On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:19:42 +0100, Malcolm Reeves
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:33:37 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:29:52 +0100, Malcolm Reeves
wrote:



Eh? I just quoted Building regs guide for part L above. That says
you have to do it which makes it mandatory. They are only considering
zones to be at different control temperatures not different on/off
times. But of course you can go that far if you want.


The Approved Documents to the Building Regulations are not of
themselves legally binding. It says as much in the introduction of
most.

They represent *a* way of complying with the statute but are not the
*only* way.

If you can propose an alternative to the suggestion, this can be just
as valid, although it may be necessary to agree the point with the
BCO.

Read my post. I'm not saying you have to have TRVs but if the doc
says you have to have zones I don't see how you get around that (or
why you would want to). Yes, you can discuss things with the BCO and
he can sign off anything but realistically if it says zones you need
zones. A BCO is extremely unlikely to sign it off otherwise. And
zones being what the doc describes a minimum of temperature control.

Hells bells what is the problem. Has everyone taken argue pills or
something.

I was simply pointing out that the Approved Documents are a guide and
nothing more than that. The methods described in the contents are not
mandatory

To quote

"Approved Documents are intended to provide guidance for some of the
more common building situations. However, there may well be
alternative ways of achieving compliance with the
requirements. Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular
solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the
relevant requirement in some other way."

Even in sections 1.38 and 1.39, the terms "would" and "could" are used
- not "shall"







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl