New telegraph pole installed, would like it moved - please help!

Section62

35har1old said:

Section62 said:

35har1old said:

goonergaz70 said:

 

Is that a underground telephone supply box adjacent to base of pole ?
If it is that's why the pole is there.

The pole doesn't have to be immediately adjacent to the chamber. (hence the work instruction giving a 2m allowance in this case)

Moving it 2m would put it very close to the driveway of the house with the blue bin which has not be altered like the adjacent house making way for a second car entry it would stop that household doing the same.
Also the excavation then would be in a tarmac footpath opposed to a grass verge. Pole hole and a track 1.5m in tarmac plus grass verge to box. Which then would involve a guarantee period.
Moving it in the other direction is likely not possible due to underground cables or ducting going to box
Pole should have been erected at back of footpath

Locating the pole at the rear of the footway would have reduced the width of the footway, the 'verge' is a better place for it so long as the horizontal clearance from the carriageway is sufficient.

It is easy to second guess why the contractor has done what they have done (or not done), but since none of us are endowed with x-ray vision we can't see what other plant and equipment is present that the contractor had to avoid.

The point I made was that the pole doesn't necessarily have to be immediately adjacent to the chamber, as your previous post implied.  The contractor simply needed to find a suitable location near to the 'X' on the plan.

Eldi_Dos

One of the main reasons for the prefered placement of poles adjacent to the wall is they are less prone to vehicle strikes in that position,but as has been said other services have a influence on position.

turnitround

I live opposite a medical/day care center which was only built after I moved into this house. The center has only 4 parking spaces and it causes endless problems. My house is also less than 100 yards from a set of traffic lights.

Consequently all day long cars are parked on the kerb outside my house. It has double yellows part of the way but blue badge holders park on those. My husband is disabled and needs a mobility scooter to leave the house but almost every time he needs to go out I have to go to the center and ask if they can get the owner of car reg whatever to move as there is not enough room to get his scooter out of the gate because the cars are so close to our gate.
 
Just 3 weeks ago a lady on a mobility scooter had to go into the road as there were 3 cars in a row blocking the footpath and a car turned left into our road from the lights and hit her.  Those who think its acceptable to use the kerb as a parking space have no idea how it makes life difficult for others.

diystarter7

35har1old said:

Section62 said:

35har1old said:

goonergaz70 said:

 

Is that a underground telephone supply box adjacent to base of pole ?
If it is that's why the pole is there.

The pole doesn't have to be immediately adjacent to the chamber. (hence the work instruction giving a 2m allowance in this case)

Moving it 2m would put it very close to the driveway of the house with the blue bin which has not be altered like the adjacent house making way for a second car entry it would stop that household doing the same.
Also the excavation then would be in a tarmac footpath opposed to a grass verge. Pole hole and a track 1.5m in tarmac plus grass verge to box. Which then would involve a guarantee period.
Moving it in the other direction is likely not possible due to underground cables or ducting going to box
Pole should have been erected at back of footpath

Hi

Best idea on the long thread.
Out of the way and less likley people having to adjust car position to open door etc but I'm sure someone will find a problem with a great and easy  solution like this.

IMO, placing a T/pole up against a wall should be the default mode unless it was not feasible due to massive extra costs 

Thnak you

Section62

diystarter7 said:

35har1old said:

Pole should have been erected at back of footpath

Hi

Best idea on the long thread.
Out of the way and less likley people having to adjust car position to open door etc but I'm sure someone will find a problem with a great and easy  solution like this.

IMO, placing a T/pole up against a wall should be the default mode unless it was not feasible due to massive extra costs 

Thnak you

So you actually think it would be a good idea to partially obstruct a relatively narrow footway with a big wooden post and have to excavate through hard surfacing, rather than placing it in the soft verge which people don't need to walk on, and shouldn't be parking on?

Even 35har1old noted the disadvantage of a situation in which the "excavation then would be in a tarmac footpath opposed to a grass verge", albeit they went on to contradict themselves by proposing a solution which requires just that.

diystarter7

turnitround said:

I live opposite a medical/day care center which was only built after I moved into this house. The center has only 4 parking spaces and it causes endless problems. My house is also less than 100 yards from a set of traffic lights.

Consequently all day long cars are parked on the kerb outside my house. It has double yellows part of the way but blue badge holders park on those. My husband is disabled and needs a mobility scooter to leave the house but almost every time he needs to go out I have to go to the center and ask if they can get the owner of car reg whatever to move as there is not enough room to get his scooter out of the gate because the cars are so close to our gate.
 
Just 3 weeks ago a lady on a mobility scooter had to go into the road as there were 3 cars in a row blocking the footpath and a car turned left into our road from the lights and hit her.  Those who think its acceptable to use the kerb as a parking space have no idea how it makes life difficult for others.

Hi

What action have you taken to reduce the incidences of this antisocial and dangerous behaviour?

You may not want to and why should you but have you considered putting signup telling people to keep access clear?

Judging by what you have said and your hubbys disability, I am staggered that your useless council has not taken decisive action.

Where we live, about half a mile from a station, dow the road as you get close to the station, people with drives often used to have cars encroaching on their drives but the council and their CEO are hot on ticketing cars and now its rare for anyone to not block but even slightly encroach someones drive.


Good luck

35har1old

Section62 said:

diystarter7 said:

35har1old said:

Pole should have been erected at back of footpath

Hi

Best idea on the long thread.
Out of the way and less likley people having to adjust car position to open door etc but I'm sure someone will find a problem with a great and easy  solution like this.

IMO, placing a T/pole up against a wall should be the default mode unless it was not feasible due to massive extra costs 

Thnak you

So you actually think it would be a good idea to partially obstruct a relatively narrow footway with a big wooden post and have to excavate through hard surfacing, rather than placing it in the soft verge which people don't need to walk on, and shouldn't be parking on?

Even 35har1old noted the disadvantage of a situation in which the "excavation then would be in a tarmac footpath opposed to a grass verge", albeit they went on to contradict themselves by proposing a solution which requires just that.

i was only trying to explain why it would not have been placed in the footpath due to gaining permits for excavation and then having to guarantee reinstatement for at least a year and if it fails inspection the year begins again. And  the correct position off most above ground utility apparatus is to the rear of footpath. It should have been sited on the boundary between the two houses as per  See Issue 2 Section 5.0 from the web address below

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/692124/Revised_Cabi

'The big wooden pole' would be roughly 300mm in diameter is small in comparison to a car parked fully on the grass verge / footpath in photo supplied by the person who first posted the issue.

Hope there's not to many home delivers from supermarkets in this area. It could be quite expensive for the supermarket due to losing  wing mirrors.  

Update the link above must be incomplete as it does not function

 

35har1old

Section62 said:

35har1old said:

Section62 said:

35har1old said:

goonergaz70 said:

 

Is that a underground telephone supply box adjacent to base of pole ?
If it is that's why the pole is there.

The pole doesn't have to be immediately adjacent to the chamber. (hence the work instruction giving a 2m allowance in this case)

Moving it 2m would put it very close to the driveway of the house with the blue bin which has not be altered like the adjacent house making way for a second car entry it would stop that household doing the same.
Also the excavation then would be in a tarmac footpath opposed to a grass verge. Pole hole and a track 1.5m in tarmac plus grass verge to box. Which then would involve a guarantee period.
Moving it in the other direction is likely not possible due to underground cables or ducting going to box
Pole should have been erected at back of footpath

Locating the pole at the rear of the footway would have reduced the width of the footway, the 'verge' is a better place for it so long as the horizontal clearance from the carriageway is sufficient.

It is easy to second guess why the contractor has done what they have done (or not done), but since none of us are endowed with x-ray vision we can't see what other plant and equipment is present that the contractor had to avoid.

The point I made was that the pole doesn't necessarily have to be immediately adjacent to the chamber, as your previous post implied.  The contractor simply needed to find a suitable location near to the 'X' on the plan.

Having over 20 years of experience in excavation the ruts you can see beyond the box would indicate to me that was down to the track taking the duct to the box as it was a grass verge it was never compacted until vehicles started to park on it. The pole position would also indicate that there is no further ducting beyond the box it may have crossed the road at this point.

The contractor would also have utility drawings of the area and have used a Cat & Genny to scan area for other services he would also have lifted the lid of box to see the entry and exit locations as well as depth of duct.

The x likely would have been already marked before team arrived by there supervisor. As they had to lay duct to the box the simple solution was to place pole adjacent

Section62

35har1old said:

i was only trying to explain why it would not have been placed in the footpath due to gaining permits for excavation and then having to guarantee reinstatement for at least a year and if it fails inspection the year begins again. And  the correct position off most above ground utility apparatus is to the rear of footpath. It should have been sited on the boundary between the two houses as per  See Issue 2 Section 5.0 from the web address below

 

The point was that putting the pole at the back of the footway involves a similar amount of excavation in hard surface as putting it near the edge of the carriageway closer to the camera position in the OP's picture.

On the one hand you were saying that it was a bad idea to have to dig up the hard surface, on the other hand you were saying the best idea was to dig up the hard surface to put the pole at the back of the footway.

In a situation like this one, where a grass strip was originally provided as a place for services to be installed, the ideal would be for the pole to go into the grass strip, so long as there was sufficient clearance from the carriageway, and that the pole was clear of any existing services.

Second guessing the contractors and saying they are wrong for not putting the pole at the rear of the footway doesn't make sense, when utilising a service strip designed for the purpose is the norm, and the digging is easier.  I'm actually agreeing with you that digging the footway up is not the best option if that can be avoided.

35har1old said:

Section62 said:

Locating the pole at the rear of the footway would have reduced the width of the footway, the 'verge' is a better place for it so long as the horizontal clearance from the carriageway is sufficient.

It is easy to second guess why the contractor has done what they have done (or not done), but since none of us are endowed with x-ray vision we can't see what other plant and equipment is present that the contractor had to avoid.

The point I made was that the pole doesn't necessarily have to be immediately adjacent to the chamber, as your previous post implied.  The contractor simply needed to find a suitable location near to the 'X' on the plan.

Having over 20 years of experience in excavation the ruts you can see beyond the box would indicate to me that was down to the track taking the duct to the box as it was a grass verge it was never compacted until vehicles started to park on it. The pole position would also indicate that there is no further ducting beyond the box it may have crossed the road at this point.

Having roughly the same years of experience in highway and public space management, I'd say that rutting like that is possible wherever vehicles are habitually driven over a verge or footway. In the case of a verge, the slightest rut allows rainwater to drain into it which tends to make that area softer than the surrounding ground.  The softer ground is less able to support the static and dynamic loads from vehicles so the rut deepens.  This cycle repeats until, as can be seen in the picture, puddles form with very soft ground below them.  Vehicles driving in and out of the ruts/puddles also carry material away on their tyres (as can also be seen in the picture) leading to deepening of the rut/puddle.  A further mechanism is that a rut can cause vehicle wheels to track into the same position as it drives along the verge/footway, concentrating the damage along one line.

It is possible that the BT/Openreach duct wasn't backfilled and compacted properly as you suggest, but without knowing how long ago it was installed it is impossible to say that was the cause rather than something else such as the typical verge/footway rutting mechanisms above.  If the duct was installed at the same time the development was built then it is unlikely that poor compaction is a factor, as the passage of time would have been plenty enough for the natural compaction/consolidation process to occur.

To get back to the OP's point, the pole is probably in the best possible place in the circumstances.  If the traffic authority had a footway parking scheme in place they might have requested the pole be placed where it allowed two vehicles to park between the adjacent crossovers - but they would then be liable to pay BT/Openreach for the additional costs involved in moving other plant to suit.

From a grounds maintenance perspective the pole is in the ideal location at the end of the verge, as if it were green grass rather than mud then it would be easier to cut the grass up to the pole at one end, rather than the mower having to work around the pole.

As with almost all utility plant, the best position is a compromise between many factors.  Declaring the contractor got it wrong without knowing everything that went into the decision making process is unfair to the people who were doing the job.

ProDave

You probably can't put the pole anywhere else apart from the edge of the path like that.

There are set positions in a pavement where each utility runs. It is done like that so the water man does not accidentally dig up the gas pipe etc.

So to put the pole at the house side of the path would mean drilling the hole for the post in someone elses allocated space, and crossing several other utilities.  Just not going to happen.