This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Part P - new circuits

Installing a new circuit from the CU is notifiable to the LABC under Part P of the Building Regulations.


Examples include:

1. A circuit for a burglar alarm.

2. A circuit for outside lights.

3. Removing a fixed appliance (such as a heater) from a ring main and providing it with its own dedicated MCB.


However, additions and alterations to existing circuits are not notifiable.


This creates a situation where certain contractors who are not registered electricians are forced to connect any appliances they install to existing circuits rather than providing them with their own dedicated circuits and MCB. Examples include burglar alarm installers wiring alarms to ceiling lights or kitchen fitters wiring heaters to ring mains and cooker switches.


It's probably safe to say that only a small fraction of homeowners are aware that new circuits are notifiable to the LABC under Part P, and a high proportion of them completely ignore the regulations when it comes to their own DIY installations. It's also quite commonplace for cables for new circuits to be installed by builders or labourers, rather than electricians, even if they do not connect them to the appliance or the CU.


Part P regulations have also resulted in a phenomenon of plug-in houses where a large amount of permanent or semi-permanent wiring, including to ceiling lights, is plugged into sockets on a ring main. Anything which is plugged into a socket is outside of the scope of Part P regulations.


My own view of Part P regulations for new circuits, from the perspective of an engineer rather than an electrician, is that methods used by DIY installers or contractors to circumvent having to notify LABC can potentially result in installations that are more dangerous than if they were powered from a new circuit.


Would it make more sense to abolish notification of the LABC for new circuits?
Parents
  • It is quite legal and possible to fit and notify a CU with 10 off 1 foot lengths each ending in a JB and no loads connected at all. Everything else is an addition to an existing cct. and non-notifible.


    The real reason for part P was to pacify the trade bodies lobbying the govt, with very little representation from the other side, and a general (in my view mistaken) tendency in government to believe that more regulation is automatically better. than less.

    Actually it may have been better to insist on inspections at change of house ownership.

    And there really is no evidence that accidents have fallen at any faster rate than they were already falling  before it was introduced....
Reply
  • It is quite legal and possible to fit and notify a CU with 10 off 1 foot lengths each ending in a JB and no loads connected at all. Everything else is an addition to an existing cct. and non-notifible.


    The real reason for part P was to pacify the trade bodies lobbying the govt, with very little representation from the other side, and a general (in my view mistaken) tendency in government to believe that more regulation is automatically better. than less.

    Actually it may have been better to insist on inspections at change of house ownership.

    And there really is no evidence that accidents have fallen at any faster rate than they were already falling  before it was introduced....
Children
No Data