Hi Sergio,

I think as often happens with your suggestions I'd need to turn this around to: what's the problem you're trying to solve? Any change to regulations needs to start with a definition of the problem, and then a set of constraints, and then the proposed solutions. The V model really does work well - define what your system is, identify the hazards in it, determine the risks, and then work out what safety requirements it's sensible to put in place. (In the day job I spend a lot of time resolving projects where solutions to safety problems have been created with no clear rationale of how and why these are the best solution to manage all the hazards. As engineers we do tend to like to start at the bottom of the V because the technology is the fun bit...)

I suspect working through that process you may find that you have a number of problems here which may have contradictory (or at least not complementary) constraints. For example, if I was to add solar power with battery backup to this house would I want the batteries in the same room as my gas boiler? Maybe the answer is yes, but it would need thinking through - on the face of it it sounds a bit...exciting.

What then would be more likely to happen would be that you'd end up with regulations to say (as they pretty much do)  "a boiler must be mounted in space x, ventilated according to y etc etc" and so on for the other equipment you mention, which may result in a sensible solution being a plant room - where there is room for it. In other designs distributed "rooms"  may achieve the same result, basically where we are today. But of course there could be guidance to say "this may be achieved with a plant room" and then list what should and shouldn't be in the same room, and point to the regs that give the requirements and limitations for such a room. 

The only time it's sensible to have mandatory requirements is where there is only one acceptably safe solution to a problem (footnote). This seems on the face of it like a collection of problems with multiple possible solutions between them. But that's not to say it may turn out out - with refinement - to be this solution for new builds, however to determine this it does need a clearer start point of what the problem is.

(Footnote: yes there are many building regs, for example, that don't follow this rule, those of us who live in older houses are often particularly aware of this. My favourite at the moment is the vents that will be in the new double glazing I'm about to have fitted, the last thing my house needs is more vents! It's the other part of the battle, sometimes if you don't make something mandatory because a few cases need a different solution then you risk people using that as an excuse to cut corners, or a reg that's really complicated to apply. Writing regs is a nightmare...)

So following that process, what do you think the problems are that we currently have with domestic plant?

Thanks,

Andy

Hi Andy

There are several factors

The new builds should last at least 100years but they seem to use materials and technology that will only last 5 to 10 years at best.
Eg Chipboard flooring.  Awful to get up for maintenance work, over time they become weak or start to absorb moisture.  MDF door and surrounds will also in time absorb moisture

Current issue and some future issues
Gas boiler being phased out within the next 5 to 10 years and replaced by Electric/Hydrogen sometime require new cabling with no simple route back to CU/DB
Some people are considering using heat recovery to make the dwelling more efficient after the correct insulation is installed
Lack of EVSE provision, eg some builders put in a 2.5mm2 CSA at best which mean no EVSE and even if there was it would take days to charge a vehicle, better design would be to use a 16mm2 CSA SWA or provide a trucking/conduit for the later routing of EVSE cable and Data comms

People are starting to put Solar PV on roof space and walls and then find no real place to put the battery and inverter see PAS 63100:2024
Air source/ground source heat pump systems
Future proof for new and developing technologies and looking to the future in which more domestic dwellings will become Pro-Summers

Plants rooms also give better access for inspection, testing and maintenance.  Eg some new build have the CU/DB in the kitchen at the back of a deep cupboard this then means that sometime the kitchen cupboard needs to be removed for work to take place.  Others may have the CU/BD in the downstairs WC where potentionally it could be exposed to water or is too cramped to get a ladder or set of steps in there.

Plants rooms could also be used for central points of isolation for emergency services or trade people as well as the people living in that dwelling

Andy Millar said:

I think as often happens with your suggestions I'd need to turn this around to: what's the problem you're trying to solve?

Well I like Sergio’s way of combining a pertinent question with a reasonable solution. The need to provide adequate space for standard services, never mind the newer technologies, is a fundamental aspect of design that is often overlooked in an overarching way. Often, in the smaller installations, those responsible for the individual services are left scratching their heads as to how to accommodate their proposal. This often leads to a disparate and haphazard arrangement, even in brand new properties. 
Whilst mandating a plant room might be one solution, I would like to see architects take the lead on a global approach to the accommodation of services. I often see designs for new housing sites where the architect doesn’t even consider where the consumer unit is to be located. There certainly needs to a more cohesive approach between the various parties responsible for such matters and since the architect is responsible for the overall footprint, they will be best placed to take the lead role.

The Irish regs have a fundamental requirement for designers of electrical installations to consider new technologies. I would like to see the space allocation for such things being considered better at the early stages of a project. That effectively means it’s the architects responsibility. 
Sergio makes an excellent point in that regard.

Andy Millar said:

I think as often happens with your suggestions I'd need to turn this around to: what's the problem you're trying to solve?

Well I like Sergio’s way of combining a pertinent question with a reasonable solution. The need to provide adequate space for standard services, never mind the newer technologies, is a fundamental aspect of design that is often overlooked in an overarching way. Often, in the smaller installations, those responsible for the individual services are left scratching their heads as to how to accommodate their proposal. This often leads to a disparate and haphazard arrangement, even in brand new properties. 
Whilst mandating a plant room might be one solution, I would like to see architects take the lead on a global approach to the accommodation of services. I often see designs for new housing sites where the architect doesn’t even consider where the consumer unit is to be located. There certainly needs to a more cohesive approach between the various parties responsible for such matters and since the architect is responsible for the overall footprint, they will be best placed to take the lead role.

The Irish regs have a fundamental requirement for designers of electrical installations to consider new technologies. I would like to see the space allocation for such things being considered better at the early stages of a project. That effectively means it’s the architects responsibility. 
Sergio makes an excellent point in that regard.