best, the information is a little ambiguous as to what type of premises they apply to. The official docs suggest that part M applies to commercial buildings, but other publications suggest not. I think next time I see a BCO I'll be asking for some clarification.

 

[telectrix]

I think, at best, the information is a little ambiguous as to what type of premises they apply to. The official docs suggest that part M applies to commercial buildings, but other publications suggest not. I think next time I see a BCO I'll be asking for some clarification.

aND THERE WAS I, THINKING THAT CLARIFICATION WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT HAD TO BE SORTED WITH, MAKING RED WINE TO 15%

sorry, sausage fingers pressed caps lockm instead of shift

 

[topquark]

aND THERE WAS I, THINKING THAT CLARIFICATION WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT HAD TO BE SORTED WITH, MAKING RED WINE TO 15%

sorry, sausage fingers pressed caps lockm instead of shift

Nah, 6 pints of 6X, no dodgy red wine tonight

 

[Kay]

Well I would consider GN1 as the more authorative document for installations over the building services manual I quoted before. Having reread part M (gripping stuff, ) It seems that Part M does indeed cover non-domestic installations at least the extensions and entrances. However, later it seems to go on to describe installations in the fabric (my words) of non-domestic properties.

As GN1 mentions BS 8300 is not mandatory and neither part M nor BS 8300 seem mutually exclusive having a view of all codes can't be bad, and if in doubt sticking with part M guidance would be my choice.

However I have seen this taken to extremes with some sparks suggesting to clients that alterations/rewires on power circuits sockets in an existing property will have to show compliance with part M and the client will have to have socket heights installed accordingly regardless of where other circuit outlets may be.

My conclusions are that a new unoccupied install should follow guidance on outlet/accessory heights but a new install/addition to an existing dwelling should not. The rational being that the new dwelling has no client so should be made as accessable as possible for future occupants. Whereas an existing occupant without the need for limited range accessories shouldn't need to follow guidance. Part M allows for departures as long as they do not make the installation less safe than before.

 

[topquark]

You'll find that BCO's will insist on Part M being applied to extensions to existing dwellings . That's both 3rd floor additions and extensions that add additional base area to an existing dwelling.

 

[Kay]

You'll find that BCO's will insist on Part M being applied to extensions to existing dwellings . That's both 3rd floor additions and extensions that add additional base area to an existing dwelling.

I would insist as the designer and dutyholder for my client that providing access for those whose reach is limited is unreasonable when the client and home owner does not have an issue of limited reach and doesn't wish to have a home with switch and socket heights at two different levels. This could be augured based on the limits of part M application.

If there aren't any disabled people to make reasonable provision for then what would be the need to satisfy the requirements?

However reasonable provision should be made in a public building/non-domestic installation.

 

[topquark]

Be sure to let us know how you get on, that would set a nice precedent if they allowed it.