Is the primary concern the lack of fire-rated downlights with rooms above (527.1.2)

AMK said:

Is the primary concern the lack of fire-rated downlights with rooms above (527.1.2)

That regulation is a bit of a catch-all but it has to be considered in terms of what the Building Regulations require. For a two storey dwelling, the first floor needs to have a fire resistance of 30/15/15 REI (sometimes referred to as 30minute modified). Where certain minimum parameters are met for each element of the floor construction, downlights with a specific fire rating may not be required. That is not to say that benefit would not be had by installing them.

See Appendix C Best Practice Guide 5 issued by Electrical Safety First. In this case the floor construction is much more than those parameters demand.

AMK said:

Is the primary concern the lack of fire-rated downlights with rooms above (527.1.2)

That regulation is a bit of a catch-all but it has to be considered in terms of what the Building Regulations require. For a two storey dwelling, the first floor needs to have a fire resistance of 30/15/15 REI (sometimes referred to as 30minute modified). Where certain minimum parameters are met for each element of the floor construction, downlights with a specific fire rating may not be required. That is not to say that benefit would not be had by installing them.

See Appendix C Best Practice Guide 5 issued by Electrical Safety First. In this case the floor construction is much more than those parameters demand.

But considering fire barriers, sealing arrangements, and protection against thermal effects, the absence of fire hoods on open-back downlights would not comply with regulations 537.1.2. 

I take it you mean 527.1.2 which refers to "wiring systems". A luminaire would not be part of a wiring system.

I am not being argumentative. I acknowledge that 7671 and, indeed, the Building Regulations, provide for minimum standards which can be augmented at the discretion of the person applying them. However, I must return a report that is technically correct with regards to the requirements of the standards being quoted in it rather than being prejudiced to individual preference. 

Sorry, yes 527.1.2.

I understand that you are not being argumentative, and I am here to assist as best as I can. In my experience, I have consistently referred to Regulation 527.1.2 when conducting EICRs for installations where ceiling fire barriers are penetrated by downlighters, particularly if there are rooms above. 

Hi Lyle. Any updates regarding this?

- Andrew

Well, the contractor is now in receipt of my report. It will not be welcome reading for him. 

How did this representative inspection of a dwelling come about? I assume you are a Clerk of Works. When I was an apprentice, we had Clerks of Works, but it is unfortunate that this role is no longer as prevalent

AMK,

My stepfather used to be a Clerk of Works. He is a long time gone from us now, but he would be spitting fetahers if he now went on to a modern construction site or building project.

Im old enough to remember that Clerk of Works position on site. Contractors saw them as the Clients enforcer, but client also saw them as champion of the contractors. They were an arbitrator really but upholder of the building Regs and ensuring compliance and quality.

With them prowling the site every day, any bricklayer with too much sand in a batch of mortar or a plumber or electrician taking too much out a joist or a hole not centre, felt their wrath and had to correct the issue.

But they also stuck up for contractors, ommissions in the tender documents or spec, they supported the sub contractors in getting day works etc or the architect or engineering/services consultant had to sort a design issue for the particular trade to achieve compliance.

I believe that the client actually ended up with a far better quality project and one less likley in the future to have issues or latent defects nor have problems arise in future inspections.

Sadly, the design/build and one stop shop contract, came in and as long as the client gets a certificate is the world we live in  then the project must be perfect.

In the 1980's cutting out the Clerk of Works was just a very simple stroke of the pen to save cost, save a salary on site. My own thought is, indirectly cost contractors and the end user far more.

Believe the Clerk of Works Institute was set up back in 1882, My Step Father was a Fellow of that institute, but see they are now called The Institute of Clerks of Works and Construction Inspectorate of GB Inc.

So much litigation and issues on site these days and poor workmanship and defects, I think overall there should be a Clerk of Works on all projects over a certain value, Local Building control officers, fire officers etc dont have time to see everything.

Anyway being sentimental, but its a role that I think the industry has missed.

Cheers GTB

Well said! I fully agree. My Clerk of Works would often review the work and simply state, “I don’t like that,” necessitating a redo. Consequently, all work had to meet his exacting standards. In retrospect, I am grateful for having my work meticulously reviewed throughout my apprenticeship until I became fully qualified. This process instilled both respect and a healthy sense of apprehension towards him.

- Andrew