Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Verified Answer
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 13 subscribers
  • Views 89 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Section 705 in BS Vs Green Houses

Pabindu Gamage

Hi all,

I am seeking clarity on whether greenhouses are genuinely classified as agricultural and horticultural premises as defined in Section 705 of BS 7671.

My understanding is that Section 705 is primarily aimed at environments with specific risks, such as exposure to livestock, fertilizers, and harsh mechanical or environmental conditions. However, in the case of greenhouses, these tend to be controlled environments with limited exposure to such risks. There are no livestock involved, and in my particular project, the lighting is installed at heights of over 3.5 to 4 meters, making it inaccessible for general interaction or tampering.

Here are the project specifics:

  • Type of installation: Large-scale lighting for a commercial greenhouse.
  • Scope: Around 1000 lights and 200 circuits.
  • Lights installed 4m+FFL / 3.5m+FFL

I understand that if the greenhouse falls under Section 705, each circuit would require RCD protection? likely necessitating individual RCBOs to meet compliance.

However, this would significantly increase costs, so I want to ensure it is absolutely necessary before proceeding.

My Questions:

  1. Does the lack of livestock or the controlled nature of the environment exempt this greenhouse from the scope of Section 705?
  2. Is there any alternative compliance approach that can be justified, considering the lights are at inaccessible heights?
  3. Would applying standard industrial or commercial requirements for electrical installations suffice in this scenario?

I am committed to ensuring the installation is safe, compliant, and not harmful to anyone while avoiding unnecessary costs where possible.

Your insights would be greatly appreciated to clarify whether RCD protection for each circuit is legally required in this case.

Thanks in advance for your support. 

  • +1

    Does the lack of livestock or the controlled nature of the environment exempt this greenhouse from the scope of Section 705?

    I'd say no - the term "horticultural" refers to cultivating plants - so its inclusion in the title in addition to "agriculture" seems to make it clear that animal free situations are intended to be included - as long as the green houses are used for growing plants that is (rather than say extended general retail areas, as seen at some garden centres).

    Your insights would be greatly appreciated to clarify whether RCD protection for each circuit is legally required in this case.

    BS 7671 isn't law, so not directly a legal requirement, but in terms of what 705 says, it only demands that 'other circuits' have RCD protection not exceeding 300mA - as I read it, it doesn't demand individual per-circuit protection. So a 300mA RCD incomer for a complete DB feeding multiple circuits for example might be acceptable (subject to all the usual considerations, e.g. standing protective conductor currents, acceptable inconvenience in the case of a fault and so on).

       - Andy.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines