Hi again, another question:

My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the
finished floor level.

Is this true? the switches look so low!

Laurie

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:32:54 +0100, "Laurie"
wrote:

Hi again, another question:

My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the
finished floor level.

Is this true? the switches look so low!

Laurie


Yes.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...reg_600517.pdf

has the details
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The reason is to make them easy to reach from a wheelchair.

--

Laurie wrote:

Hi again, another question:

My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the
finished floor level.

Is this true? the switches look so low!


Yes, he is correct.

This is so people in wheelchairs can plug in their SDS drills and rewire
their houses.

Starngely, they haven't required us to put teh light fittings at 120mm
or less, so they wheelchair bound can change their lightbulbs.

And now of course, with wires streched tight on vacuum cleaners not at
floor level, but just below knee height, the chances of the frail and
elderly tripping over them is vastly increased.

In general building regulations are sane and wekll thougfht out - this
one comes straight from teh 'one size fits all' politically correcft
diabled lobby, and is, in my opinion a complete load of ********.

My wheelchair/crutch bound friend knows that he esssentially has to make
over any place he lives in to get things where he can reach them -
irrespective of where the sockets start, they always seem to be moved to
suit him.

My buildiing inspector muttered that all the money spent on making each
and every house 'disabled friendly' would be better as a tax on new
builds, to go into a pot to be distributed as payments to the disabled
to make their houses suit their particular disability.


It is now illegal for eaxmple to make a house with steps up to the front
door and steps down to the back, At least one entrance HAS to be
suitable for wheelchair access. Never mind that any wheelchair user is
going to simply not buy that house in the first place if it has stupid
access suitable only for the able bodied.

flame off

But it is so effin stupid.









Laurie

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, The Natural Philosopher
wrote on Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:50:56 +0100:

My wheelchair/crutch bound friend knows that he esssentially has to make
over any place he lives in to get things where he can reach them -
irrespective of where the sockets start, they always seem to be moved to
suit him.

The requirements aren't there for the owners of the house; they are
designed to allow people in wheelchairs and the infirm to be more able
to visit people in their own homes.
--
Hugo Nebula
"You know, I'd rather see this on TV,
Tones it down" - Laurie Anderson

Hugo Nebula wrote:

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, "Laurie"
wrote on Sat, 23 Aug 2003
08:32:54 +0100:


My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the
finished floor level.


Only if you're building a new house or flat. It's not required to
extensions or alterations.



stricrtly regulations comr into force whenever any 'material
alterations' are done. This does include the above.

In practice, if the building inspector doesn't know, ts no big deal.

Hugo Nebula wrote:

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, The Natural Philosopher
wrote on Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:50:56 +0100:


My wheelchair/crutch bound friend knows that he esssentially has to make
over any place he lives in to get things where he can reach them -
irrespective of where the sockets start, they always seem to be moved to
suit him.


The requirements aren't there for the owners of the house; they are
designed to allow people in wheelchairs and the infirm to be more able
to visit people in their own homes.


mmm. I have spent many hours lifting disabled people in and out of their
wheelchairs.....its no big deal to carry em up a short step or two.

Its ********. I stand by my original posiition.

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...
Laurie wrote:

My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the
finished floor level.

Is this true? the switches look so low!


Yes, he is correct.

This is so people in wheelchairs can plug in their SDS drills and rewire
their houses.

Starngely, they haven't required us to put teh light fittings at 120mm
or less, so they wheelchair bound can change their lightbulbs.

snip

But it is so effin stupid.

LOL. I'd never heard about this and my immediate thought was yes,
it's the PC brigade gone mad again; but then I thought - with regard
to light switches at least, what's wrong with positioning them at 1m
height? It's just that we're conditioned to light switches being at
shoulder height, for no good reason that I can see (cue for somebody
to post a good reason!). So why not?

David

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, The Natural Philosopher
wrote on Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:56:08 +0100:

stricrtly regulations comr into force whenever any 'material
alterations' are done. This does include the above.

No it doesn't. The limits on application to Part M of Schedule 1
state "The requirements of this Part do not apply to -
(a) a material alteration;
(b) an extension to a dwelling, or any other extension which does not
include a ground storey"
(http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/s...0/20002531.htm)
--
Hugo Nebula
"You know, I'd rather see this on TV,
Tones it down" - Laurie Anderson

In article ,
Hugo Nebula Send-My-Spam-To: abuse@localhost wrote:
The requirements aren't there for the owners of the house; they are
designed to allow people in wheelchairs and the infirm to be more able
to visit people in their own homes.

I'm not quite sure what business a visitor would have with my sockets? And
if I had a disabled guest, the light and socket positions would be the
least of their problems - the guest bedroom is on the first floor, and the
bathroom on a half landing.

--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Hugo Nebula Send-My-Spam-To: abuse@localhost wrote:
The requirements aren't there for the owners of the house; they are
designed to allow people in wheelchairs and the infirm to be more able
to visit people in their own homes.

I'm not quite sure what business a visitor would have with my sockets? And
if I had a disabled guest, the light and socket positions would be the
least of their problems - the guest bedroom is on the first floor, and the
bathroom on a half landing.


And I bet your bathroom door is the incorrect size and you probably have a
step to your front door not a slope.

Adam

In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
I'm not quite sure what business a visitor would have with my sockets?
And if I had a disabled guest, the light and socket positions would be
the least of their problems - the guest bedroom is on the first floor,
and the bathroom on a half landing.


And I bet your bathroom door is the incorrect size and you probably have
a step to your front door not a slope.

The door would be ok - they're double - but yes, three steps and a
threshold bar, then a step down.

--
*What hair colour do they put on the driver's license of a bald man? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

David wrote:
It's just that we're conditioned to light switches being at
shoulder height, for no good reason that I can see (cue for somebody
to post a good reason!). So why not?

Well, one thing that springs to mind is that it stops children, possibly
with wet hands, playing with them.

On 23 Aug 2003 08:09:52 -0700, (David)
wrote:

height? It's just that we're conditioned to light switches being at
shoulder height, for no good reason that I can see (cue for somebody
to post a good reason!). So why not?

You enter a dark room and are forced to find the light switch by hand.
Your starter for 10 is that the switch will be just inside the doorway
on the wall opposite the door hinges.

Dang, where's that light switch......

Andrew

http://www.handymac.co.uk

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:39:53 +0100, Hugo Nebula Send-My-Spam-To:
abuse@localhost wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:02:54 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named
Andrew McKay randomly hit the keyboard
and produced:

On 23 Aug 2003 08:09:52 -0700, (David)
wrote:

height? It's just that we're conditioned to light switches being at
shoulder height, for no good reason that I can see

You enter a dark room and are forced to find the light switch by hand.
Your starter for 10 is that the switch will be just inside the doorway
on the wall opposite the door hinges.

So, can't we become re-conditioned to the switch being at about elbow
height rather than shoulder height?


Except that it's going to take an extremely long time before a large
proportion of houses have wiring accessories fitted in this way.

I have a pretty fair appreciation for the needs of people with limited
mobility - my father is disabled - however this requirement does very
little to help, even when it has been more widely implemented than it
has today.

It would be far better to invest in providing better forms of
wheelchairs and other forms of assistance for the people involved.
The problem is that this costs money which is typically derived from
local or central government coffers.

It is far easier to push requirements like altered wiring accessory
heights on the community at large and then to be able to claim that
things are being done for those with special needs.

It's political correctness in its worst form.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

David wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...

Laurie wrote:


My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the
finished floor level.

Is this true? the switches look so low!


Yes, he is correct.

This is so people in wheelchairs can plug in their SDS drills and rewire
their houses.

Starngely, they haven't required us to put teh light fittings at 120mm
or less, so they wheelchair bound can change their lightbulbs.


snip

But it is so effin stupid.


LOL. I'd never heard about this and my immediate thought was yes,
it's the PC brigade gone mad again; but then I thought - with regard
to light switches at least, what's wrong with positioning them at 1m
height? It's just that we're conditioned to light switches being at
shoulder height, for no good reason that I can see (cue for somebody
to post a good reason!). So why not?


Funnily enough we were discussing this last night with me mates old dad,
and he DOES find high sockets useful - he can hobble around on severely
arthritic knees etc, but bending is a tad hard.

As far as switches go, again its no big deal to put em lower down where
kids can reach them..

But the high electrical sockets do have a downside - cables no longer
lie along the floor. This may constitute a hazard in its own right.

Philosophically, I am concerned at the amount of money being spent on
generalised rules - things like this, speed humps, speed cameras - when
rough bacl of teh envelope calculations suggest that if the hidden costs
of all this normalisation of society to a 'one size fits all' were taken
into account, it would become pretty obvious that its cheaper to give
every elderly or disabled person a re-wire grant. And pay a few
policemen to catch flagrant dangerous drivers, rather than providing
jobs for magistrates courts, a steady income for the manufacturers od
GATSOS and replacement tryes, shock abosrbers and car exhausts.

The phrase 'being strangled by legislation' has been arournd a long time
as the cry of the sof tory business voter and frankly I had always heard
it as 'wolf'...but now, as an ordinary citizen, it is beginning to make
a terrifying sort of sense.

When compliance with regulations and achievement of arbitrary targets
becomes the raison d'etre of huge swathes of management in schools,
hospitals and every area of public life, rather than the achievement of
good medical care, education, or whatever the departments function is,
we are already in trouble.

When the way the average citizen is treated is more or less tantamount
to implying that they cannot, without enforcement of strict legislation,
be trusted to use their judgement in anything - EXCEPT OF COURSE VOTING
IN TEFLON TONE - one stumbles on a deeply cynical double standard that
seems to be at the heart of everything the current government does.

If you trust your electorate so little, what does that imply about the
government they have elected?

/rant




David

Hugo Nebula wrote:

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, The Natural Philosopher
wrote on Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:56:08 +0100:


stricrtly regulations comr into force whenever any 'material
alterations' are done. This does include the above.


No it doesn't. The limits on application to Part M of Schedule 1
state "The requirements of this Part do not apply to -
(a) a material alteration;
(b) an extension to a dwelling, or any other extension which does not
include a ground storey"
(http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/s...0/20002531.htm)


I stand corrected.

"parish" wrote
| David wrote:
| It's just that we're conditioned to light switches being at
| shoulder height, for no good reason that I can see (cue for somebody
| to post a good reason!). So why not?
| Well, one thing that springs to mind is that it stops children, possibly
| with wet hands, playing with them.

And if you've got both hands full a shoulder height switch is easier to
press with your nose.

Owain

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:09:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

But the high electrical sockets do have a downside - cables no longer
lie along the floor. This may constitute a hazard in its own right.

I deliberately put my garage sockets high on the basis that when
working in the garage I don't want to bend down to plug and unplug
power tools. I'd rather have the socket at eye height so that once
I've finished drilling or cutting I can get straight to the socket to
take the power off the device.

Not that I've seen that many garages equipped with sockets at the
normal level of a house of course

Andrew

http://www.handymac.co.uk

Owain wrote:

"parish" wrote
| David wrote:
| It's just that we're conditioned to light switches being at
| shoulder height, for no good reason that I can see (cue for somebody
| to post a good reason!). So why not?
| Well, one thing that springs to mind is that it stops children, possibly
| with wet hands, playing with them.

And if you've got both hands full a shoulder height switch is easier to
press with your nose.

Owain


And if you have an erection, you can always press a lower switch.

This could go on forever..

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote
| Owain wrote:
| And if you've got both hands full a shoulder height switch
| is easier to press with your nose.
| And if you have an erection, you can always press a lower switch.

But some people would need a lower switch than others ... Now the height of
my light switches would not be a source of embarrassment to me, but it might
be to some.

Can you imagine looking round houses to buy, and the missus turning round to
you in front of the sellers and saying "Now then Mr P., you'll have to get
your black and decker out and move all these light switches." -- "'Appen
you're right, Mrs P., I don't think it's worth the bother, we'll just go
back to the estate agents and tell them we want a house with light switches
positioned for the smaller man."


| This could go on forever..

Then it'd turn blue and drop off.

Owain

"Laurie" wrote in message
...
Hi again, another question:

My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the
finished floor level.

Is this true? the switches look so low!

Laurie

Yes Part M, for disabled access. Ground floor doors also have to be wider
and front access without steps.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Hugo Nebula wrote:

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, The Natural Philosopher
wrote on Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:50:56 +0100:


My wheelchair/crutch bound friend knows that he esssentially has to make
over any place he lives in to get things where he can reach them -
irrespective of where the sockets start, they always seem to be moved to
suit him.


The requirements aren't there for the owners of the house; they are
designed to allow people in wheelchairs and the infirm to be more able
to visit people in their own homes.


mmm. I have spent many hours lifting disabled people in and out of their
wheelchairs.....its no big deal to carry em up a short step or two.

Its ********. I stand by my original posiition.

It think it is fantastic.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Laurie" wrote in message
...
Many thanks for your help Guys,

It does seem madness when I am doing a two storey barn conversion (with
stairs)!

The wider door only apply to the ground floor.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:39:53 +0100, Hugo Nebula Send-My-Spam-To:
abuse@localhost wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:02:54 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named
Andrew McKay randomly hit the keyboard
and produced:

On 23 Aug 2003 08:09:52 -0700, (David)
wrote:

height? It's just that we're conditioned to light switches being at
shoulder height, for no good reason that I can see

You enter a dark room and are forced to find the light switch by hand.
Your starter for 10 is that the switch will be just inside the doorway
on the wall opposite the door hinges.

So, can't we become re-conditioned to the switch being at about elbow
height rather than shoulder height?


Except that it's going to take an extremely long time before a large
proportion of houses have wiring accessories fitted in this way.

I have a pretty fair appreciation for the needs of people with limited
mobility - my father is disabled - however this requirement does very
little to help, even when it has been more widely implemented than it
has today.

It would be far better to invest in providing better forms of
wheelchairs and other forms of assistance for the people involved.
The problem is that this costs money which is typically derived from
local or central government coffers.

It is far easier to push requirements like altered wiring accessory
heights on the community at large and then to be able to claim that
things are being done for those with special needs.

It's political correctness in its worst form.

This is balls! There is no extra cost in locating light fittings and
sockets at heights that are suitable for all, even disabled. Wider ground
floor doors are brilliant for all and little, if any at all, extra cost.
When the industry is geared up to it, not extra whatsoever.

All major kitchen applinaces should be on a switch central box, at
wheelchair height, instead of those stupid fused spur switches all around
the worktops. MEM do a v good one.

I don't want any more taxes thank you. We pay enough keeping the parasites
(monarchy, large land owners, Oxbridge, etc, etc) in clover. The snotty uni
fella and now this one want to tax the hell out of us all. Have one tax
Land Value Tax (LVT) and be done with it.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
David wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message
...

Laurie wrote:


My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from
the
finished floor level.

Is this true? the switches look so low!


Yes, he is correct.

This is so people in wheelchairs can plug in their SDS drills and rewire
their houses.

Starngely, they haven't required us to put teh light fittings at 120mm
or less, so they wheelchair bound can change their lightbulbs.


snip

But it is so effin stupid.


LOL. I'd never heard about this and my immediate thought was yes,
it's the PC brigade gone mad again; but then I thought - with regard
to light switches at least, what's wrong with positioning them at 1m
height? It's just that we're conditioned to light switches being at
shoulder height, for no good reason that I can see (cue for somebody
to post a good reason!). So why not?


Funnily enough we were discussing this last night with me mates old dad,
and he DOES find high sockets useful - he can hobble around on severely
arthritic knees etc, but bending is a tad hard.

As far as switches go, again its no big deal to put em lower down where
kids can reach them..

But the high electrical sockets do have a downside - cables no longer
lie along the floor. This may constitute a hazard in its own right.

Nonsense. I have Part M sockets. No problems at all. Brilliant for all
people.

The phrase 'being strangled by legislation' has been arournd a long time
as the cry of the sof tory business voter and frankly I had always heard
it as 'wolf'...but now, as an ordinary citizen, it is beginning to make
a terrifying sort of sense.

Well introduce LVT and get rid of the 1947 T&C planning act. Very simple.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Hugo Nebula Send-My-Spam-To: abuse@localhost wrote:

The requirements aren't there for the owners of the house; they are
designed to allow people in wheelchairs and the infirm to be more able
to visit people in their own homes.


I'm not quite sure what business a visitor would have with my sockets?
And
if I had a disabled guest, the light and socket positions would be the
least of their problems - the guest bedroom is on the first floor, and
the
bathroom on a half landing.



Which means that you wouldn't pass current new biuild regulations.

He has not got a new built house, are you suggesting that if you have a
rewire you need to meet current building regs?

Adam

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:50:41 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



It would be far better to invest in providing better forms of
wheelchairs and other forms of assistance for the people involved.
The problem is that this costs money which is typically derived from
local or central government coffers.

It is far easier to push requirements like altered wiring accessory
heights on the community at large and then to be able to claim that
things are being done for those with special needs.

It's political correctness in its worst form.

This is balls!

You're dead right there.

There is no extra cost in locating light fittings and
sockets at heights that are suitable for all, even disabled. Wider ground
floor doors are brilliant for all and little, if any at all, extra cost.
When the industry is geared up to it, not extra whatsoever.

Once again you have missed the point.

I didn't say that there was a cost argument either way in having
wiring accessories at different heights, or, since you mention it
making doors wider.

My objection to this is that once again it is window dressing and
humbug - the government trying to pretend that by legislating
something like this, that it is really doing something important for
people with special needs.

Almost everybody that I know who has limited mobility (and I know
quite a few) is totally unimpressed with this kind of nonsense.

Yes, they do appreciate good access in public buildings but do not
expect or want the rest of the community to alter what it has to
accommodate them. They would much rather benefit from some of the
new mobility technology that makes it possible to participate as
closely as possible as anybody else and without feeling that things in
general have had to be changed to suit them.

This approach costs money, of course, and is not particularly sexy and
high profile. It's far easier for governments to legislate something
than to provide funds to do the job properly.



I don't want any more taxes thank you.

Then you're supporting the wrong players.

We pay enough keeping the parasites
(monarchy, large land owners, Oxbridge, etc, etc) in clover. The snotty uni
fella and now this one want to tax the hell out of us all. Have one tax
Land Value Tax (LVT) and be done with it.


The parasites are the multiple levels of non-productive management in
the public services and specifically in socialised medicine.






---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:50:41 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

It would be far better to invest in providing better forms of
wheelchairs and other forms of assistance for the people involved.
The problem is that this costs money which is typically derived from
local or central government coffers.

It is far easier to push requirements like altered wiring accessory
heights on the community at large and then to be able to claim that
things are being done for those with special needs.

It's political correctness in its worst form.

This is balls!

You're dead right there.

There is no extra cost in locating light fittings and
sockets at heights that are suitable for all, even disabled. Wider
ground
floor doors are brilliant for all and little, if any at all, extra cost.
When the industry is geared up to it, not extra whatsoever.

Once again you have missed the point.

I didn't say that there was a cost argument either way in having
wiring accessories at different heights, or, since you mention it
making doors wider.

My objection to this is that once again it is window dressing and
humbug - the government trying to pretend that by legislating
something like this, that it is really doing something important for
people with special needs.

Almost everybody that I know who has limited mobility (and I know
quite a few) is totally unimpressed with this kind of nonsense.

Yes, they do appreciate good access in public buildings but do not
expect or want the rest of the community to alter what it has to
accommodate them. They would much rather benefit from some of the
new mobility technology that makes it possible to participate as
closely as possible as anybody else and without feeling that things in
general have had to be changed to suit them.

This approach costs money, of course, and is not particularly sexy and
high profile. It's far easier for governments to legislate something
than to provide funds to do the job properly.

I don't want any more taxes thank you.

Then you're supporting the wrong players.

We pay enough keeping the parasites
(monarchy, large land owners, Oxbridge, etc, etc) in clover. The snotty
uni
fella and now this one want to tax the hell out of us all. Have one tax
Land Value Tax (LVT) and be done with it.

The parasites are the multiple levels of non-productive management in
the public services and specifically in socialised medicine.

So says the voice of Little Middle England.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Laurie wrote:


Hi again, another question:

My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from

the

finished floor level.

Is this true? the switches look so low!


Yes, he is correct.

This is so people in wheelchairs can plug in their SDS drills and rewire
their houses.

Starngely, they haven't required us to put teh light fittings at 120mm
or less, so they wheelchair bound can change their lightbulbs.

And now of course, with wires streched tight on vacuum cleaners not at
floor level, but just below knee height, the chances of the frail and
elderly tripping over them is vastly increased.

In general building regulations are sane and wekll thougfht out - this
one comes straight from teh 'one size fits all' politically correcft
diabled lobby, and is, in my opinion a complete load of ********.

My wheelchair/crutch bound friend knows that he esssentially has to make
over any place he lives in to get things where he can reach them -
irrespective of where the sockets start, they always seem to be moved to
suit him.

My buildiing inspector muttered that all the money spent on making each
and every house 'disabled friendly' would be better as a tax on new
builds, to go into a pot to be distributed as payments to the disabled
to make their houses suit their particular disability.


Another tax? That will go down like a lead balloon.



You are so right. The fairest tax - the Poll tax - was discontinued.

Its amusing to see the stupid part of britain voting fo someone who lies
to them so effectively they can't spot it tho.

And now that no one actually can do mathematics, there is no one to
point out that what costs the individual, costs the nation and vice versa.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You are so right. The fairest tax - the Poll tax - was discontinued.

A form of local income tax would have been better.

My mother was the definitive person who should have benefitted from the
poll tax versus rates. An elderly widow of small income living on her own
in the house she'd owned for a lifetime. But the practice was she paid
*more* when it was introduced than she did in rates, which had a
sophisticated rebate system.

This actually changed her from a lifetime Tory - she saw the poll tax for
what it was, a way of reducing taxation on wealthy property owners and
shifting it to the less well off and indeed downright poor.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

I'm not quite sure what business a visitor would have with my sockets?

That's the bit I don't understand. Light switches maybe, but sockets? Are
these visitors here to do house work or rearrange the stereo and TV?

and the bathroom on a half landing.

Then this wouldn't be allowed either, probably. A friend of mine had a
building notice knocked back when he wanted to combine the old
kitchen/scullery/outside toilet into one large kitchen. Apparently, they
won't allow him to remove the ground floor toilet, even if he has one
upstairs. He now has a toilet cubicle in the corner of his kitchen.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:

I'm not quite sure what business a visitor would have with my sockets?


That's the bit I don't understand. Light switches maybe, but sockets? Are
these visitors here to do house work or rearrange the stereo and TV?


and the bathroom on a half landing.


Then this wouldn't be allowed either, probably. A friend of mine had a
building notice knocked back when he wanted to combine the old
kitchen/scullery/outside toilet into one large kitchen. Apparently, they
won't allow him to remove the ground floor toilet, even if he has one
upstairs. He now has a toilet cubicle in the corner of his kitchen.


Thats illegal too, without a double door between it and the kitchen.



Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
t...
My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the
finished floor level.

I thought it only applied to rooms likely to be used by visitors (or any
room if expected to be occupied by disabled persons). Upstairs rooms,
kitchens etc. were exempt.


I may well be wrong.

Not this time.

But what happens if you rewire a house that was built after the disabled
regs were introduced? You can rewire a 1980's house with sockets and
lightswitches at any height you like as there are no building regs
applicable to their height when they were built. If you buy a house that was
built today and rewire it can you put the switches and sockets where you
like?

Adam

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:29:12 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named The
Natural Philosopher randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Christian McArdle wrote:

Then this wouldn't be allowed either, probably. A friend of mine had a
building notice knocked back when he wanted to combine the old
kitchen/scullery/outside toilet into one large kitchen. Apparently, they
won't allow him to remove the ground floor toilet, even if he has one
upstairs. He now has a toilet cubicle in the corner of his kitchen.

They shouldn't have. See my earlier post as to the limitation of that
particular requirement to new dwellings only.

Thats illegal too, without a double door between it and the kitchen.

No it's not.
--
Hugo Nebula
"You know, I'd rather see this on TV,
Tones it down" - Laurie Anderson

Christian McArdle wrote:

My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the
finished floor level.


I thought it only applied to rooms likely to be used by visitors (or any
room if expected to be occupied by disabled persons). Upstairs rooms,
kitchens etc. were exempt. I may well be wrong.



You are. I thought so to, and had to move the ***ing lot after the
Inspector called.

Wheelchair access applies to one entrance on one storey and to get to
one bog.

Electrical regs apply throughout. Presumably even in the loft. :-)



Christian.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Hugo Nebula wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:29:12 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named The
Natural Philosopher randomly hit the keyboard and produced:
Thats illegal too, without a double door between it and the kitchen.


No it's not.

You are right. They relaxed that one recently. Aperently because
extractor fans and washbasibns in teh toilet are mandatory, the extra
door is no longer required.

It never was required. It was however a common misreading of the regs.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Christian McArdle wrote:

My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and
switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the
finished floor level.


I thought it only applied to rooms likely to be used by visitors (or any
room if expected to be occupied by disabled persons). Upstairs rooms,
kitchens etc. were exempt. I may well be wrong.



You are. I thought so to, and had to move the ***ing lot after the
Inspector called.

Wheelchair access applies to one entrance on one storey and to get to
one bog.

Electrical regs apply throughout. Presumably even in the loft. :-)

This isn't in any 'Electrical regs' though.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
It never was required. It was however a common misreading of the regs.

I seem to remember the expression 'ventilated corridor' which to most
would mean two doors with an extractor fan between them?

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

They shouldn't have. See my earlier post as to the limitation of that
particular requirement to new dwellings only.

So it doesn't apply to old dwellings even if they have one already? I
thought that old dwellings weren't forced to comply, but if they happened to
comply already they couldn't be altered not to.

I think this is a field that seems to have more to do with the opinions of
the local building control department than anything.

In any case, my house, which had an identical layout to my friend's had
their downstairs toilet removed before I bought it, so I'm happy. (I'd
actually quite like a downstairs toilet, but the large kitchen is more
important and I'll get a second toilet in the loft conversion when its
done).

Christian.