Wayleave relating to power cables either underground or attached to my property

roscampa

Hi all,

Have been checking out the Forums regarding the wayleave topic but all I've come across are those who have power lines above their properties, presumably on telegraph/pylon type poles/structures.

We are an older property so we carry a power line that services two of our neighbours, this line is underground down our driveway and garden until it attaches to the side of our property.  It then goes up the wall to just below 1st floor window level and is attached to our wall going all the way around our property until hitting the adjoining property (semi detached houses).  There's a feed from this cable to our meter/supply and likewise from the continuation of the cable to our neighbour then across an overhead cable between our neighbour and the next set of semi-detached houses, it then feeds that house.

I've queried our wayleave payment for housing this cable that not only feeds us but our neighbours also, Northern Power grid have been paying a wayleave of £2.30 per year to have their cables both under and attached around our property.  On querying this they've come back with suggesting there is a 30 year wayleave which attracts a one off payment to us of £230, if I sign it?  Looking at other forum queries, unless there is some difference between the cabling, this figure seems very low in comparison with others payments, based on their home valuations?

Am I missing something here, whereby there is some sort of difference between cables on telegraph poles and the ones attached to my house (which seem quite large/thick cables), or is Northern Powergrid trying to pull a fast one here.  They do say that the one off payment is ours even if we moved after their payment, and that a new agreement would need to be made/paid with the new owners (their risk apparently)?

I'm not sure who I could speak to with regard to this, except the power company, any advice at all from anyone in the know or who's experienced similar?

Dustyevsky

It's not clear from your post if the £230 one off payment has been offered instead of continuing at £2.30 per year. Is that the case?

As someone who has 11kV cables, poles, stays, and transformers on their property, I would consider the offer of £230 quite generous. It would take around 7 years to reach that figure on my annual payment. It also compares favourably with the measly £150 one off sum Openreach paid me for something closer to your setup.

roscampa

Thanks for your update, the £230 is a one-off payment instead of the £2.30 each year which they are currently paying, the £230 covers 30 years or for as long as we live there.

My issue, was that I've read about others having such lines that feed other properties (NOT just our own) on their property, being paid much higher sums based on a percentage of the value of their property (even in the thousands for a similar multi-year one-off payment).  This gives the company the right to come on our property, dig up our road, dig up our garden and I expect change/replace/modify the cables fixed to the walls of our house.

Other home owners have had £4000+ payments just for having a cable that is overhead, above their garden/house, suspended on pylons or wooden poles (one I read was for this sum based on a property value of around £90K!  

roscampa

Just in case it wasn't clear this is for mains power lines on my property, not for Telecommunications equipment (assuming such as Dustyevsky mentions OpenReach), which may be why the figures are different?

Chief_of_Staffy

It seems to me the situation can be simplified. Two quid a year or seven quid a year is such a small payment it's irrelevant. It's the same as saying you get nothing. Therefore, the choice is between having electrical cables defacing your house that aren't needed for your own supply, or not. If you don't want them, give them notice to reroute them. If you're OK with them, leave them.

Dustyevsky

roscampa said:

Just in case it wasn't clear this is for mains power lines on my property, not for Telecommunications equipment (assuming such as Dustyevsky mentions OpenReach), which may be why the figures are different?

 Your post is clear. Dusty mentioned the power lines first, and even gave you the amount of electricity they carry, which is way above that fed into domestic properties. That's why there are step-down transformers. 

The Openreach payment was just added for information, but it approximates more closely to what you have with electricity : i.e. an underground cable going to a pole and thence to 2 properties, neither of them ours.

And yes, Western Power (now National Grid) can come onto our land at any time, churn it up and leave ruts half a metre deep, if they so wish. That's what happened last time they changed the poles etc. in a very wet February. The only consolation was it got dark before they finished, and in the ensuing chaos, they left behind materials worth a considerable sum and didn't return to collect them!

Otherwise, it's been 30 something quid a year for the inconvenience and loss of productivity on the land affected. More modern agreements may be more lucrative. I can only give you my experience, which is what you asked for.

Dustyevsky

Chief_of_Staffy said:

It seems to me the situation can be simplified. Two quid a year or seven quid a year is such a small payment it's irrelevant. It's the same as saying you get nothing. Therefore, the choice is between having electrical cables defacing your house that aren't needed for your own supply, or not. If you don't want them, give them notice to reroute them. If you're OK with them, leave them.

The option of choice may not exist. Essential infrastructure is not usually re-routed on the whims of individuals, especially if there is an agreement in place. Power companies attempt liaison, and in my experience they're courteous, but when push comes to shove, they can wield considerable legal powers.

Chief_of_Staffy

Coincidentally I found last week that the house I'm buying has a powerline going across the far corner of the garden. Apparently the electricity company paid out £4,200 for 20 years (I think) in 2021 so I'll be hoping for a bit more. I guess that the reason for the difference in cost is that overhead power lines means you need to keep trees trimmed, and you can't build any large structures in your garden directly under the wires, whereas cables on the side of your house aren't especially restrictive, just ugly. I didn't even notice them when I viewed, they're so high up.

Dustyevsky

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Coincidentally I found last week that the house I'm buying has a powerline going across the far corner of the garden. Apparently the electricity company paid out £4,200 for 20 years (I think) in 2021 so I'll be hoping for a bit more. I guess that the reason for the difference in cost is that overhead power lines means you need to keep trees trimmed, and you can't build any large structures in your garden directly under the wires, whereas cables on the side of your house aren't especially restrictive, just ugly. I didn't even notice them when I viewed, they're so high up.

Tree trimming is the responsibility of the service provider, but I'd think you're correct about needing their consent for new structures near the lines. 

Here, the National Grid use a helicopter to survey for potential tree problems, roughly on a bi-annual basis. If they have concerns, a tree surgeon team visits and removes limbs, as appropriate. The guys we had a year ago were careful, asked what size of logs we wanted, and were happy to leave about a tonne of chippings in a convenient place. Not everyone will want those, of course, hence us receiving a full load.

Chief_of_Staffy

Dustyevsky said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Coincidentally I found last week that the house I'm buying has a powerline going across the far corner of the garden. Apparently the electricity company paid out £4,200 for 20 years (I think) in 2021 so I'll be hoping for a bit more. I guess that the reason for the difference in cost is that overhead power lines means you need to keep trees trimmed, and you can't build any large structures in your garden directly under the wires, whereas cables on the side of your house aren't especially restrictive, just ugly. I didn't even notice them when I viewed, they're so high up.

Tree trimming is the responsibility of the service provider, but I'd think you're correct about needing their consent for new structures near the lines. 

Here, the National Grid use a helicopter to survey for potential tree problems, roughly on a bi-annual basis. If they have concerns, a tree surgeon team visits and removes limbs, as appropriate. The guys we had a year ago were careful, asked what size of logs we wanted, and were happy to leave about a tonne of chippings in a convenient place. Not everyone will want those, of course, hence us receiving a full load.

That's even better then, if they'll trim the trees, as they're mainly under the lines. Save me a few quid.

secla

We received 2k a few years ago for power lines going over out garden BUT at the time they were inundated with people making claims (was the new thing solicitors were jumping on) so instead of calculating each persons individually they offered a fixed amount.

Usually its calculated on various factors including what equipment you have on your land and what kind of cables they are. For instance if you have a pylon and transformer on your property you would get more than someone with just cables running over.

The suggestion of asking them to move them wont work. They would just push it through court