ESB Pole

mirror mirror

there is an esb pole in my garden and i was wondering is it possible to get it moved ?

bassey

This has nothing to do wth ESB Customer Supply. You need to contact ESB Networks (http://www.esb.ie/esbnetworks/en/home/index.jsp) chances are if you want it moved you'll have to pay for it

Electric Ireland: David

Hi mirror mirror,

As bassey has indicated above, this would be an ESB Networks issue. Their full contact details are listed here, and you may also find the following link helpful:

- Charges, Policies and Procedures

Thanks,

David.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Generally there is a charge for moving a pole if it's not in the interests of ESB Networks to do so. However, they are very agreeable on such things. Talk to them.

Cookie_Monster

you could contact them and advise you are going to start charging rent on the space its taking up

bassey

Haha you might find the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 part 20 interesting reading

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/print.html

Basically for the distribution network they can put poles where ever they like if they have to go in

loremolis

Hi,

I've joined boards.ie to give advice on this so here goes.

Disregard the previous post's link to Secion 20 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act.

Sections 19 and 20 of the 1934 Electricity Supply Amendment Act No. 2 are possibly applicable here.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0019.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0020.html

The reason I say possibly is because I need more information to give a view on whether the pole will be moved free of charge or not.

If it is a single pole, is it a service to a nearby house or what are the particular circumstances of the line?

If it is a transmission line then you have more rights than you think. Given that you say pole singular, it's likely that it won't be moved free of charge unless it is preventing you from using your property in some way.

It's time to let people know their rights.

Any questions on ESB lines are more than welcome.

Davy

loremolis wrote: »

If it is a transmission line then you have more rights than you think.

Why so?

loremolis

Several reasons;

Transmission lines are passing through someone's land or property and while being necessary to the overall system are often of no direct benefit to the landowner.

With the de-regulation of the electricity market Esb and Eirgrid are now paid by wind farm operators and independent generators for the use of the transmission syatem. I'll get back to that in a sec.

For the (usually) single pole local distribution system, the service is in place for local electricity need. So it's a case of a pole in your garden serves you and possibly your neighbour and it doesn't normally interfere with your use of or "enjoyment" of your land or property. In cases where a single pole does interfere with the use of your property for example where you want to build an extension to your house, the ESB have to move the pole free of charge. In many cases the ESB will try to resist or charge for the alteration but that's just because they like to keep their profit margins high.
While the ESB don't like to make it easy for the landowner they will move the pole to another location.

For the transmission system, the lines are so large and of no direct benefit to the owner of the land they cross that they severly restrict the use of the land. For example where the landowner wants to plant trees or develop the land under or adjacent to transmission lines the ESB must remove the lines or pay the landowner compensation for an easement if the lines prevent or interfere with the owners use of the land.

I suppose that the common perception is that the electricity lines are there and the ESB won't move them. But behind all of the bluff by the ESB is the simple truth that the ESB legislation does not entitle the ESB prevent the landowner from the use of their land.

I'm sure that the above will raise more queries which I am happy to answer

loremolis

I've just noticed that ESB CS: David is a representative of the ESB.

Without being accused of bullying the ESB or David, can I ask ESB:CS David for his honest answer to this question:

When an electricity line is erected on land under a section 53 wayleave notice, what rights are acquired from the landowner?

I'll give odds that I won't get an honest and direct answer to that question, because the answer to that question answers half of the issues relating to peoples problems with electricity lines in this country.

Lets wait and see.....

Decoda

Just curious as to what happens if an ESB pole is erected on a site (bringing power from a line on the road via an overhead cable for a new build/house on the site) after a planning condition has been attached to the houses planning permission that all service cables be undergrounded on the site? Who is at fault? The landowner for having the overhead cable on his land or the ESB?

Thanks

DC

loremolis

If the overhead line is for the supply to the house then it's the landowners problem for not complying with a condition of the planning permisison.

If the cable is just passing throught the site then I don't think you have musch to worry about regarding the planning condition.

In any event, if you're happy with the overhead cable thendon't worry about it until the local authority makes an issue of it

Davy

loremolis wrote: »

For the transmission system, the lines are so large and of no direct benefit to the owner of the land they cross that they severly restrict the use of the land. For example where the landowner wants to plant trees or develop the land under or adjacent to transmission lines the ESB must remove the lines or pay the landowner compensation for an easement if the lines prevent or interfere with the owners use of the land.

Well without the transmission system their wouldn't be a distribution system so you cant say its not a benefit, but even putting that a side. The land owner would have agreed to the line being built at some stage, and would have got compensation for it, so not sure how he can get more compensation

loremolis

You say the landowner would have agreed to the line being built.
In most cases this in incorrect
The landowner would have been served with a wayleave notice which gave the Esb the right to enter onto the land to erect the line whether the landowner agreed or not
In return the Esb pays compensation. The trick here is compensation for what?
Compensation is paid to the landowner for their losses arising out of the works involved in erecting the line. These losses include damage to crops, loss of grazing and damage to the land. There is no compensation paid for any other losses such as loss of development or forestry rights as those rights are not acquired under a wayleave

In order to acquire the right to legally restrict the use of the land the Esb must acquire an easement

They only do this and pay compensation for it when the landowner intends to build or plant trees on the land

discostu1

I've just noticed that ESB CS: David is a representative of the ESB.

Without being accused of bullying the ESB or David, can I ask ESB:CS David for his honest answer to this question:

In fairness to David and to this page this is an ESB Customer Supply page and having read some of the previous posts, I dont think David or any of the ESB Customer Supply people who post here can answer the questions posted. All this seems to be ESB Networks I rang ESBCustomer Supply about having no power a while back and was told that this was an ESB NEtworks probLem that ESB was now two seperate companies and that I need to ring Networks. I would expect David and Co to point you at ESB Networks in essence for this matter you might as well email Airtricity or Bord Gais or contact say Airtricity about a gas pipeline running across your garden

loremolis

Fair point

However ESB CS and ESB Networks have the same boss and are run by the same Board.

The question still stands and if David feels that he cannot answer the question himself then he has far better access to an expert in this field than anyone else here.

It's a clear question, can anyone in the ESB advise on the subject in a clear and concise manner

I'll wait and see if David can acquire the information or says he cannot

discostu1

Hi Loremolis looking at earlier replies I'd say you'll get something like this
(This query refered to Voltage a Networks issue)
I would say that CER, Airtricity, and Bord Gais would take a very poor view of Supply staff being seen as having "increase access" to the Networks arm of the company, jsut as Airtricity and ESBCS would when they are sellng gas be conscious of Bge Supply staff not having additonal influence on their Network colleagues

From your post I understand that this is an ongoing matter. I would recommend that you contact ESB Networks and raise a voltage complaint. They will measure the voltage your receive. Your can contact them by email here or by telephone on 1850 372 757 (Monday - Saturday 8.00am - 8.00pm).

Many thanks
Chris

loremolis

Thanks discostu1, I think you are correct.

ESB Networks are worse than the Chinese government when it comes to releasing information.

They like to stick their heads in the sand when someone askes them a question that they don't want to answer.

If you do get an answer then it usually made of fudge and Bull$£!^

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

loremolis wrote: »

Fair point

However ESB CS and ESB Networks have the same boss and are run by the same Board.

The question still stands and if David feels that he cannot answer the question himself then he has far better access to an expert in this field than anyone else here.

It's a clear question, can anyone in the ESB advise on the subject in a clear and concise manner

I'll wait and see if David can acquire the information or says he cannot

Totally untrue and misleading. ESB Networks Ltd has it's own, and very seperate board.

ESB CS cannot access any information over and above any other supply company - or indeed any company or individual. If they did it would be a breach of the business seperation put in place by the CER.

Also compensation is only paid on 38kV double wood poles or higher. A single Mv/Lv wood pole does not qualify for any interference payment. The payments also only apply to arable land or forestry easement. Decoda is obviously referring to an Mv/Lv pole.

Decoda: The service will still be provided by an underground cable from the pole to the meter point.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

loremolis wrote: »

Thanks discostu1, I think you are correct.

ESB Networks are worse than the Chinese government when it comes to releasing information.

They like to stick their heads in the sand when someone askes them a question that they don't want to answer.

If you do get an answer then it usually made of fudge and Bull$£!^

Totally disagree and I think that they have always answered our queries promptly and truthfully - hence the bit I know about them.

You obviously have an axe to grind but generalisations like that are not helpful.

loremolis

Azalea Square Barge wrote: »

Totally untrue and misleading. ESB Networks Ltd has it's own, and very seperate board.

It's neither untrue or misleading.
There is only on Electricity Supply Board. There may be different managers but only one Electricity Supply Board and all of the "seperate" ESB companies have the same boss.
http://www.esb.ie/main/about-esb/esb-board.jsp

ESB CS cannot access any information over and above any other supply company - or indeed any company or individual. If they did it would be a breach of the business seperation put in place by the CER.

If you had read my previous post I had already acknowledged this point.

Also compensation is only paid on 38kV double wood poles or higher. A single Mv/Lv wood pole does not qualify for any interference payment. The payments also only apply to arable land or forestry easement. Decoda is obviously referring to an Mv/Lv pole

I never suggested that compensation or "interference payment" was automatically due or payable for a single wood pole. Unless an electricity pole is preventing the property owner from the use or enjoyment of their property the ESB will not move it free of charge. If a person wants to build an extension or develop their property in any way and an electricity pole is in the way then the ESB have to move it free of charge (or pay compensation).

The "mast interference" payments for double poles and pylons is a different type of situation. The payment is an acknowledgement by the ESB that double poles and pylons of various sizes interfere with the use of arable land and they pay a "mast interference" payment to the landowner depending on the number and size of poles/pylons.

There is no "mast interference" payment for forestry. Where forestry is prevented or impeded because of an electricity line, the ESB must purchase an easement over the land and compensate the landowner according to the value of the land sterilised. This is described here;
http://www.ifa.ie/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8r4-ZhcrG7s%3D&tabid=654&mid=2535

If the ESB pay the landowner "mast compensation" for the inconvenience of having the poles/pylons on the land and compensate landowners for loss of forestry on land at any time after the line is erected then the owner of any land crossed by any electricity lines can be compensated for any losses arising due to the presence of the line at any time after the line is erected.

The Electricity Acts do not differentiate between lines on single lv/mv wood poles and 400kv pylons. All lines are equal and compensation is payable for any losses arising from the interference caused by any electricity line, pole or pylon on any land where the ESB do not hold an easement. The ESB hold's no easement on 99.9% of the lines in the country.

loremolis

Totally disagree and I think that they have always answered our queries promptly and truthfully - hence the bit I know about them.

As a matter of interest, what queries have you asked them?

If the questions relate to "mast interference" payments then they will answer promptly and "truthfully" beacuse it suits them to give you a paltry €80 a year to keep you happy and not ask any hard questions.

It's when you ask them the hard questions that you start to see why they are like the Chinese government (no disrespect intended to the Chinese goverment).

You obviously have an axe to grind but generalisations like that are not helpful.

I have no axe to grind with the ESB. I like electricity, some of my favourite things run on it.

I speak from my own experience dealing with them. They think that beacuse the are providing the Country with electricity that they have a high moral ground when it comes to informing people of their rights.

If you don't believe me I can prove it to you.

If you are interested, I have two clear and concise questions which you can put to them in relation to electricity lines generally. Nothing specific, just questions asking them to clarify two points relating to electricity lines.

If you still think that I'm generalising after they respond to (notice I didn't say answer) the questions then I'll admit that the ESB are not like the Chinese government.

Interested?

toxof

loremolis wrote: »

If a person wants to build an extension or develop their property in any way and an electricity pole is in the way then the ESB have to move it free of charge (or pay compensation).

This is untrue.

If you want to develop your land ESB will advise you on where you can and can't build when you are in close proximity to a transmission line.

They do not have to move it for free or pay compensation. There are circumstances where they will.

loremolis

This is untrue.

If you want to develop your land ESB will advise you on where you can and can't build when you are in close proximity to a transmission line.

They do not have to move it for free or pay compensation. There are circumstances where they will.

toxof,
You have been mis-informed, it is true.

This will take a bit of explaining so bear with me;

The first thing to understand is the legal mechanism which permits ESB to erect an electricity line on privately owned land.

Under section 53 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act as amended, the ESB
serves a wayleave notice on the landowner which permits them to;

1. Enter onto the land.
2. Place (erect) the line.
3. Pay compensation for the damage caused during the works.
4. Re-enter the land after the line is erected to alter or maintain the line.
5. Pay compensation for the damage caused during the re-entry works.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0053.html
Section 53 wayleave notices are used for every line no matter the size or voltage.

Under a section 53 wayleave notice the ESB do not acquire any rights over the land or any legal interest in the land.

The placement of a line under a section 53 wayleave notice is not a compulsory acquisition of any sort. The line creates a burden on the land which is covered by "mast interference" payments described in an earlier post

If the ESB want to prevent or prohibit future building under the line then they must acquire an easement for the line which details the restricitons that they want to put in place.

They can acquire an easement with the agreement of the landowner by paying the landowner for the rights acquired or they can compulsorily acquire an easement under section 45 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act.

An easement is very different from a wayleave.

An easement is registered on the title of the land and details the restricitions associated with that line for anyone buying the land at any point in the future.

The ESB rarely acquire an easement for lines unless the line is interfering with building, forestry or development.

That is a summary of the statutory position.

The way the ESB do it is to adopt a "Code of Practice" or "Policy towards Landowners for Overhead Lines". They do this to distract from the clarity of the legislation.

Why don't you read Section 7 of the Policy and the "Loss of Development" section of the Code of Practice and let me know what you think.

http://www.oranmore110kvproject.ie/OranmoreContent%5C12.%20ESB%20Policy%20towards%20Landowners%20for%20Overhead%20Lines%5CESB%20Policy%20Torwards%20Landowners%20for%20Overhead%20lines.pdf

http://www.oranmore110kvproject.ie/OranmoreContent%5C12.%20ESB%20Policy%20towards%20Landowners%20for%20Overhead%20Lines%5CESB%20Policy%20Torwards%20Landowners%20for%20Overhead%20lines.pdf

This document, submitted to the DCENR on behalf of Eirgrid was prepared in reponse to a submission by landowners opposing the North South Interconnector.

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/08.12.19.ESBI%20Response%20to%20NEPP%20submission%20to%20DCENR%20Ecofys.pdf

Have a look at Section 3.4

Electric Ireland: David

loremolis wrote:

Without being accused of bullying the ESB or David, can I ask ESB:CS David for his honest answer to this question:

When an electricity line is erected on land under a section 53 wayleave notice, what rights are acquired from the landowner?

Hi loremlois,

I can only reiterate what has previously been said by other users in this thread, namely that, this being an ESB Networks' issue, I can only recommend you contact them directly with this query.

loremolis wrote:

... if David feels that he cannot answer the question himself then he has far better access to an expert in this field than anyone else here.

It's a clear question, can anyone in the ESB advise on the subject in a clear and concise manner

I'll wait and see if David can acquire the information or says he cannot

As I see you have acknowledged already, ESB Customer Supply do not have privileged access to information over and above that which is available to other competing electricity providers in the market. So my straightforward answer is that I cannot acquire the kind of information you are looking for.

I regret that I cannot be of more assistance in this case, but if you have any ESB Customer Supply related queries, I will be happy to help.

Thanks,

David.

loremolis

Hi David,

I appreciate your response an understand that the matter is not within your remit.


I note that toxof and srameen haven't made any comment on the information within my last post.

toxof/srameen,
Further to my last post, is what I'm saying still "untrue" and "misleading"?

Perhaps you should carefully read my last post before you rush in and dismiss it out of hand.

If either of you have any credible argument to prove what I'm saying is "untrue" or "misleading" then lets hear it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

loremolis wrote: »

Hi David,

I appreciate your response an understand that the matter is not within your remit.


I note that toxof and srameen haven't made any comment on the information within my last post.

toxof/srameen,
Further to my last post, is what I'm saying still "untrue" and "misleading"?

Perhaps you should carefully read my last post before you rush in and dismiss it out of hand.

If either of you have any credible argument to prove what I'm saying is "untrue" or "misleading" then lets hear it.

I stand by what I said. I KNOW how ESB Networks operates and when a line alteration will or will not be chargeable. I also know the wayleave, easement, and interference payments processes. No point discussion with you as you obviously have a chip that I'm not going to try and remove from your shoulder.

loremolis

Azalea Square Barge wrote: »

I stand by what I said. I KNOW how ESB Networks operates and when a line alteration will or will not be chargeable. I also know the wayleave, easement, and interference payments processes. No point discussion with you as you obviously have a chip that I'm not going to try and remove from your shoulder.

If I've come across as having some chip on my shoulder against the ESB then I apologise. When I compare the ESB to the Chinese Goverment it's not a personal attack on anyone. I know loads of people who work for the ESB and I don't have any axe to grind with them.

I have no axe to grind with the ESB. I like electricity, some of my favourite things run on it.

I'm only giving a humorous (and slightly biased) personal opinion, it shouldn't be taken too seriously.:)

I thought that this is a forum where people discuss, advise, give opinions and share information and facts on numerous matters.

If you do actually know the workings of wayleaves, easements, the mast interference process and the criteria for moving poles then I am genuinely interested in hearing your information, views and comments.

On the other hand, if your only counter argument to the comments and facts that I have posted is to simply state that the information is "untrue" and "misleading" then it's hard to believe that you actually do KNOW what you claim but you've just decided not to post anything else because it appears to you that I have a chip on my shoulder.

If your facts are correct then they will speak for themselves.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

loremolis wrote: »

I thought that this is a forum where people discuss, advise, give opinions and share information and facts on numerous matters..

This forum isn't, actually.

This is to talk directly to ESB Customer Supply (Electric Ireland) on specific issues.

AND I shall not let you goad me.

loremolis

Srameem

I didn't start this thread on this subject

If the forum is for ESB CS issues then the Moderator should have closed it because it didn't belong here.

I'm not goading you into anything.
If you KNOW everything about wayleaves, easements and ESB Networks then good for you.

However, unless you put it in writing then you are just full of sh1t.
Is that "untrue" or "misleading"?

If this forum doesn't suit then there is a thread in Legal Discussions called ESB Easements, Wayleaves, Poles and Pylons.


Why don't you try that forum, you might learn something about the subject.

Oops, was that another GOAD

If you want to go over there and say "untrue" or "misleading" about what I've posted then I'm sure you'll be more than welcome.

Why do I think that you work for the ESB and that you don't like what I've said because you know it's all true.

That would explain why you became so agitated at my comments and why you can't respond to my posts on easements and wayleave rights.

Until I hear any credible counter argument to the information in my posts they remain correct

RoundyMooney

loremolis wrote: »

If I've come across as having some chip on my shoulder against the ESB then I apologise. When I compare the ESB to the Chinese Goverment it's not a personal attack on anyone. I know loads of people who work for the ESB and I don't have any axe to grind with them.

Except when you call them "stooges".

loremolis wrote: »

I'm only giving a humorous...

I don't think Billy Connolly needs to worry just yet, somehow.

loremolis wrote: »

I thought that this is a forum where people discuss, advise, give opinions and share information and facts on numerous matters.

Actually this is a dedicated talk to forum for Electric Ireland/ESBCS. You've been told more than once that this discussion is not relevant here. I'd imagine this will be split off to a more suitable forum, in fact I'm going to flag it when I finish this reply.

loremolis wrote: »

If you do actually know the workings of wayleaves, easements, the mast interference process and the criteria for moving poles then I am genuinely interested in hearing your information, views and comments.

Azalea Square Barge says he does. I know I do.

I'd imagine you are interested, seeing as you've done nothing since you signed up here, bar try and pick holes in ESBs terms and conditions of supply. If you have a specific grievance, which you obviously do-I doubt railing at the sky whenever you see Networks paraphenalia (which is giving you the electrons to put forth your complaints in the first place), is a hobby of yours-then I'd suggest you start a thread elsewhere explaining your situation, and perhaps something can come of that. I have no intention of responding to your fishing here, seeing as you've already been asking the legal eagles online about it, you seem just the sort of chap who would try and use anything volunteered against someone who would help you if they could.

loremolis

Roundymooney

Have you read none of the previous posts?

I've already acknowledged that this is not the correct forum for this discussion.

It's incredible that you consider it worthwhile pick holes in the personal opinions expressed in my posts on the basis of my negative comments towards a statutory body and you ignore all of the factual argument that I made on the query raised in the OP

If you do KNOW everything about the subject then head on over to Legal Discussions and let's hear it

If not then maybe you should join the forum where everyone keeps these things a secret

RoundyMooney

I have read all of them. I've reported the thread, so we'll see if this discussion gets moved.

You're doing more than expressing a passing personal opinion here, this is something of a crusade (edit: in my opinion, sorry), and rather unique in my experience here. I'm not ignoring what you deem as fact, nor am I volunteering hypotheses as you seem to be, without declaring why you need to know all this.

I have no intention of getting involved in a discussion where case numbers are being thrown around like snuff at a wake, they don't pay me for that.

By the way, if all this were secret, I doubt you would be able to reference all the documentation that has come your way, nor would you have the opportunity to draw your own inferences from it.

Like I say, I am very curious as to your motivation here, if you won't get into specifics, you won't blame me, I'm sure for not doing so either.

loremolis wrote: »

Roundymooney

Have you read none of the previous posts?

I've already acknowledged that this is not the correct forum for this discussion.

It's incredible that you consider it worthwhile pick holes in the personal opinions expressed in my posts on the basis of my negative comments towards a statutory body and you ignore all of the factual argument that I made on the query raised in the OP

If you do KNOW everything about the subject then head on over to Legal Discussions and let's hear it

If not then maybe you should join the forum where everyone keeps these things a secret

jor el

I don't think this thread should be moved anywhere in it's current state, but it also doesn't belong here. Thread locked. If the OP still has questions, then he could probably try the Construction & Planning forum, or maybe somewhere more appropriate.