Heights (renovation)

[NozSpark]

I can't beleive you did that Patch!

 

[Apache]

I can't beleive you did that Patch!

what?

O)

 

[NozSpark]

Like you don't know

 

[Lurch]

They don;t make music like they used to.

 

[green-hornet]

They don;t make music like they used to.

Now your showing your age

 

[Lurch]

Now your showing your age

I don;t think I'm old enough for that. The 90's weren;t that long ago!

 

[PBC_1966]

Just another stupid requirement that I tend to ignore as it is a rule that was brought in for people who aren't likely to be in most of the jobs I do so completely pointless. Another overly Pc rule because everyone is too afraid to upset a minority rather than listen to the majority.

My sentiments exactly. I am very much against the government interfering in things which are none of its business. As far as I'm concerned, I should be able to install my sockets, purchased with my money, in my house, at whatever height I please. The same goes for other nonsense about "energy saving" lights and the rest of it. So long as what I am doing does not endanger anybody else, it's none of the local authority's business.

While I agree with you here, it does concern me slightly that you 'ignore' part of the building regs. After all they are law. I guess that is just badly worded?

Well, the actual law says only that "Reasonable provision shall be made for people to: (a) gain access to; and (B) use the building and its facilities."

The 450 - 1200mm "requirement" is merely a suggestion in the guidance notes in the Approved Document for Part M, which the document itself acknowledges is not legally binding.

This is one of the big problems I have with building inspectors trying to enforce the things in the approved documents as if they're absolute, mandatory requirements.

If the person who actually owns the home he is building has a reason for wanting his sockets at 10 inches or his switches at 60 inches, then I'd argue that fitting them at such heights is "reasonable provision" for him.