Cooker Diversity - Situation Resolved but...

Hi all

For those who are regular posters in the group, you may remember a saga relating to diversity and a building control inspector who has decided -that this may not be applied to a cooker circuit (see The Inspector Calls - Part P 17-03-2011)

Many regulars here responded with chapter and verse on this, providing links to articles and quoting the relevant clauses of BS7671. These were all forwarded to the inspector along with a quotation from the IET themselves supporting this approach. Most importantly I must acknowledge the technical help and moral support from Adam Wadsworth and John Rumm in attempting to resolve the issue with me.

Not only did the inspector himself refute the regulations, but his boss (the manager of building control) was also apparently prepared to do the same.

The problem for my project was that, without considering diversity, the appliances that could be supplied from what is a pretty standard 32A cooker circuit would be severely limited.

Emails were exchanged over about 2 weeks on the subject, with responses including the text below:

After speaking with Mr (manager of Building Control ), the Council's opinion is that you need to use the potential full load of the two appliances that you are installing when calculating the cable size as it has the potential during certain times that both appliances could be running at maximum load or very close and the applying of the first 10amp and 30% of remainder is not suitable in this case as it would under size the cable (as per previous e-mail), and we are not interested in any further debate regarding this.

A few emails later and an official-sounding message was received threatening such things as formal enforcement, £5000 fine and (most importantly IMO) an entry in the land charge register.

By this point, I was spending far more time researching and concocting emails than actually getting on with the job in hand. I do feel I owe an apology to many members of the group in not seeing this through to the correct conclusion, but feel that my tether's end had certainly been reached on the subject. So I offered the council a "solution" to this issue - to engage a Part P certified electrician to design, install and certify the cooker circuit (I would retain responsibility for kitchen ring main and lighting). This gets the job done to my satisfaction, but does allow the council to walk away from the situation effectively uncorrected.

Having tried to complete this project "the right way" I can now fully appreciate why other posters have advised avoiding council involvement at all costs.

Phil

Reply to
TheScullster
Loading thread data ...

In article , TheScullster writes

It's the pragmatic approach but I hope you will view this as a win for you too as, unless you employ a complete idiot of an electrician, he will come up with exactly the same circuit design that you did yourself, implement it, sign it off and a big FO to the planning inspector. The only neg is the beans you will have to shell out on the electrician.

Did you think of just finding a dodgy spark to sign off your own work?

Reply to
fred

"fred" wrote

The situation is slightly more complicated. As I started the work whilst the 16th edition was in force, I am completing the ring main and lighting in accordance with this. Engaging a Part P electrician requires that they work to the 17th, so a new RCD on the cooker circuit will be necessary. I consider CU and new enclosure work outside my comfort zone so another group member has kindly offered to do the necessary. The modifications to the cooker circuit are relatively minor, but it is the segregation of the design element I am obviously most interested in.

Phil

Reply to
TheScullster

In article , TheScullster writes

Gotcha, an additional complication but loads better than the solution you said the BCO had suggested. That makes it a result in my book so well done.

Reply to
fred

Circuits are of course designed to run at well above their rated currents for limited periods, it is only sustained overcurrent that would be a problem.

NT

Reply to
Tabby

Not a problem, you are welcome. And others offred moral support. I would do the same again if another posters was in the same situation and I am sure John would as well.

You must have the only council in England that has a Part P inspector. And he's a first class dick.

Reply to
ARWadsworth

Sounds like a college boy in a suit who went to a 4 day course but has not an ounce of nous and failed O-level physics.

Reply to
Tim Watts

FWIW a 2kW plugin oven might get you past the paperwork.

NT

Reply to
Tabby

Not a chance. The BCO said he wanted to see the appliances fitted when Phil first questioned him about diversity.

Reply to
ARWadsworth

"ARWadsworth" wrote

Actually this is one of the options that the BCO suggested - despite the fact that the guide book he was using (The Electrician's Guide to the Building Regulations) states that this option should only be considered on

*lightly loaded* circuits. Another problem was that the configuration and power rating (obviously) for plug-in ovens are also restricted.

Phil

Reply to
TheScullster

"fred" wrote

Thanks Fred - still feels a bit of a hollow victory - not that I'm BITTER

Phil

Reply to
TheScullster

Sadly a case of stupidity. But you'll feel ethically justified in not involving the bastards next time :-0

Reply to
Tim Watts

In article , Tim W writes

You appear to feel very strongly about this :-D

Reply to
fred

I would complain to the Local Gov Ombudsman, to teach them a lesson. You might well get your additional costs back in compensation.

Reply to
Bolted

Yep, otherwise they will continue in their misguided ways for evermore.

Can we please have a name and shame of this council?

Reply to
The Other Mike

I sense a lot of readers saying 'I bet that's the same bugger from my council' but actually they are all awful all over the country.

And yes, please complain to the Ombudsman and to your local Councillor. They are public servants and you and I pay them to do a job not to harass us and threaten us.

Tim W

Reply to
Tim W

: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

"My" BCO has been nothing but polite and helpful, if a little fond of tea and gassing on hours.

Reply to
Bolted

"Tim W" wrote

I am very tempted to name and shame, but feel it would be prudent to wait until I have the completion certificate in my hand before creating waves. The BCO guy has confirmed that he is satisfied with the first fix, but he still has to come back when the kitchen is complete. Firstly he has to check the test figures to make sure nothing looks amiss. Secondly I suspect, he will be checking that the lighting arrangement satisfies Part L - complied with by installing fluorescent under cabinet lighting. I'll be interested to see whether he comments on the cooking appliances and breaker capacity at that point!

Rather than complain to ombudsmen, I had considered sending the content of various emails to the Professional Electrician magazine to see if they would print it.

Phil

Reply to
TheScullster

"My" BCO has been nothing but polite and helpful, if a little fond of tea and gassing on hours.

Face-to-face my BCO was fine too. Can't fault his professional approach and amicable nature. Unfortunately this diposition counted for nothing when trying to resolve our "disagreement".

Phil

Reply to
TheScullster

I dont know what you mean, as far as I can see a plug-in 2kW job is perfectly regs compliant.

You only need the paperwork signed. What cooking arrangements you upgrade to later is another matter, for which you will of course make another application :)

NT

Reply to
Tabby

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.