socket and light switch heights

The wider door only apply to the ground floor.

Reply to
IMM
Loading thread data ...

This is balls! There is no extra cost in locating light fittings and sockets at heights that are suitable for all, even disabled. Wider ground floor doors are brilliant for all and little, if any at all, extra cost. When the industry is geared up to it, not extra whatsoever.

All major kitchen applinaces should be on a switch central box, at wheelchair height, instead of those stupid fused spur switches all around the worktops. MEM do a v good one.

I don't want any more taxes thank you. We pay enough keeping the parasites (monarchy, large land owners, Oxbridge, etc, etc) in clover. The snotty uni fella and now this one want to tax the hell out of us all. Have one tax Land Value Tax (LVT) and be done with it.

Reply to
IMM

Nonsense. I have Part M sockets. No problems at all. Brilliant for all people.

Well introduce LVT and get rid of the 1947 T&C planning act. Very simple.

Reply to
IMM

He has not got a new built house, are you suggesting that if you have a rewire you need to meet current building regs?

Adam

Reply to
ARWadsworth

You're dead right there.

Once again you have missed the point.

I didn't say that there was a cost argument either way in having wiring accessories at different heights, or, since you mention it making doors wider.

My objection to this is that once again it is window dressing and humbug - the government trying to pretend that by legislating something like this, that it is really doing something important for people with special needs.

Almost everybody that I know who has limited mobility (and I know quite a few) is totally unimpressed with this kind of nonsense.

Yes, they do appreciate good access in public buildings but do not expect or want the rest of the community to alter what it has to accommodate them. They would much rather benefit from some of the new mobility technology that makes it possible to participate as closely as possible as anybody else and without feeling that things in general have had to be changed to suit them.

This approach costs money, of course, and is not particularly sexy and high profile. It's far easier for governments to legislate something than to provide funds to do the job properly.

Then you're supporting the wrong players.

The parasites are the multiple levels of non-productive management in the public services and specifically in socialised medicine.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Reply to
Andy Hall

So says the voice of Little Middle England.

Reply to
IMM

A form of local income tax would have been better.

My mother was the definitive person who should have benefitted from the poll tax versus rates. An elderly widow of small income living on her own in the house she'd owned for a lifetime. But the practice was she paid

*more* when it was introduced than she did in rates, which had a sophisticated rebate system.

This actually changed her from a lifetime Tory - she saw the poll tax for what it was, a way of reducing taxation on wealthy property owners and shifting it to the less well off and indeed downright poor.

Reply to
Dave Plowman

That's the bit I don't understand. Light switches maybe, but sockets? Are these visitors here to do house work or rearrange the stereo and TV?

Then this wouldn't be allowed either, probably. A friend of mine had a building notice knocked back when he wanted to combine the old kitchen/scullery/outside toilet into one large kitchen. Apparently, they won't allow him to remove the ground floor toilet, even if he has one upstairs. He now has a toilet cubicle in the corner of his kitchen.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

Thats illegal too, without a double door between it and the kitchen.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Not this time.

But what happens if you rewire a house that was built after the disabled regs were introduced? You can rewire a 1980's house with sockets and lightswitches at any height you like as there are no building regs applicable to their height when they were built. If you buy a house that was built today and rewire it can you put the switches and sockets where you like?

Adam

Reply to
ARWadsworth

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:29:12 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named The Natural Philosopher randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

They shouldn't have. See my earlier post as to the limitation of that particular requirement to new dwellings only.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

You are. I thought so to, and had to move the ***ing lot after the Inspector called.

Wheelchair access applies to one entrance on one storey and to get to one bog.

Electrical regs apply throughout. Presumably even in the loft. :-)

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

It never was required. It was however a common misreading of the regs.

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

This isn't in any 'Electrical regs' though.

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

I seem to remember the expression 'ventilated corridor' which to most would mean two doors with an extractor fan between them?

Reply to
Dave Plowman

So it doesn't apply to old dwellings even if they have one already? I thought that old dwellings weren't forced to comply, but if they happened to comply already they couldn't be altered not to.

I think this is a field that seems to have more to do with the opinions of the local building control department than anything.

In any case, my house, which had an identical layout to my friend's had their downstairs toilet removed before I bought it, so I'm happy. (I'd actually quite like a downstairs toilet, but the large kitchen is more important and I'll get a second toilet in the loft conversion when its done).

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

In any case, they did tests and proved that the overwhelming majority of food poisoning cases was due to a failure to wash hands. Airborne particles just weren't a problem.

Hence the rule changes that you now don't need two doors, but emphatically DO need a hand washing facility *before* you encounter the kitchen sink.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle
[snip]

There have been "definitive" answers both ways now - so which is it?

I have a house built in 1950. I am re-wiring it. Can I put the switches and sockets where I like, or do they have to be at the heights suggested in the latest wiring and building regs?

My preference is to stick with the existing heights, which are probably a bit too low for sockets and a bit too high for switches, according to the regulations.

And another question: let's say (for argument's sake) that I've already started re-wiring, and the new sockets (intentionally) don't match the height regulations. What happens?

cheers, David.

Reply to
David Robinson

Well building comntrol regs then.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

On 27 Aug 2003 05:16:15 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named snipped-for-privacy@postmaster.co.uk (David Robinson) randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

The guidelines to provide sockets, switches, etc at certain heights are contained in Approved Document 'M', which gives guidance on ways of complying with the requirements of Part M of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2000 (as amended). This particular Part specifically states "The requirements of this Part do not apply to - (a) a material alteration; (b) an extension to a dwelling, or any other extension which does not include a ground storey".

Under Regulation 4, if you are altering a building which doesn't comply (rather than changing its use), then there's no obligation to "improve" it. If the building was built before the requirements came into force (in this case 1999), then even if they happen to meet the current guidelines, the requirement can't be applied retrospectively.

In other words, there's no control over the height of your sockets or switches.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

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.