Outdoor BBQ area.

[rattlehead85]

Would like to gain opinion on the following.
Just been to view a job where there is a metal BBQ sitting area type canopy located in the garden which has an ip 65 surface switch and light wired to it via an underground tubed 3 core 1.5 toughflex cable from a TNS supply and 6A RCD protected circuit in the consumer unit from the house.
The client has been told by another contractor that this does not meet building control part P as the metal structure is not main bonded. I have confirmed there is no water service or extraneous pipework run to this canopy so i can only think this has been deemed extraneous in its own right. I am struggling to see how this can be possible as the structure is bolted to a concrete base which is at least 2ft deep and all equipment is class 2. I also completed a wander lead insulation test at 500v DC between the structure and the M.E.T within the house with a reading obtained as being >200Meg ohms. Can anybody provide any further reason why this should be mains bonded as i am struggling to see why.

 

[Richard Burns]

I could well have expected it to be extraneous being bolted to a concrete surface; but your IR test is conclusive, it is not extraneous and therefore does not require bonding.
Oh and it would not be non compliance with building regulations (or Part P) except as far as the building regulations say comply with BS7671.

 

[rattlehead85]

Well that was my thoughts but this threw me as the client stated clearly that the electrician who checked it was a reputable long standing contractor registered with the ECA.

 

[Guest55]

i wouldnt have bonded it anyway regardless of the readings.
plastic insulating washers between the seating frame and the ground bolts is a much more discrete solution compared to trailing bits of 10mm G/Y cable around the garden.

some folk just arent able to think out of the box ;-)

 

[Guest55]

Well that was my thoughts but this threw me as the client stated clearly that the electrician who checked it was a reputable long standing contractor registered with the ECA.

the fact hes quoting building regs as the source of this "infringement" shows a lack of clear thinking regards this non issue.

 

[rattlehead85]

Well as Richard said the IR test proved it didn't require bonding so i advised the client accordingly and departed but you still get that thinking 'why was this brought up at all'?

 

[chrish_1977]

Unfortunately, just because the is a long standing member of the eca, doesn't mean he knows it all, what you have done is exactly what I would do, >200mohm then no bonding required, besides would it not be connected through the cpc on the feeding cable??

 

[rattlehead85]

No because the cable runs in plastic flexi tube up the hollow post of the canopy and into a d.p light switch before going upto the light.

 

[Silly Sausage]

No because the cable runs in plastic flexi tube up the hollow post of the canopy and into a d.p light switch before going upto the light.

My brain is a bit fuzzy at the moment (cider)...
are you saying this metal structure has cables inside it?
If so, it's an exposed conductive part, just earth it to the circuit, job done.
Next!

 

[GLENNSPARK]

My brain is a bit fuzzy at the moment (cider)...
are you saying this metal structure has cables inside it?
If so, it's an exposed conductive part, just earth it to the circuit, job done.
Next!

and surely Mr ECA would have known this....
well should`v done anyway
perhaps he needs an old 2391 chief examiners report throwin at him....

 

[Silly Sausage]

and surely Mr ECA would have known this....
well should`v done anyway
perhaps he needs an old 2391 chief examiners report throwin at him....

Haha...I remember this from an old 2391 problem, the Cast Iron lamp post, spot the faults.

Who is this Mr ECA you speak of, is he Mr NICEIC's relation in anyway?

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Haha...I remember this from an old 2391 problem, the Cast Iron lamp post, spot the faults.

Who is this Mr ECA you speak of, is he Mr NICEIC's relation in anyway?

Mr EnCompetAnce