Sockets on Skirting

[Midwest]

I’m going to sit on the fence here, so to speak. One of my last jobs, was to completely rewire a property.

I recall reading somewhere, that completely rewiring a property, was considered a substantial change, and that as such all aspects of Building Regulations should apply. Let’s not forget, that although we might not consider Part M applies, we would still considered Part B and fit a basic fire alarm system. Each Building Approved Document defines building work, and how it applies to new buildings and work on existing buildings.

For me, I reused the positions of existing outlets outlets, as the client did not want their positions altered in relation to each room, e.g. still wanted a switch by an existing door, and their were at a suitable height; it was no less unsatisfactory in relation to requirements etc etc.

However, if a significant amount of existing outlets positions were moved or relocated, e.g. walls were removed, doors relocated, then all aspects of Part M should apply IMO.

 

[SparkyChick]

This is what Approved document M actually says:-

"Application 0.2 The recommendations of this volume of this approved document apply to newly erected dwellings, and dwellings undergoing material alteration, only. They do not apply to the extension of a dwelling."

"Material alterations 0.11 Where a dwelling is subject to a material alteration, the building should be no less compliant with requirement M4(1) than it was prior to the building work taking place."

Requirement M4(1) opens with this:-

"In the Secretary of State’s view, requirement M4(1) will be met when a new dwelling makes reasonable provision for most people, including wheelchair users, to approach and enter the dwelling and to access habitable rooms and sanitary facilities on the entrance storey. Reasonable provision is made if the dwelling complies with all of the following..."

It cannot be much clearer... Part M only applies to new dwellings, and even then only to the entrance storey. If you are rewiring a property, the rule is simple... it must be no less accessible than it was before you started.

I would suggest raising sockets off the skirting board is an improvement, and I would certainly not rewire a property such that they were still in the skirting. Likewise I wouldn't force Part M heights on new work if the rest of the property is laid out differently, it's madness and is totally over the top.

 

[Mike Johnson]

A good friend of ours has a holiday let in Spain, he altered the whole house to conform to the equivalent part M regulations and more, he is full all year around, unlike the others in the same complex, in fact he has to turn down bookings because his calendar is full, those that have buy to let properties should take note I think because they are opening up a different source of income.

 

[Julie.]

In my first post (actually the merged bit) I pointed out that it wasn't mandatory, however these building regulations are the 'latest and greatest ' so realistically represent the standard to which we should aim for.

If we are doing new work, wherever reasonably possible we should aim to provide the installation to the latest standards, we shouldn't be using any "get out of gaol" clause in order to perpetuate outdated practices.

It does sensibly allow you to re-wire and re-use existing positions to prevent unsightly installations and minimise disruption, as an example, my own home cu is in an awfully awkward position, but I re-used the position because in practical terms to do anything else given all the wiring in situ is unreasonable.

But, in renovating a full kitchen, then installing to the latest standards makes absolute sense - more so than sticking to "old fashioned" thoughts

 

[Midwest]

This is what Approved document M actually says:-

"Application 0.2 The recommendations of this volume of this approved document apply to newly erected dwellings, and dwellings undergoing material alteration, only. They do not apply to the extension of a dwelling."

"Material alterations 0.11 Where a dwelling is subject to a material alteration, the building should be no less compliant with requirement M4(1) than it was prior to the building work taking place."

Requirement M4(1) opens with this:-

"In the Secretary of State’s view, requirement M4(1) will be met when a new dwelling makes reasonable provision for most people, including wheelchair users, to approach and enter the dwelling and to access habitable rooms and sanitary facilities on the entrance storey. Reasonable provision is made if the dwelling complies with all of the following..."

It cannot be much clearer... Part M only applies to new dwellings, and even then only to the entrance storey. If you are rewiring a property, the rule is simple... it must be no less accessible than it was before you started.

I would suggest raising sockets off the skirting board is an improvement, and I would certainly not rewire a property such that they were still in the skirting. Likewise I wouldn't force Part M heights on new work if the rest of the property is laid out differently, it's madness and is totally over the top.

In fairness, all the Approved Documents open with the same perhaps not exactly, the same lines & wording. But a Building Inspector will still require compliance as applicable across the range of documents, for just an extension.

So common sense would prevail; as said if the existing positions of outlets were being used, then why make more holes in a wall to put them at Part M heights. But I would agree against putting one room at Part M heights. If everything is changing, then Part M heights should be the norm.

Edit; my socket outlets are below 450mm in my new build. Should I complain to my MP

 

[jackhammerJIM]

In my area Part M applies to new build houses only . Im on with a barn conversion at the moment which has never even had power and the building inspector insists part M is not applicable .

Im not a fan of having accessories in an extension at a different height to the rest of the house .

 

[SparkyChick]

Just to clarify... as I'm inclined to do, I was trying to clarify the actual position of what the building regulations state. As evidenced by some posts there are differing views.

Personally I encourage customers to update as appropriate, and if given free reign I apply the rules set out in Part M unless it would create a visually stupid situation like accessories at different heights (although I will if the client explicitly requests it - as happened the other day where the client didn't want the socket outlet to be visible above the top of his TV unit... his house, his choice).

My point really was more about what the documents actually say vs. what people believe/have been told they say.

 

[Midwest]

Personally I encourage customers to update as appropriate, and if given free reign I apply the rules set out in Part M unless it would create a visually stupid situation like accessories at different heights (although I will if the client explicitly requests it - as happened the other day where the client didn't want the socket outlet to be visible above the top of his TV unit... his house, his choice).

Funnily enough, I put a new socket for in for TV in my new build (not everyone likes tv's in the corner of rooms) at the same height as all my other Part M sockets. That was until herindoors ordered me to get new tv unit................then I had to lower the new socket!

 

[davesparks]

My father was a building inspector, albeit quite an old fashioned one, and his take on it was that he was generally happy with any new build which was built for a customer to have accessories at heights other than part M heights as long as it was discussed at a sensible stage in the job. If the house was being built by a developer to be sold later then part M was structly enforced.
The logic is that if the house is being built by/for a specific customer then they know what height they want/need them at and whether any people with disabilities needed to be catered for.

His best story about this one was a guy who used a wheelchair and was having his own specially adapted house built, he didn't want part M heights as he thought they were ugly and impractical.

 

[Mark Wright]

I see there's various books on the Building Regs for Electricians ill try and get a copy to familiarize myself with them.

 

[R-fur]

450 mm I do believe Source URL: Sockets on Skirting - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/sockets-on-skirting.183948/page-2#post-1610923
Source URL: Sockets on Skirting - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/sockets-on-skirting.183948/page-2#post-1610923
That's interesting, Its 400 in Scotland.

 

[telectrix]

re; thread title. is this what's referred to as "upskirting"? as some snowflakes are trying to ban it.

 

[Megawatt]

I am about to rewire my daughters house a 1900 forecourted terrace is the any height requirements for the mounting height for sockets in there

James it should be 25 mm to the bottom of the socket

 

[DPG]

James it should be 25 mm to the bottom of the socket

Is this a US figure?

 

[jackhammerJIM]

James it should be 25 mm to the bottom of the socket

Seems rather on the low side of too low .

 

[DPG]

Seems rather on the low side of too low .

I'm guessing inches?

 

[jackhammerJIM]

I'm guessing inches?

25 inches is 635 mm rather on the high side of too high

 

[DPG]

25 inches is 635 mm rather on the high side of too high

Fathoms them. .

 

[jackhammerJIM]

Fathoms them. .

Is he a pirate ?

Google is telling me a fathom is 6 feet .

 

[DPG]

Is he a pirate ?

Google is telling me a fathom is 6 feet .

Some of the sockets not far from me are 6 foot underwater at the minute, so could be right!