Thanks for posting this thread.
It sounds like the situation we had here 3-4 years ago.
With regards to Part L:
Increased levels of insulation, which may well affect cable selection.
Remember that GenCalc program that I tendered to you guys not that long ago?, that will calculate the derating required to comply under a situation of Fibreglass insulation.
Provision of energy meters to facilitate the understanding of energy consumption and to thereby encourage energy saving.
So will this mean the installation of things like the "Smart-Meter" like I did link to a while back, will be used?
Who exactly is going to pay for that?.
Provision of more efficient luminaires. Such luminaires should have an efficacy greater than 40 lumens per circuit watt and should be provided in the locations where the most use can be expected.
To my experience, the only lighting sources that fit that bill are Fluorescent, Metal-Halide and Sodium Lamps, which sort of goes against this:
Provision of power factor correction if appropriate.
Most houses, as far as I'm aware have a near on Unity PF anyway, most of the largest loads are resistive (Oven, Dryer, etc).
If you like to run all of your lights all day, all the time and you have a lot of them, by all means, get PF Correction, you'll need it!. [Linked Image]
As a note I have no worries at all with the Part M requirements, I have a friend of mine that keeps complaining to me (he is in a chair after he fell from a falling pole, that too few things are done for people in wheelchairs.
this is suggesting that standards might be applied retrospectively to buildings.
That in itself would be blatantly un-fair.
Common Law states: That a law applied in retro-spect, where it does harm people, and in-fact does not help them, shall not be called a law at all.
That was from 1896, I can give a reference if it is required.
We all heard about the fire at B/Ham Palace, I just cannot believe at all that this sort of thing would go un-insured and I agree with your comments of "let the Tax-payer foot the bill".
While a certain amount of the damage would have been water and smoke damage, why on earth were these treasures not stored in somewhere like the National Archives building?.
More secure and a better chance of surviving a fire.

{Message edited to fix a spelling error}

[This message has been edited by Trumpy (edited 07-08-2005).]