Unwanted Laws - Part P

[Doctor Drivel]

My jacket well cut not straight. I have style. How is Little Middle England

[Hugo Nebula]

Kill off Part P, please. While we're at it, get rid of the requirement for replacement windows and the renovation of thermal elements to be notifiable work.

But can we please stop this myth that it was as a direct result of the death of Mary Wherry, daughter of MP Jenny Tonge. Part P had been contemplated and kicked into the long grass for years before, and (IIRC) it was being introduced before the death of Mary Wherry. Even if not, the guidance and procedure was certainly fleshed out ready for introduction. Whether her death gave it one last push I'm not sure.

[Owain]

I've heard something about using customer's details submitted for Building Regs notifications to sell service plans to householders ...

And of course there's

[fred]

Aka Data Miners PLC

[js.b1]

Actually correct, it was co-incidental, Part P was planned earlier. I recall SP Site Engineers in 2001 boasting "all this DIY is going to stop, you will have to use our people". Once irritated I duly showed them their previous botch job, somewhat embarrased they were there until the morning fixing it.

It still begs why "RCD everything" came about - only for a proposal now to remove the requirement on basis of risk assessment for minor works? It is a complete contradiction, the regs are going kneejerk forwards & kneejerk backwards. Lobbyism from registered members not wanting to payout for RCD spurs everywhere OR the badly worded original which some viewed as meaning you could not RCD spur a final circuit you were extending but had to RCD the final circuit (or CU). Thus snowballing a =A3100 job into a =A3800 CU change job. Obviously I guess which "risk assessment" will choose based on profitability requirements. Whereas =A33 buys a battery for the smoke alarm, =A310 buys a good smoke alarm.

So whilst Part P may have been planned earlier, there is a peculiar contradiction throughout the whole thing.

- You can not install a non prefabricated external socket to a wall (ie, buy as parts), because it may supply equipment across a garden. However you can plug in an extension lead to an internal house socket.

- You can not install a light with an outside junction box (external connection) nor one on a non-house attached wall, but you can install a light on an outside house wall.

I agree re FENSA & Thermal Element re walls, but not roof. That said I suspect many BCO do not like "roof" because of the conflict between severe BR insulation requirements and very old buildings, very limited loft space and so on. I recall walls have a "reasonably practicable clause" but roof does not.

I would much rather a "FENSA" based around appropriate glass in patio doors, anywhere children may fall out, glass creates quite horrific injuries (having gone through both top & bottom panes of a glass door due to doormat slipping).

[js.b1]

That should say...

I agree re FENSA & Thermal Element re walls, but suggestion of roof is interesting. I suspect many BCO do not like "roof" because of the conflict between severe BR insulation requirements and very old buildings, very limited loft space and so on. I recall walls have a "reasonably practicable clause" but roof does not.

[<me9]

^

You missed oout the r.

[Tim Watts]

Doctor Drivel wibbled on Friday 02 July 2010 19:38

Very nice. Went to a Police Station where they didn't have armoured glass and the bloke was helpful. Passed a copper smiling in the street (and he hadn't just done someone). Flowers everywhere.

How's Bethlem?

[Frank Erskine]

I don't keep calves, or any sort of cattle, in the house.

:-)

[John Rumm]

Yup I suspect you are right. I would prefer a return to the status quo prior to part P, however I accept that to not replace one bit of legislation with another must go against the politico mind set!

[John Rumm]

Perhaps... although:

Where there was the will to ditch HIPs, they went (sans the EPC bit)

Yup, I started reading through the amendment, but did not get that far. Was waiting for a summary to come along ;-)

[ARWadsworth]

I assume that you mean that the number of codes have been reduced from 4 to

3 and code 3 will say "Improvement recommended" even if the installation was correctly wired up to the 16th edition 2 years ago.

Adam

[mick]

And, no doubt, a subtle rearrangement or three of the form - just enough to mess up the computer software that I use to fill them in... :-(

[Doctor Drivel]

Fantastic. Superb what Blair and Brown did. Do you wear sensible shoes?

[Tim Watts]

Doctor Drivel wibbled on Saturday 03 July 2010 13:55

Docs. What do you wear? High heels or something?

I don't think B&B had anything to do with it though.

[Huge]

Blimey. Why? I've just done this, and to Hell with a building notice.

[Tim Watts]

Huge wibbled on Sunday 04 July 2010 22:25

Watch it of you'll have squadron leader dennis on your case...

:-#)

[Roger Chapman]

Surely it is worse than that. It is all or nothing. An extra 50 or 100mm would be verboten.

A fate worse than death. ;-)

[Huge]

Yep. And proud of it.

dennis has been killfiled here for a *very* long time.

[NT]

Do people want to moan about it and achieve nothing, or to achieve something? If the latter, a putting together a letter here would make a big difference. Perhaps someone that wrote one could post it, we acn go from there.

NT