Height of electrical sockets

Vertical

For handicapped accessibility reasons I hear that electrical sockets need to be mounted a minimum of 450mm above the finished floor. There is a max height for light switches too. Sockets at this height look ugly, two questions:

1. Are these regulations being followed in new housing?

2. Is it necessary to do the same upstairs? (I believe the reasoning behind the regulations is that even though the resident may not be handicapped, a handicapped visitor may need to have access to sockets (fair enough downstairs), but a handicapped visitor is unlikely to stay in an upstairs bedroom.)

muffler

I dont think there are any statutory regs in relation to this matter taken in the context of a normal new build. However if the house was designed specifically for someone with disabilities to live in permanently then yes there are fixed/recommended heights.

The only requirement at the moment is Part M of the building regs which dictates the works necessary for visitation and WC access only for people with disabilities

Kashkai

I queried this with the sparks when he was wiring my new house as I thought the plugs were too high and the light switches in particular were too low. He said it was in the building regs for people with disabilities and he had to place them at that height. I don't like having the light switches at that height although having the plugs higher will help with keeping cables out of sight behind the TV and off the floor to help when hoovering.

Personally, I think its political correctness gone way over the top. I believe that its up to the individual to decide if he/she wants to make his/her house disabled friendly. Besides, I've two steps leading up to my porch and there was no mention in the planning permission of me having to install a ramp to get a wheelchair up and into the house. Kinda makes a nonsense of a diasbled friendly house inside when they can't even acess the house.

Oh and I've nothing against disabled individuals. I just hate big brother telling me where I have to place my light switches.:mad:

construct06

the higher the sockets the better. Forget about how they look, they will blend into their surroundings after a while.

Big advantage to hiher sockets is in time when u get old, u will not have to put ur back out bending down to turn something on/off at the socket...

muffler

Prosperous Dave wrote:

Besides, I've two steps leading up to my porch and there was no mention in the planning permission of me having to install a ramp to get a wheelchair up and into the house.

You are legally obliged since 2003 to have a ramp. It has nothing to do with planning permission no more than if you had not shown the height of sockets etc. These things are not normally shown on "planning issue" drawings in any event but your architect should have ensured that all these matters were dealt with on the working drawings and subsequently carried out at construction stage

Gumbo

all sockets, light switches, any controls etc etc need to be placed approx
900mm-1200mm above the finished floor level.

that would be good practice and really its up to you what exact height between them that suits you.

Mellor

kceire wrote:

all sockets, light switches, any controls etc etc need to be placed approx
900mm-1200mm above the finished floor level.

that would be good practice and really its up to you what exact height between them that suits you.

Sockets do not n3ed to be 900mm-1200mm off the ground, that is far too high.
Light switches and sockets should go at different heights.

Prosperous Dave wrote:

I queried this with the sparks when he was wiring my new house as I thought the plugs were too high and the light switches in particular were too low. He said it was in the building regs for people with disabilities and he had to place them at that height.

your sparks was mistaken, as muffler pointed out the regs only deal with access for visitors. all houses are built to this standard (or should be)

switch and scoket height, door handles and plates & opening weight etc are only used in houses that are built fully assessible. this is not a requirment of the regs, this is done for houses that are being built for a specific disabled person, or sometimes where a number of social or affordable houses are being built, the CoCo will arrange it so that a number of them will be built to this standard

muffler

1000 post count - well done Mellor

Kashkai

muffler wrote:

You are legally obliged since 2003 to have a ramp. It has nothing to do with planning permission no more than if you had not shown the height of sockets etc. These things are not normally shown on "planning issue" drawings in any event but your architect should have ensured that all these matters were dealt with on the working drawings and subsequently carried out at construction stage

It was pointed out to me by the builder that a ramp should be put in place but if thats the case, how come of the many showhouses I've been dragged to by the wife, not one had a ramp??????

Besides, when my builder pointed out that the slope on the ramp was something like a fall of 1:10, I told him to forget it as I've spent enough money trying to get this house looking right without having a ridiculous looking ski slope stretching 10feet down from my front door.

Like I said previously, political correctness gone mad. Have to go now, Big Brother is at the door again. I've probably not installed the CFC bulbs and wind turbine like he wanted:rolleyes:

smashey

Prosperous Dave wrote:

It was pointed out to me by the builder that a ramp should be put in place but if thats the case, how come of the many showhouses I've been dragged to by the wife, not one had a ramp??????

Besides, when my builder pointed out that the slope on the ramp was something like a fall of 1:10, I told him to forget it as I've spent enough money trying to get this house looking right without having a ridiculous looking ski slope stretching 10feet down from my front door.

Like I said previously, political correctness gone mad. Have to go now, Big Brother is at the door again. I've probably not installed the CFC bulbs and wind turbine like he wanted:rolleyes:

Dave,

Calm down. Muffler only pointed out the regulations.

Kashkai

smashey wrote:

Dave,

Calm down. Muffler only pointed out the regulations.

I am calm Smashey.

I'm just being my usual cynical, sarcastic self when it comes to Government dictating what I can or cannot do with my own home, built with my own money and lived in by my own family.

I work in the Silly Service and up until 4 months ago, the token diasabled staff employed by my Department had to phone colleagues to go round and open the only side entrance that had a wheelchair accessible ramp (they've recently installed a new ramp to the new main entrance - better late than never I suppose). Now if the Government can't put in place proper facilities at public buildings for their own wheelchair bound staff (incl. removing swing doors so wheelchairs can go through, placing sockets and lightswitches at more accessible heights etc), then they have a bloody cheek demanding that homeowners like myself install them in our houses.

Finally, no offence meant WHATSOEVER to any disabled person or indeed to Muffler from my previous posts.

David

smashey

Point taken. However, this thread is about the height of electrical sockets and from here on, please remain on topic.

muffler

Prosperous Dave wrote:

how come of the many showhouses I've been dragged to by the wife, not one had a ramp??????

How come loads of people leave the pubs after 8 or 10 pints and get into cars and drive? If they are not caught it still does'nt mean that they haven't broken the law. Detection is the key.

muffler

Prosperous Dave wrote:

Now if the Government can't put in place proper facilities at public buildings for their own wheelchair bound staff (incl. removing swing doors so wheelchairs can go through, placing sockets and lightswitches at more accessible heights etc), then they have a bloody cheek demanding that homeowners like myself install them in our houses.

You need to re-read my original reply and Mellor's as this is not the case at all for the individual private house

As smashey said lets get back on topic here again.

De_man

For those looking for the height of electrical socket / switches click on the following link, whilst it covers the UK, the requirements are the same under Irish Part M (section 1.29)


http://www.niceic.org.uk/downloads/Pocket%20Guide%207.pdf

RainyDay

Links to the Irish Part M regulations and Technical Guidance Document can be found on Dept Environment website on Building Regulations. If you want to see best practices around accessibility, read the NDA's Building for Everyone. If you want to know why Prosperous Dave's house is not wheelchair accessible, read the NDA's review showing the very inconsistent enforcement of the Part M regulations.

Any half-decent architect or designer will know that 'universal design' accomodates a lot more than people with disabilities. A ramped or level entrance will be very helpful to the stressed mum manoevering a heavy double-buggy, and the delivery guy struggling with your new couch, as well as a wheelchair user. Correctly positioned light switches will make things easier for older kids, and short people. Correctly designed light switches will be easily operated with a push of the back of the hand or the elbow - ideal for when your hands are laden down with keys/mobiles/handbags/briefcases etc. Universal design enables for all.

Dave - Is it just the Part M regulations (for people with disabilities) that get up your nose, or is it all the regulations? Are you seeking the right to build a firetrap likely to collapse in the first gust of wind, if that's what you want. Is it 'PC gone mad' to expect that your house is solid and safe, as well as accessible? FYI, there will be a draft of the new Part M regulations released for public consultation by Dept Environment sometime this summer, so you can submit your opinions into the formal consultation process then.

While I know that no offence was intended, use of terms like 'wheelchair bound', 'handicapped' and 'token employee' may well cause plenty of offence to some people. I recall a thread from Boards wheelchair user FrankNFurter some time back about how being described as 'wheelchair bound' made him feel, and it wasn't pretty.

galwaytt

Prosperous Dave wrote:

... how come of the many showhouses I've been dragged to by the wife, not one had a ramp??????

You don't have to have a ramp. You have to have suitable access. If you can achieve this w/out a ramp, all well and good.

AFAIK, wheelchair users don't like the herculaean effort involved in using a lot of the ramps out there, either........

muffler

galwaytt wrote:

You don't have to have a ramp.

Correct. Just use a lift (elevator) instead.

Time you briefed yourself on the regs

Mellor

galwaytt wrote:

You don't have to have a ramp. You have to have suitable access. If you can achieve this w/out a ramp, all well and good.

AFAIK, wheelchair users don't like the herculaean effort involved in using a lot of the ramps out there, either........

I think he may be refering to houses with level acces, as opposed to ramped access.
It is ok if the path or driveway comes up to the level on the finished floor (or within 20mm)

But stepped access isn't allowed. As for "herculaean effort involved in using a lot of the ramps",
this shouldn't happen as more than a just ramp is need to comply, the slope of the ramp should be no less than 1/20.
it can be reduced to 1/12 in cases where 1/20 isn't possible, but level landings have to be more often. there a a number of design conditions relating to the ramp area

robbie1876

I was recently in checking out a friend's new apartment on the 4th or 5th floor of a building. The sockets halfway up the wall look particularly ghastly when there is just a floor lamp attached. Nothing like a cable draped down a wall to take the look of a minimilast pad.

If a disabled person lives in this 4th floor flat and the lift is broken, what then? Is this not more serious than the height of the sockets? And if there's a fire, the lift can't be used as an escape route as we know. It is highly unlikely that a disabled person would choose to live in this particular flat, bearing in mind the safety issues. The electrical sockets regulations are pointless in this flat.

Mellor

the height of electrical sockets isn't included in the building regs. so they are not pointless, they dont exist.
it is included in best practice manuals such as NDA's Building for Everyone.

a lift can be used as am escape route if it is properly protected, or it is a fire fighting lift. part B of the building regs deals with escape in case of fire, and all stairwells have to accomadate wheelchair user with a refuge on every floor.

RainyDay

robbie1876 wrote:

I was recently in checking out a friend's new apartment on the 4th or 5th floor of a building. The sockets halfway up the wall look particularly ghastly when there is just a floor lamp attached. Nothing like a cable draped down a wall to take the look of a minimilast pad.

If a disabled person lives in this 4th floor flat and the lift is broken, what then? Is this not more serious than the height of the sockets? And if there's a fire, the lift can't be used as an escape route as we know. It is highly unlikely that a disabled person would choose to live in this particular flat, bearing in mind the safety issues. The electrical sockets regulations are pointless in this flat.

You seem to be assuming that all people with disabilities are wheelchair users. This of course is not true. There are people with limited or no vision, limited or no hearing, limited mobility (but not wheelchair users), people with limited dexterity, people with limited power, people with learning disabilities etc. Disability isn't all about wheelchair users.

As pointed out above, there is nothing in the current Part M Technical Guidance Documents about heights of sockets, so your ire is misdirected.

I have to say that I do think the complaints about positioning of sockets and switches is being exaggerated. It's just different to what we are used to. It's not better or worse in looks, just different. When you or a member of your family becomes one of the 8.3% (Census 2002) Irish people with a disability, you may be quite pleased that the Part M regulations were in place and ensured that you don't need to move house at a time when you find your income is restricted.

Mellor - I think you are referring to an evacuation lift, rather than a fire fighting lift. A fire fighting lift is intended for use by fire fighters, not by evacuees. But an evacuation lift (with its own seperate power supplies) is the ideal solution to evacuation for all.

Mellor

RainyDay wrote:

Mellor - I think you are referring to an evacuation lift, rather than a fire fighting lift. A fire fighting lift is intended for use by fire fighters, not by evacuees. But an evacuation lift (with its own seperate power supplies) is the ideal solution to evacuation for all.

I was refering to both.

properly protected, or it is a fire fighting lift

By properly protected I meant an evacuation lift, as you said for use for evacuees. And a fire fighting lift is only used by fire fighters, and they can assist people (such as disabled people) in evacuation by bringing them down in lift. I know I was unclear in my post, I was trying to highlight the fact that there are no reasons tht people with disabilitys should live/work on upper stories.

galwaytt

muffler wrote:

Correct. Just use a lift (elevator) instead.

Time you briefed yourself on the regs

What's with the smart-arsed comment ? :mad:

My post is correct, and no you don't need a ramp, nor a lift. If the building is wheelchair accesible without either of those, you meet the requirements.

Remember, and whilst not espousing to be an expert, I have just read the following from the relevant DoE issued document referred to by another post here:
"however, the adoption of an approach other than that outlined in the guidance is not precluded provided that the relevant requirements of the Regulations are complied with."

I will draw your attention to two words in the above paragraph - "guidance", and "provided"...............Part M is not a regulation, it's a suggested mechanism to allow compliance with the requirements for access, and
"provided", in other words the goal is to meet the access requirement, not to lay down you you may do it.

The Stautory instrument which makes access a legal requirement states quite clearly " Adequate provision shall be made to enable people with disabilities to safely and independently access and use a building."

My comment therefore, still stands, and is supported by the official text.

muffler

galwaytt, you have now briefed yourself on the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations and you will now tell us how a disabled person can gain access to a house without a ramp or lift.

For the record Part M is a regulation

If you are not familiar with these regulations then dont pretend to be

Mellor

I think you have taken the text the wrong way galwaytt.

"If the building is wheelchair accesible without either of those, you meet the requirements"

I posted on the last page that a building that has a floor level at the same level as external ground then obviously a ramp is not only not needed. but rather hard to install. This would apply to alot of commercial shops, such as those on main street (think of o'connel street)

But it is probably fair to say that in a new house with a new drive, if you build it so that FL and GL are the same, then the whole driveway is esentially a ramped approach. Thre regs doesn't demand a ramp, it requires level access, a ramp (on its own, or a whole ramped driveway) is normally the way to achieve this.

And sorry galwaytt, but you misunderstood the DoE text you quoted, part M is 100% a regulation. But your not alone, very few people can tell the difference between Part M and TGD M, or any other apart before that too. One is a regulatulation, the other is a guidence document. And the DoE were refering to TGD M, not part M.

galwaytt

muffler wrote:

galwaytt, you have now briefed yourself on the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations and you will now tell us how a disabled person can gain access to a house without a ramp or lift.

...well, if you care to read Mellor's post, you will see that ffl and gl can be the same. Then the provision is met

For the record Part M is a regulation
If you are not familiar with these regulations then dont pretend to be

...I will now invite you to at least read my post before commenting blindly. I expressly said I was NOT an expert.

Your blind pursuit would now lend credence to you not being one, either......

muffler

galwaytt wrote:

...well, if you care to read Mellor's post, you will see that ffl and gl can be the same. Then the provision is met


...I will now invite you to at least read my post before commenting blindly. I expressly said I was NOT an expert.

Your blind pursuit would now lend credence to you not being one, either......

I can do without this type of behaviour on a Monday or any other day of the week for that matter. galwaytt you are off for a weeks holidays for both attacking the poster and not the post and continually dragging the thread off topic.

Read the boards charter.

muffler

Right guys. I was prepared to tolerate the thread being dragged a wee bit off topic as there was strong connections between what was being posted and the OP's original query but in light of the above it seems that this is going nowhere and I'm certainly not going to be accused of bias.

I'm locking this now but if anyone feels that Part M should have a thread of its own then by all means start one