Range Oven Isolator Position Deemed Code 1 on a PIR ???

[Guest123]

This is what the NIC will tell you as it's from an issue of their 'Connections' magazine......


Positioning.
The switch or control unit should be readily accessible. It should
not be positioned behind or above a cooking appliance such that
a person would have to reach over the appliance in order to
access the switch/control unit.
The horizontal distance between a cooker switch/control unit and
the appliance(s) it serves must be sufficiently short for the switch
to be under the control of persons relying on it for safety. This
requirement is likely to be met if the distance does not exceed
2m.
The height of a cooker switch or control unit in an installation in
a new dwelling should be suitable to facilitate access by persons
in wheelchairs and others whose reach is limited (as should the
heights of all wall-mounted switches and socket-outlets). Based
on the recommendations of Approved Document M, applicable
for new dwellings in England and Wales, the height of the switch
or control unit should not exceed 1.2 m above finished floor
level.
Installation of a cooker switch or control unit in a cupboard or
cabinet is not recommended. Potential users of the
switch/control unit may not be aware that it is there, or items
stored in the cupboard may obstruct access to the switch/control
unit. In any event, wiring and other electrical equipment should
generally not be fixed to a cupboard or cabinet, which may be
removed in the future; they should be fixed to the building fabric.
It is also not recommended to locate a cooker switch or control
unit in a central wall-mounted control panel together with other
switching devices, as this may result in the switch not being
under the control of persons relying on it for safety or otherwise
not being suitably accessible. Where a cooker switch or control
unit is positioned in such a central control panel, then, as for any
other item of switchgear or controlgear, a label or other suitable
means of identification must be provided to indicate the purpose
of a cooker switch/control unit, except where there is no
possibility of confusion (Regulation 514-01-01 refers).

 

[Deleted member 9648]

As previously stated,I dont think anyone on here was implying that it would be designed that way....just that in the situation described did it warrent a code,,,(1)?.....the fact is regulations do not appear to have been directly broken,so a code 1 or 2 would probably not be applicable. I'm not even sure a code 4 could be applied as it would be hard to point out the actual reg not complied with.

 

[baldsparkies]

Thanks for the information Lenny,

Reading through it looks like the local isolation is almost but not completely compliant. My logic as I see it is that;

1 Its installed within the fabric of the building.

2 Its readily accessible allbeit you have to open the door front, not difficult to do, and not difficult to switch off either.

3 It should not be positioned behind or above a cooking appliance such that a person would have to reach over the appliance in order to
access the switch/control unit.( Access is currently gained through an open back once said door is opened, so YOU DO NOT have to reach over the the appliance to gain access.

4 interestingly its around 500mm above floor level so although not new build, even this appears to comply.

Judging by the above the only non compliance I can see is that its not visible and or marked up. So if anything I would say a code 4 at the most.
From the other info I have read up on Its for servicing purposes which would also be fine.

Lenny, your opinions are much respected. I appreciate we all have differing views, but where would your thoughts be with regards to coding ??

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I'm not sure that even a comment is warrented, let alone a code.
The only argument I can envision for a code, would be for emergency switching.
However, I am not sure that there is a need for emergency switching, or that any such switching would serve any real purpose.
The majority of cooker fires, are due to fat or oil ignighting. Whilst removing the source of ignition will be benefical (and can often be achived simply by using a control knob on the actual cooker), however doing such will not actually extinguish a fire.

 

[baldsparkies]

As a final comment on this thread, from what you have explained, i would agree a code 4 would be the most appropriate coding.

Further, normally ''readily accessible'' is the term given to means of disconnection, eg...Isolators and the like!!
That has never meant located behind a closed door i'm afraid. I'm not an Electrician, i'm an Engineer that has to make decisions on a regular basis, concerning similar installations, in both commercial and domestic environments, so i'm under no misconceptions, i work to project specifications, which are generally based on Regulations and best practices...

From your last quote in your post '' pulling the appliance plug out'' as a first means of disconnection, doesn't really fit a range cooker However if you replaced the wording to ''Cooker control panel'' then it would be correctly identified as the first means of disconnection, and of course switching off of the CU, or MCB would be the second and last means of disconnection..

To be honest baldparkies, (and this has nothing to do with yourself) i've been more than a little dismayed at the lowering of general standards within the UK's electrical industry, and the overall acceptance of those lower standards. So please don't take anything stated in this thread by myself as being directed at you personally, it was never meant in that way.

I agree completely with you Engineer, I was an electrical site manager for many years. Glad I run my own bussiness with a colleage of mine now (Far less stressfull)
Most of the time consultants were used and standards were thus very good. Especially Hospital installs and at power stations ect. The QS would always try to cut corners but then they always do.

Where kitchen fitting is concerned, I have often been dismayed by the lack of good practice where electrics are concerned, and I agree with you about standards slipping.
I hope you can take me at my word when I say that this particuler install has been signed off by the fitters in question and the standard of works completed is very good. I checked a few of there readings as per there paperwork and they were true to form.
Everything on the install is rcbo protected so nice discrimination good earth fault paths ect.
The isolation switch however is not in an ideal location and that is true but its not a code 1 and I am glad that you appear to agree with a code 4.
Thats really all I am trying to clarify with everyone, but the debate has been very enlighting.
Kind Regards to you my Friend.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

In order for a code 4 to be applicable, there would have to be a Regulation that the placement of the isolator failed to comply with.
What Regulation would that be?

 

[Guest123]

I have one or two that may or may not apply, depending on one's own interpretation of BS 7671 and wether or not a cooker control unit can be classed as an 'emergency switching' device, BS 7671 deems it suitable to be used as such.

537.4.1.4

537.4.2.5

537.4.2.7


And under the heading of 'mechanical maintenance'

537.3.2.4

 

[baldsparkies]

Not wishing to drag you into the debate Lenny but push come to shove what code would you give if any in a PIR ?
Like to have your view.

 

[Guest123]

In this instance I would say that a code 2 would be applicable as you have to reach into/over/through the cooker in order to isolate it, in contravention of 537.4.1.4

 

[Engineer54]

Thanks for your post Baldsparkies and much appreciated.

Perhaps a photo or two of the kitchen/cooker range, may give all concerned a better picture of the situation...

 

[baldsparkies]

Finally got through but it looks like its down to which regulation you are applying to the isolator.
The definition between an isolator for mechanical maintenance and an isolator for emergency switching would need to be verified through a risk assesment.
I have also spoken to an old safety officer friend, with an electrical consultant I know, and also a fire officer.
One thing is definate, its not a code 1.
As far as a code 2 is concerned. That could actually be applied if it can be proved that the isolation was for emergency purposes.
The primary reason would be to remove a source of ignition following a fire.
The grey area here is most, including fire officers would deem the controls on the front of the appliance suitable for this purpose in most cases.
Concensus seems to be life is more precious than property so GET OUT. The consumer unit is the next viable means of isolation, in any event.
To complicate or maybe help to define the position further (Depending on your point of view) The question was raised!! What about dual fuel Ranges ??
In this instance electrical isolation would fail to remove the source of ignition, (The gas hob would still be burning) In this instance ie dual fuel, the isolation would be even more suited to isolation for maintenance purposes.

The range in question is Dual Fuel, and as such I would deem the isolator code 4 my reason being the location is simply not correct.
Had the range been All electric then to cover myself on a pir I would feel justified in a code 2
My reasoning Dual fuel for isolation for maintenance purposes.
All electric Isolation for maintenance and emergency purposes.

As said the code 1 is a non starter. I am sorry that the answer is not definitive, I really was hoping to get something that would take away the personel opinion scenario that the thread as shown.
Despite long conversations with regulating bodies and informed individuals, its still left with us the sparkies to pick the wood from the trees because you will still get the greys come up, and not black and whites.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Thanks for the update...there often isnt a definitive answer on coding issues...which is why discussions get a bit heated sometimes!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If after suitable risk assessment, an isolator for emergency switching is deemed necessary.
Such would also apply to the gas/oil part of the range, and could be achieved by the installation of a solinoid.
As for the code 4, again a specific Regulation would have to be breached, before any code is issued.

 

[baldsparkies]

If after suitable risk assessment, an isolator for emergency switching is deemed necessary.
Such would also apply to the gas/oil part of the range, and could be achieved by the installation of a solinoid.
As for the code 4, again a specific Regulation would have to be breached, before any code is issued.

I would agree spin. The selenoid scenario with emergency gas shut off is widely used in commercial installs. Rarely if ever seen on domestic though. Most gas shut off systems are an integral part of the appliance when deemed neccassary.
I must say, getting informed advice on the subject, is a bit like asking a financial advisor about what you should do with a pension. They will advise you but will not commit to making the decision for you. It seems there isnt really a wrong or right answer on this one. You just have to look at all the facts, and come to your own conclusions. Bottom line is, being able to prove your decision was an informed one taking into account all the rellevent factors, and not based solely on a personal opinion.

Very many thanks to all contributing to this thread, and to the mods who run the sight.
It leaves all of us better informed in these days of trying to do the right thing, and keeping our standards up.
As for making a living when the guys with the horses ride off into the sunset with a wadd of cash regardless, Well !! Dont get me started on that one.