Complying with Part M...

[DNS1]

Merry Christmas guys...

Was walking back from the parents earlier, full of beer and turkey and for some unknown reason my mind decided to start trying to interpret building regs...

Part M says that on a new build, I have to install the DB where it can be accessed by people with disabilities (ie: on a fairly low level). However, I also have to give consideration to putting it in a position where it can't be tampered with my kiddies...

Is it acceptable/compliant to simply install the DB up high and say that the need to need it out of reach of children outweighed the need to have it accessible by people of limited mobility, or vice versa?

Seems the regs are contradicting themselves... again...

 

[LlandrilloSpark]

Low down in a locked cupboard complies with both, at least that's where I have put them

 

[Guest55]

nope , the requirement for access by disabled folk outweighs the risks of child tampering.
millions of CU's are in under the stairs cupboards easily accessable by kids but reported incidents caused by this are scarce.
i'm not seeing any contradiction TBH.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

If theres a chance of it being flooded it can be moved higher....

 

[telectrix]

If theres a chance of it being flooded it can be moved higher....

so with incontinent elderly folk, it should be higher, then?

 

[High Tower]

so with incontinent elderly folk, it should be higher, then?

Any offers for someone to pop round and shift Tel's CU up a couple of foot

 

[Fin170]

Children fiddling with the CU isn't really a issue to me (may result in somebody actually pressing the RCD test buttons!), unless you're installing MEM, proteus or any other brand infamous for having it's front cover fall off if you sneeze on it

 

[gdr7671]

thats sick

 

[gdr7671]

so with incontinent elderly folk, it should be higher, then?

thats sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[telectrix]

not as sick as HT's post. i'll get him back one day.

 

[High Tower]

He he he