Hi,

I eventually finished my En-Suite (about a year!).
Got the BI to check and (as I had already mentioned para 1.26) he agreed
to get the Part P done!
I await the contractor, but while the BI was here, he seemed to imply
the whole house would be checked, can this be correct?
I can understand the need to check its safe, but I only wanted hime to
check my additional wiring.
While he vivited he did bring out a meter and checked the earth
impedance (7.5ohm) which he said was good for my installation (overhead
power lines) whi should be less than 33ohms.
I did find out the other day that the power company has put down earths
on every 5th pole and I can have an earth terminal put on my neutral
cable for free, should I do this in future?
I cannot rember the terminology (TT and TMG I think).

Peter Hemmings wrote:

I eventually finished my En-Suite (about a year!).
Got the BI to check and (as I had already mentioned para 1.26) he agreed
to get the Part P done!

Which LA is this?

I await the contractor, but while the BI was here, he seemed to imply
the whole house would be checked, can this be correct?
I can understand the need to check its safe, but I only wanted hime to
check my additional wiring.

Well when adding extra stuff, there are some aspects like main
equipotential bonding that must also be brought up to current standards
if not compliant since that will affect the safety of the work you have
done.

While he vivited he did bring out a meter and checked the earth
impedance (7.5ohm) which he said was good for my installation (overhead
power lines) whi should be less than 33ohms.

7.5 is actually quite good... For comparison I get about 11 ohms here
with a heavy clay soil. Not sure where the 33 comes from though. With a
RCD protected TT system you can cope with worse impedances than that.

I did find out the other day that the power company has put down earths
on every 5th pole and I can have an earth terminal put on my neutral
cable for free, should I do this in future?
I cannot rember the terminology (TT and TMG I think).

The combined Protective Earth and Neutral option (a PEN conductor),
would give you a TN-C-S and PME supply. You currently have TT.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Peter Hemmings writes:
Hi,

I eventually finished my En-Suite (about a year!).
Got the BI to check and (as I had already mentioned para 1.26) he agreed
to get the Part P done!
I await the contractor, but while the BI was here, he seemed to imply
the whole house would be checked, can this be correct?

It is appropriate to check at least some aspects, such as earthing
including service bonding. It's up to the BI how much is checked
and at what level. The intention of Part P wasn't a full electrical
inspection but just a quick inspection by the BI as they do for
anything else they check. Most LA's have gone way OTT.

I can understand the need to check its safe, but I only wanted hime to
check my additional wiring.
While he vivited he did bring out a meter and checked the earth
impedance (7.5ohm) which he said was good for my installation (overhead
power lines) whi should be less than 33ohms.
I did find out the other day that the power company has put down earths
on every 5th pole and I can have an earth terminal put on my neutral
cable for free, should I do this in future?

Yes, it makes it easier to provide a well protected wiring
installation.

I cannot rember the terminology (TT and TMG I think).

PME or TN-C-S. (TT is what you have now, I suspect.)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

John Rumm wrote:
Peter Hemmings wrote:

I eventually finished my En-Suite (about a year!).
Got the BI to check and (as I had already mentioned para 1.26) he
agreed to get the Part P done!

Which LA is this?

North Somerset


I await the contractor, but while the BI was here, he seemed to imply
the whole house would be checked, can this be correct?
I can understand the need to check its safe, but I only wanted hime
to check my additional wiring.

Well when adding extra stuff, there are some aspects like main
equipotential bonding that must also be brought up to current standards
if not compliant since that will affect the safety of the work you have
done.

Hmmmm..... I need to update the bonding I think.
I have no electrics in the shower and have plastic plumbing to it so
have done no bonding?
I have a lighting mirror that is earthed back through a lighting ring?

My gas pipe from the meter has bonding back to the board and my s/steel
sink has bonding to some old mains copper water pipe (but the input to
this into the house has been changed to plastic

When moved into the house I also stuck in a 1 metre earth spike and put
that back to the board!

Is there anything I need across the boiler (from the gas to the C/H)?

Any other comments before I let the Contractor in!?

If I have to do some additions what is the sizes of bonding I would need
please?


While he vivited he did bring out a meter and checked the earth
impedance (7.5ohm) which he said was good for my installation
(overhead power lines) whi should be less than 33ohms.

7.5 is actually quite good... For comparison I get about 11 ohms here
with a heavy clay soil. Not sure where the 33 comes from though. With a
RCD protected TT system you can cope with worse impedances than that.

I did find out the other day that the power company has put down
earths on every 5th pole and I can have an earth terminal put on my
neutral cable for free, should I do this in future?
I cannot rember the terminology (TT and TMG I think).

The combined Protective Earth and Neutral option (a PEN conductor),
would give you a TN-C-S and PME supply. You currently have TT.


Thanks

Peter Hemmings wrote:

Well when adding extra stuff, there are some aspects like main
equipotential bonding that must also be brought up to current
standards if not compliant since that will affect the safety of the
work you have done.

Hmmmm..... I need to update the bonding I think.
I have no electrics in the shower and have plastic plumbing to it so
have done no bonding?
I have a lighting mirror that is earthed back through a lighting ring?

In a shower you would only need to equipotential bond things that could
introduce a potential into the space. So if all the plumbing is plastic,
and the only power circuit to supply the room is the lighting then there
is likely nothing to do. If there is more than one power circuit - say
lighting and a shower, then the earth conductors of the two circuits
ought to be bonded to each other.

My gas pipe from the meter has bonding back to the board and my s/steel
sink has bonding to some old mains copper water pipe (but the input to
this into the house has been changed to plastic

The gas pipe sounds fine if the wire is of the correct size (typically
10mm^2 if you have a TN-S or TN-C-S supply, or 6mm^2 on TT).

The kitchen sink does not require a bond at all. (kitchens are not
"special locations" anyway).

If the house cold water pipes are metal, then there should be a main
bond to the cold water supply where it enters the house (even if the
supply itself is plastic)

When moved into the house I also stuck in a 1 metre earth spike and put
that back to the board!

Do you have RCD protection for the whole house, or does it still have an
older voltage operated ELCB?

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=RCD#ELCB

Is there anything I need across the boiler (from the gas to the C/H)?

Many fitters will routinely bond all the pipes in and out of the boiler.
Whether this is actually required seems to be open to debate though
unless the boiler is in a special location.

Any other comments before I let the Contractor in!?

If I have to do some additions what is the sizes of bonding I would need
please?

See above. The OSG also has chapter and verse.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Owain wrote:
Peter Hemmings wrote:
I eventually finished my En-Suite (about a year!).
Got the BI to check and (as I had already mentioned para 1.26) he
agreed to get the Part P done!
I await the contractor, but while the BI was here, he seemed to imply
the whole house would be checked, can this be correct?
I can understand the need to check its safe, but I only wanted hime
to check my additional wiring.

Unless the additional wiring is on its own circuits back to the CU, then
the existing wiring needs to be compliant to the extent necessary for
the new wiring to comply, if you see what I mean. You can expect the
main bonding to services to be checked, for example.

OK


While he vivited he did bring out a meter and checked the earth
impedance (7.5ohm) which he said was good for my installation
(overhead power lines) whi should be less than 33ohms.
I did find out the other day that the power company has put down
earths on every 5th pole and I can have an earth terminal put on my
neutral cable for free, should I do this in future?
I cannot rember the terminology (TT and TMG I think).

TT (earth rod) or PME (Protectivive Multiple Earithing)


OK TA

Owain

John Rumm wrote:
Peter Hemmings wrote:

Well when adding extra stuff, there are some aspects like main
equipotential bonding that must also be brought up to current
standards if not compliant since that will affect the safety of the
work you have done.

Hmmmm..... I need to update the bonding I think.
I have no electrics in the shower and have plastic plumbing to it so
have done no bonding?
I have a lighting mirror that is earthed back through a lighting ring?

In a shower you would only need to equipotential bond things that could
introduce a potential into the space. So if all the plumbing is plastic,
and the only power circuit to supply the room is the lighting then there
is likely nothing to do. If there is more than one power circuit - say
lighting and a shower, then the earth conductors of the two circuits
ought to be bonded to each other.

OK TA


My gas pipe from the meter has bonding back to the board and my
s/steel sink has bonding to some old mains copper water pipe (but the
input to this into the house has been changed to plastic

The gas pipe sounds fine if the wire is of the correct size (typically
10mm^2 if you have a TN-S or TN-C-S supply, or 6mm^2 on TT).

OK (it looks quite thick!)


The kitchen sink does not require a bond at all. (kitchens are not
"special locations" anyway).


OK

If the house cold water pipes are metal, then there should be a main
bond to the cold water supply where it enters the house (even if the
supply itself is plastic)


Yep, you are correct, I have boxed it in (with access tile) and forgot
about the old stopcock!

When moved into the house I also stuck in a 1 metre earth spike and
put that back to the board!

Do you have RCD protection for the whole house, or does it still have an
older voltage operated ELCB?


I have a Wylex WSEM 80/2 100mA integrated into the CU for whole house.


http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=RCD#ELCB

Is there anything I need across the boiler (from the gas to the C/H)?

Many fitters will routinely bond all the pipes in and out of the boiler.
Whether this is actually required seems to be open to debate though
unless the boiler is in a special location.

I have some spare bonding cable, so I will buy some clips/tags
tomorrow. At least it will give the tester a bit more confidence!


Any other comments before I let the Contractor in!?

If I have to do some additions what is the sizes of bonding I would
need please?

See above.

OK

The OSG also has chapter and verse.



Sorry, I am a bit out of touch, is the above the small booklet
summarizing the Regs?

Thanks

Owain wrote:
Peter Hemmings wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
The OSG also has chapter and verse.
Sorry, I am a bit out of touch, is the above the small booklet
summarizing the Regs?

The On Site Guide is the book for electricians wiring up small and
simple installations that aren't designed by electrical engineers.
AFAIK it has no legal force, unlike the Regs.

Surely the IEE regulations don't have any legal force either, they are
not 'the law', they are just the accepted standards used for wiring in
this country. The OSG is a summary of how one can implement domestic
wiring so that it complies with the regulations without having to do
the calculations from first principles that would be needed if you
worked direct from the regulations.

--
Chris Green

"Owain" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Owain wrote:
The On Site Guide is the book for electricians wiring up small and simple
installations that aren't designed by electrical engineers. AFAIK it has
no legal force, unlike the Regs.
Surely the IEE regulations don't have any legal force either, they are
not 'the law', they are just the accepted standards used for wiring in
this country.

They are the British Standard cited in the Building Regulations (Scotland)
and have been for a long while, which means they have the force of law in
that they are the standard to which installations *must* comply, unless
you can prove that they comply to an alternative but equivalent (ie
Harmonised) standard.

Not sure of the *exact* status in E&W after Part Pee, but similar.

The OSG is a summary of how one can implement domestic
wiring so that it complies with the regulations without having to do
the calculations from first principles that would be needed if you
worked direct from the regulations.

Exactly; but you can't say that you've designed an installation to comply
with the OSG. It has to comply with the IEE Regs. You can ignore the OSG
if you want to.

Owain

Whilst Building Regulations are under discussion - does anyone know the
exact definition of "should" and "must" in this context? e.g Part P has 50
"shoulds" and 34 "musts". As I understand it a "must" clause is a legal
requirement but a "should" is best practice and provided a "solution" meets
the spirit/reason for the clause it may be acceptable.

PeterK

In article ,
"PeterK" writes:
Whilst Building Regulations are under discussion - does anyone know the
exact definition of "should" and "must" in this context? e.g Part P has 50
"shoulds" and 34 "musts". As I understand it a "must" clause is a legal
requirement but a "should" is best practice and provided a "solution" meets
the spirit/reason for the clause it may be acceptable.

I don't think Building Regs would claim to conform to RFC2119.
Part P in particular would have a real struggle claiming
conformance with anything logical.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

PeterK wrote:

"Owain" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Owain wrote:
The On Site Guide is the book for electricians wiring up small and
simple installations that aren't designed by electrical engineers.
AFAIK it has no legal force, unlike the Regs.
Surely the IEE regulations don't have any legal force either, they are
not 'the law', they are just the accepted standards used for wiring in
this country.

They are the British Standard cited in the Building Regulations
(Scotland) and have been for a long while, which means they have the
force of law in that they are the standard to which installations
*must* comply, unless you can prove that they comply to an alternative
but equivalent (ie Harmonised) standard.

Not sure of the *exact* status in E&W after Part Pee, but similar.

The OSG is a summary of how one can implement domestic
wiring so that it complies with the regulations without having to do
the calculations from first principles that would be needed if you
worked direct from the regulations.

Exactly; but you can't say that you've designed an installation to
comply with the OSG. It has to comply with the IEE Regs. You can
ignore the OSG if you want to.

Owain

Whilst Building Regulations are under discussion - does anyone know the
exact definition of "should" and "must" in this context? e.g Part P has
50 "shoulds" and 34 "musts". As I understand it a "must" clause is a
legal requirement but a "should" is best practice and provided a
"solution" meets the spirit/reason for the clause it may be acceptable.

That's what I was told when dealing with my contracts department in the
MOD many years ago!


PeterK


The reason I am writing is to update you all on the saga!

The BI said about 6 weeks ago that HE would get a local firm (Quadran)
who normally deal with local housing, to come and inspect.
Last week I phoned them, they had no job outstanding!
Phoned BI who said "I was just thinking about you"!!!
Oh no not more delays -
He then said he "thought" I would not need any inspection but should
fill in a "Minor Electrical Works Certificate" but without the testing!!!
I have done the description and how the existing circuits are protected
but nothing of its compliance to the latest regulations.
Seems almost worthless to me but he seemed to think it would be
acceptable.

Our local council is undergoing some major cutbacks to stay within
budget and this might have something to do with his attitude.

I hand posted the form yesterday with a note asking him to let me know
by Christmas if it was suitable and, if not, what he was going to do!!

I will keep you informed of any progress

Regards

Just to update and complete the saga!

Below mail left for some further info.

Peter Hemmings wrote:
Owain wrote:
Peter Hemmings wrote:
I eventually finished my En-Suite (about a year!).
Got the BI to check and (as I had already mentioned para 1.26) he
agreed to get the Part P done!
I await the contractor, but while the BI was here, he seemed to
imply the whole house would be checked, can this be correct?
I can understand the need to check its safe, but I only wanted hime
to check my additional wiring.

Unless the additional wiring is on its own circuits back to the CU,
then the existing wiring needs to be compliant to the extent necessary
for the new wiring to comply, if you see what I mean. You can expect
the main bonding to services to be checked, for example.

OK


While he visited he did bring out a meter and checked the earth
impedance (7.5ohm) which he said was good for my installation
(overhead power lines) whi should be less than 33ohms.
I did find out the other day that the power company has put down
earths on every 5th pole and I can have an earth terminal put on my
neutral cable for free, should I do this in future?
I cannot rember the terminology (TT and TMG I think).

TT (earth rod) or PME (Protectivive Multiple Earithing)


OK TA

Owain

Just before Christmas I got my ne-suite approved.

The BI visited but I heard nothing for a couple of months!!
Rang him and he said, "I was just thinking about your installation"!!

He then said it MAY not require testing as it was changes to the
existing wiring!
I did not really agree, but said he was the Boss and if that was his
decision......

He eventually said he thought that if I could fill in parts of the form
on what I had done, then the would probably accept it!

I said I had not tested it and would not sign to say I had.

He sent the form, I wrote what I had done, but not that the whole
installation was to the latest regulations.

I thought this was not sufficient and that he would still insist on
getting it tested.

After more delay, I phoned and asked what was happening, he then said
"I think we have pursued this as far as necessary" and an approval
would be issued.

I think I managed to wear him down, but I never once accepted that I had
to pay for an inspection. I do not know if the council (North Somerset)
now stipulate it as a condition of an application though, but it did
not a year ago, so I did accept I had to pay.
There has also been significant cuts to funding since another party took
over the council last year and I understand that this may have affected
the outcome!

Luckily I had plenty of time to let the saga drag on but appreciate some
readers may not be in my position.

Thanks for all the help in saving me (and others) the costs of
inspections, keep up the good work.

I thought my saga was a long one but my neighbour had a large extension
put up 3 years ago and still has not got it passed. He had a side
window on the first floor approved then after it was completed the BI
said it was too high for a fire escape (new regulations). My neighbour
had to fit a wooden box to stand on, but when the BI did a spot check
my neighbour had put the box in his loft!!

I thought I had troubles!


Regards

Peter H

In article ,
Peter Hemmings writes:

Just before Christmas I got my ne-suite approved.

The BI visited but I heard nothing for a couple of months!!
Rang him and he said, "I was just thinking about your installation"!!

He then said it MAY not require testing as it was changes to the
existing wiring!
I did not really agree, but said he was the Boss and if that was his
decision......

He eventually said he thought that if I could fill in parts of the form
on what I had done, then the would probably accept it!

I said I had not tested it and would not sign to say I had.

He sent the form, I wrote what I had done, but not that the whole
installation was to the latest regulations.

I thought this was not sufficient and that he would still insist on
getting it tested.

This is up to the BCO -- there is no requirement for them to have
an installation tested. It was never originally envisaged that
every installation would be tested as part of the approval, just
that the BCO would glance at it like they do most other things.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Peter Hemmings wrote:
He had a side window on the first floor approved then after it was
completed the BI said it was too high for a fire escape (new
regulations).

I got caught by that one too. The architect who designed the loft
conversion was aware of the maximum sill height of 1200mm for a
designated escape window, but his drawings were not sufficiently
explicit. When the builder framed the opening for the Velux window,
1200mm became the height from the floor to the top edge of his nogging.
Then along came the BCO, who quite reasonably measured to the bottom of
the installed Velux frame; and of course he found it about 80mm too
high.

We 'negotiated' about this. The BCO agreed that it would be very easy to
climb out using the solidly built desktop that was fixed to the wall
below the window, but that wouldn't count because it's 'furniture'.
There had to be a step on the floor. Then I asked him how he wanted this
step to be fixed, and he didn't answer that question... or not exactly.
Instead, he looked me straight in the eye and said, very slowly and with
heavy emphasis, "I want to *see* a step in place, when I come back to
inspect."

So this was duly done - but come re-inspection time, it was a different
BCO! Having duly verified that the height from step to sill was now
within regs, the next thing he asked was "Is that step fixed?" This
time it was *my* turn to do the looking-in-the-eye and heavy emphasis:
"What your colleague asked for was... and that's exactly what you see
here."

It got me a very dirty look - but also a completion certificate.


My neighbour had to fit a wooden box to stand on, but when the BI did
a spot check my neighbour had put the box in his loft!!

The fixed desktop is still here (I'm typing on it now). It provides an
admirably solid means of escape, in two equal steps of less than a metre
each.

As for the step on the floor, I couldn't possibly comment further...


--
Ian White