Non-relocatable building

Post Reply
JamieP
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:08 am
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Non-relocatable building

Post by JamieP »

As per the Act "connectable installation, in relation to a vehicle, a relocatable building, or a
pleasure vessel, means an electrical installation of that vehicle, relocatable
building, or pleasure vessel that is designed or intended for, or capable of, con-
nection to an external power supply that operates at or above such voltage as is
prescribed for the purposes of this definition by regulations made under section
169; and includes any electrical appliance that is connected, or intended to be
connected, to any such installation"

If a building is supplied via a plug and socket arrangement but the building is built in a way that it is fixed to the ground it is installed at would it still be a connectable installation? Or does this not meet the definition because it isn't a "relocatable building"?
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Non-relocatable building

Post by AlecK »

We can also look to what "3001" says about scope;
eg that it excludes "Transportable structures, such as homes, huts, construction sheds and tents that are fixed in position."
But that's putting the cart before the horse; because a Standard only gets its authority from the way it's cited (or not) in law / regulation.
So this Scope statement really just means the Standard is not intended to be applied to fixed structures.

As far as Act & ESRs are concerned; there are 2 ways to set up the wiring in this hypothetical structure;
either as part of an "electrical installation" or as a "connectable installation".
Having chosen one of these pathways to compliance, you then follow the applicable requirements.
The choice happens before construction; as part of design.
So the real question is what basis the choice should be made on.

Yes there could be argument about the degree of relocatability; or what "fixed to ground" means.
As far as I know, there's no case law from the electrical side.
However the concept is pretty clear; and it's really about how the structure is intended to be used.
If there's an intention of moving the structure from site to site, then it ought to be set up as a connectable installation.
If no intention to relocate, then direct connection is the more appropriate choice
The form of connection to supply follows from that.

In my view; fixing to the ground amounts to declaring intention not to move.

On the structure side, the Building Act defines what is & is not a "building".
The current "tiny house" trend to have structures with wheels is often so they can be claimed as "moveable vehicles";
thereby avoiding compliance with the Building Code.
The choice to have a movable structure then requires a detachable electrical connection,
and then ESR 60 requires every "connectable installation" to comply with Part 2 and with "3001".

"3001" also sets additional requirements for the socket that the CI plugs into.
However it's doubtful those aspects can be enforced outside of the particular situations specified in ESR 60 (caravan parks, etc);
so they really are only guidance to how the socket should be set up.
JamieP
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:08 am
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Non-relocatable building

Post by JamieP »

Thanks Alec, just to understand, you say, if no intention to relocate fixed connection is a more appropriate connection and I agree but in this case a detachable connection is not for movement of the structure but other reasons

I am following correctly in saying that this is still outside the need to be wired to 3001 despite a socket outlet connection because the installation and the intent of the installation is to be fixed in place despite a detachable connection?
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Non-relocatable building

Post by AlecK »

I'm sure that if the structure is fixed to the ground, ESR 60 does not require compliance with "3001".
Also that as a non-caravan park, the socket is also not required to comply with "3001"; but it does of course have to comply with '3000"

Next question is whether supply via detachable connection ( lead & plug) to part of an installation is compliant.
Which then raises the question as to whether it's part of an installation .
Whole '3000 teats anything downstream of a socket as not part of the installation; we have to apply definition from Act.
The fittings in this structure fall within the wording:
"fittings beyond the point of supply that form part of a system that is used to convey electricity to a point of consumption".
Treating it a not part of an installation would appear to remove it from having to comply with "3000"; and having to be certified.
That doesn't seem to be within the intent of ESRs.
Also as a "building"; it would be subject to Building Code; which brings "3000" in for compliance of 'energy work'.

So I think a court would probably decide it is a 'part-installation" ; and then ESR 59 says it must comply with "3000".
And while we can have part-installations connected by appliance couplers; and we can use flex as fixed wiring; I don't think using lead & plug is compliant.

I struggle to think of a valid reason for not making a fixed connection.


--------------

I also failed to mention ESR 7; which modifies the definition slightly (excludes non-LV supplies).
JamieP
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:08 am
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Non-relocatable building

Post by JamieP »

Thank you, seems like an area not worth treading on

It was a post I saw from another, they had a customer who wanted to know if they could do an overhead supply via cat wire and incase they needed to get anything past in the future, enquired about a connection method that was detachable

It got me thinking about this situation in general, hence asking

I don't believe they are going down that route anymore though, once I informed them a height of 3m would be required for external cat wire and that they would have to be moving some large items for it to get in the way, I think they realized there initial plan, which must have been a much lower height would have been non-compliant so I think that eliminated the issue for them
Post Reply