On 16/01/2019 23:43, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/01/2019 22:38, Robin wrote:
On 16/01/2019 21:29, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/01/2019 20:50, Robin wrote:
On 16/01/2019 16:16, GB wrote:
On 16/01/2019 15:17, alan_m wrote:
snip


Will this Bill require changing existing letterboxes? If so, it
should go the whole hog and mandate size, as well as height.



It's not a real Bill.Â* It's a 10 minute rule Bill.Â* That's a
procedure which lets MPs speak for 10 minutes on an idea they'd like
to see legislated by (usually) the government.Â* So there's no detail
behind the substance.Â* But on the face of it the Bill was to "amend
building regulations to require letter boxes in new buildings to be
positioned above a certain height" (NB not even new doors.)Â* But
that'd all be for consultation/discussion/debate come a real Bill
with proposals worked up by officials.

Yes, I'm sure that they could spend millions working on it ... or
they could simply copy the Irish rules, probably substituting
BS-EN13724 for the Irish standard!

"Building Regulations 2000
Technical Guidance Document D
Materials and Workmanship

Section 1.6 - Letter Plates

Letter plates should be designed, manufactured and installed in
accordance with I.S. 195:1976, subject to the following (see also
Diagram 1):
(a) the minimum length of the aperture of a letter plate should be
250 mm (+/- 10 mm) and the minimum height should be 38 mm (+/- 1.5 mm);
(b) the unit of torque (listed in the standard) should be N mm."

This is followed by a diagram showing a minumum mounting height of
760mm to the lower edge, a maximum of 1450 to the upper edge and an
ideal of 1070 to the centre.

You may be happy with legislation introduced without consultation, and
without the usual impact assessments, but many people have thought
that to be a "bad thing" for so long that it's not in the gift of
officials to skip it all.

And this is why the state costs so much. The Irish have had this in
place for at least 18 years and there is no outcry due to problems
caused by it, but instead of adopting an eminently sensible solution,
with only minimal overview, we'll have to come up with our own version,
after a couple of years of consulting all and sundry at great cost.
Sometimes the simple and cheap option, even if not the best, is good
enough.


I'm not saying the regulations would be a big and expensive job, only
that the "I don't need advice, it's simple, JFDI" approach to
legislation carries risks. Much like assorted DIY jobs.

Let's pretend you are the Minister responsible. You tell your officials
you want to copy the Irish regulations and that's it. (Up to you if you
do so in Speaker Bercow style.) What is your answer to the firm in your
constituency that goes on local radio and says "we're going to have
spend thousands to change all our designs just 'cos Walker wants an
extra couple of mm[1] - WTF does he know about it?". To Questions in
the house asking "did you ask the views of disability groups and if not
why not?". To the CWU who say "Walker should have dealt with external
boxes at the same time but he didn't ask us"?

The usual process is designed - among other things, such as giving
better law - to avoid such questions or to give plausible answers to them.

[1] you prescribe a height of 38 mm +/- 1.5; BS EN 13724 has 30-35mm


--
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid