I was viewing a house the other day to buy, and there was a
(relatively) new build, next door. The electrical supply for the next
door neighbour, had been taken from the electricity pole which was to
the rear of all the properties. This overhead electrical supply
cable therefore crossed over 2 back gardens before connecting to the
corner of the new build.

The back gardens were sloped downwards towards the back of the
houses. The house I viewed had a terraced garden. I noticed the
electric cable was only about 10 feet above the ground, 4 feet above
my head. I could hang my washing on it!

And I wondered a couple of things.

1. Could the occupiers of the house for sale have objected to the
cable crossing through their airspace, would this give them any sort
of veto on the route of the cable?

2. Could they have objected because the cable was about 10 feet above
the ground? Would the objection stand up?

3. Is there any legal minimum height for these cables to be at? What
is it? and if 10 feet is too low, could I insist the cable height was
raised?

"freepo" wrote in message
...
I was viewing a house the other day to buy, and there was a
(relatively) new build, next door. The electrical supply for the next
door neighbour, had been taken from the electricity pole which was to
the rear of all the properties. This overhead electrical supply
cable therefore crossed over 2 back gardens before connecting to the
corner of the new build.

The back gardens were sloped downwards towards the back of the
houses. The house I viewed had a terraced garden. I noticed the
electric cable was only about 10 feet above the ground, 4 feet above
my head. I could hang my washing on it!

And I wondered a couple of things.

1. Could the occupiers of the house for sale have objected to the
cable crossing through their airspace, would this give them any sort
of veto on the route of the cable?

2. Could they have objected because the cable was about 10 feet above
the ground? Would the objection stand up?

3. Is there any legal minimum height for these cables to be at? What
is it? and if 10 feet is too low, could I insist the cable height was
raised?


If it's uninsulated then it used to be around 17' or 18'. If it's insulated
then there is no minimum provided it is safe from damage and is not going to
cause injury (I presume that since you said "cable" and its to a new build
it must be insulated). If there is vehicular "access" such as tractors or
cars on a private drive then I think there used to be a recommended minimum.
On slopes the distance also applies at angle of 45deg to the conductor.
I do not know what the current regs are. (were the Electricity Supply Regs
1988?)

Even if 10' is legal there must be civil law issues/rights - try the forum
at gardenlaw.co.uk

Peter K

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:00:36 -0000, PeterK wrote:

If there is vehicular "access" such as tractors or cars on a private
drive then I think there used to be a recommended minimum.

I was looking at this the other day. Low Bridges etc must have signage if
they are below 5m. I found a few council references for minimum heights of
cables above road ways varied from no lower than 5.1m to recomended to be
above 6m. Over pavements/walk ways it's much lower but can't remember that
figure.
Even if 10' is legal there must be civil law issues/rights - try the
forum at gardenlaw.co.uk

Way leaves come into it for a cable crossing a third parties property.
This should all be detailed be in the deeds...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Way leaves come into it for a cable crossing a third parties property.
This should all be detailed be in the deeds...

--
Cheers
Dave.

I challenged BT on 'way leaves' when they took a new cable across my
garden to the neighbouring property, and was told that they had legal
right to do this without recourse to anything, ie deeds. etc. As this
cable is even less than 10' up I am interested in what is being said
here as I have on a couple of occasions caught it with timbers being
moved.

I do appreciate that a phone cable does not present anything in the
way of the hazard that a mains cable does but it does represent an
intrusion and a minor inconvenience.

Of course the irony of this is that my overhead mains distribution
comes across the same neighbour's garden but at least 20' up.

Rob

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:33:03 -0800 (PST), Rob G wrote:

I challenged BT on 'way leaves' when they took a new cable across my
garden to the neighbouring property, and was told that they had legal
right to do this without recourse to anything,

I'm not convinced they do if the service the cable is providing is not for
you or to your property.

I have on a couple of occasions caught it with timbers being moved.

Maybe you ought to catch it a bit harder and more often... Mind you Drop
Wire No.10 is damn tough stuff.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:00:36 -0000, PeterK wrote:

If there is vehicular "access" such as tractors or cars on a private
drive then I think there used to be a recommended minimum.

I was looking at this the other day. Low Bridges etc must have signage if
they are below 5m. I found a few council references for minimum heights of
cables above road ways varied from no lower than 5.1m to recomended to be
above 6m. Over pavements/walk ways it's much lower but can't remember that
figure.
Even if 10' is legal there must be civil law issues/rights - try the
forum at gardenlaw.co.uk

Way leaves come into it for a cable crossing a third parties property.
This should all be detailed be in the deeds...

What if the cables came after the deeds?

Dave

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:33:03 -0800 (PST), Rob G wrote:

I challenged BT on 'way leaves' when they took a new cable across my
garden to the neighbouring property, and was told that they had legal
right to do this without recourse to anything,

I'm not convinced they do if the service the cable is providing is not for
you or to your property.

I have on a couple of occasions caught it with timbers being moved.

Maybe you ought to catch it a bit harder and more often... Mind you Drop
Wire No.10 is damn tough stuff.

Nothing a tipper lorry with a raised back can't handle, I can assure
you..they were decent enough to pay the BT bill to reconnect though.

Its unusual to run an overhead to a new build though.

I NEARLY undergrounded mine..but it was across the road.. I have my very
own pole!

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:11:59 +0000, Dave wrote:

What if the cables came after the deeds?

Permission should have been asked and the legal nicities completed if
permission was granted. Without the way leave in the deeds it doesn't
exist, ergo the right for the cable to be there doesn't exist.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

SNIP


I NEARLY undergrounded mine..but it was across the road.. I have my
very
own pole!

Did he dig the trench ? G

AWEM

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:44:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be freepo
wrote this:-

The back gardens were sloped downwards towards the back of the
houses. The house I viewed had a terraced garden. I noticed the
electric cable was only about 10 feet above the ground, 4 feet above
my head. I could hang my washing on it!

BS7671 doesn't apply to supplier's works, but it is a guide.
Assuming there is no vehicular traffic a cable should be at least
3.5m above the ground.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:33:03 -0800 (PST), Rob G wrote:

I challenged BT on 'way leaves' when they took a new cable across my
garden to the neighbouring property, and was told that they had legal
right to do this without recourse to anything,

I'm not convinced they do if the service the cable is providing is not for
you or to your property.

I have on a couple of occasions caught it with timbers being moved.

Maybe you ought to catch it a bit harder and more often... Mind you Drop
Wire No.10 is damn tough stuff.

Nothing a tipper lorry with a raised back can't handle,


No!, in fact one took a railway bridge down some years ago early in the
morning and a passing express assisted in making it a bigger wreck;!...

--
Tony Sayer

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its unusual to run an overhead to a new build though.


Surely, in areas such as the Fens, where overhead cables are the norm,
it is *completely normal* to run an overhead supply to a new build.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:17:56 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
wrote this:-

Nothing a tipper lorry with a raised back can't handle,

No!, in fact one took a railway bridge down some years ago early in the
morning and a passing express assisted in making it a bigger wreck;!...

Oyne?
http://www.railcar.co.uk/features/accidents/120Pitcaple1978.htm

There was a far more serious train crash in the Irish Republic after
a lorry driver had damaged a bridge. Unlike in cartoons, real trains
don't jump gaps very well, instead they end up in a heap.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its unusual to run an overhead to a new build though.


Surely, in areas such as the Fens, where overhead cables are the norm,
it is *completely normal* to run an overhead supply to a new build.

when you have to do groundwork, its nothing to run a trench for ducting.

No one really likes overheads..prone to damage and lightning strike.


My guess is that in this case teh ducting would have had to run across
several properties.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:42:20 +0000, Bruce wrote:

Its unusual to run an overhead to a new build though.


Surely, in areas such as the Fens, where overhead cables are the norm,
it is *completely normal* to run an overhead supply to a new build.

Not these days. New services are underground unless there is very good
reason to have them overhead. Cost of digging trenches is not a good
reason.

--
Cheers
Dave.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its unusual to run an overhead to a new build though.


Surely, in areas such as the Fens, where overhead cables are the norm,
it is *completely normal* to run an overhead supply to a new build.

when you have to do groundwork, its nothing to run a trench for ducting.


You should visit the Fens someday.

In article , David Hansen
scribeth thus
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:17:56 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
wrote this:-

Nothing a tipper lorry with a raised back can't handle,

No!, in fact one took a railway bridge down some years ago early in the
morning and a passing express assisted in making it a bigger wreck;!...

Oyne?
http://www.railcar.co.uk/features/accidents/120Pitcaple1978.htm

There was a far more serious train crash in the Irish Republic after
a lorry driver had damaged a bridge. Unlike in cartoons, real trains
don't jump gaps very well, instead they end up in a heap.





Barrow upon Soar .. early last year!...

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/wid...soar&submit=Go
--
Tony Sayer

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its unusual to run an overhead to a new build though.

Surely, in areas such as the Fens, where overhead cables are the norm,
it is *completely normal* to run an overhead supply to a new build.

when you have to do groundwork, its nothing to run a trench for ducting.


You should visit the Fens someday.

I lived there for 15 years.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its unusual to run an overhead to a new build though.

Surely, in areas such as the Fens, where overhead cables are the norm,
it is *completely normal* to run an overhead supply to a new build.

when you have to do groundwork, its nothing to run a trench for ducting.


You should visit the Fens someday.

I lived there for 15 years.


That explains quite a lot.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:44:28 -0800 (PST), freepo wrote:

I was viewing a house the other day to buy, and there was a
(relatively) new build, next door. The electrical supply for the next
door neighbour, had been taken from the electricity pole which was to
the rear of all the properties. This overhead electrical supply
cable therefore crossed over 2 back gardens before connecting to the
corner of the new build.

The back gardens were sloped downwards towards the back of the
houses. The house I viewed had a terraced garden. I noticed the
electric cable was only about 10 feet above the ground, 4 feet above
my head. I could hang my washing on it!

Got long arms, have we?

And I wondered a couple of things.

1. Could the occupiers of the house for sale have objected to the
cable crossing through their airspace, would this give them any sort
of veto on the route of the cable?

The position/route of the cable will probably be covered by wayleave.

2. Could they have objected because the cable was about 10 feet above
the ground? Would the objection stand up?

Is there any possibility that the 'new build' is on land that was once part
of the property you looked at? If so, I would think the owners of the
property for sale would have been perfectly happy to give any necessary
consents....

3. Is there any legal minimum height for these cables to be at? What
is it? and if 10 feet is too low, could I insist the cable height was
raised?

The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 define the
standards.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/uksi_20022665_en.pdf

I'll give you a clue, they will be insulated.

Anything else you've read in this thread is largely irrelevant.


--
The Wanderer

Most organizations are like Russian dolls
- each has another inside.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:53:28 +0000 (GMT), Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:11:59 +0000, Dave wrote:

What if the cables came after the deeds?

Permission should have been asked and the legal nicities completed if
permission was granted. Without the way leave in the deeds it doesn't
exist, ergo the right for the cable to be there doesn't exist.

Nice idea, but it doesn't always work quite that way, and the company can
always apply for a necessary wayleave anyway.

--
The Wanderer

Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool
Than to open it and remove all doubt (Mark Twain)

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:04:30 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

What if the cables came after the deeds?

Permission should have been asked and the legal nicities completed if
permission was granted. Without the way leave in the deeds it doesn't
exist, ergo the right for the cable to be there doesn't exist.

Nice idea, but it doesn't always work quite that way,

Ture enough but lawyers have to feed their families as well...

and the company can always apply for a necessary wayleave anyway.

They can apply but if permission is not granted they still don't get the
way leave. There will no doubt be occasions where some companies can push
through the application but the circumstances would have to be such that
alternative routing was more or less impossible.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:59:10 +0000 (GMT), Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:04:30 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

What if the cables came after the deeds?

Permission should have been asked and the legal nicities completed if
permission was granted. Without the way leave in the deeds it doesn't
exist, ergo the right for the cable to be there doesn't exist.

Nice idea, but it doesn't always work quite that way,

Ture enough but lawyers have to feed their families as well...

The companies always relied on a latin maxim that I can't remember, but
that translated more or less as 'everything was done as it should have been
done'.

and the company can always apply for a necessary wayleave anyway.

They can apply but if permission is not granted they still don't get the
way leave. There will no doubt be occasions where some companies can push
through the application but the circumstances would have to be such that
alternative routing was more or less impossible.

The feedback I have from ex-colleagues still in the industry is that these
days 'Authority' takes a presumption in favour of necessary wayleaves,
where as the presumption was always against the predecessor, compulsory
wayleaves.

Having said all of that, back in my day, when the industry was
nationalised, we tried to be as helpful and accomodating as possible,
especially when it came to 'enjoyment of gardens'. The attitude of the
householder did, however, have a significant bearing......

Nowadays, the emphasis is on the bottom line of the balance sheet; you can
have whatever you like as long as you're prepared to pay.


--
The Wanderer

It pays to buy things you dislike. They last much longer.