Planning permission - permissible height of overhead electrical supply cable

[freepo]

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?

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

2. 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?

[PeterK]

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

[Dave Liquorice]

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.

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

[Rob G]

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

[Dave Liquorice]

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

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

[Dave]

What if the cables came after the deeds?

Dave

[The Natural Philosopher]

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!

[Dave Liquorice]

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.

[Andrew Mawson]

Did he dig the trench ?

AWEM

[David Hansen]

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

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.

[tony sayer]

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;!...

[Bruce]

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.

[David Hansen]

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

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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

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.

[Dave Liquorice]

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.

[Bruce]

You should visit the Fens someday.

[tony sayer]

In article , David Hansen scribeth thus

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

[The Natural Philosopher]

I lived there for 15 years.

[Bruce]

That explains quite a lot.

[The Wanderer]

Got long arms, have we?

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

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....

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

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

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