ESB Wayleaves, Easements, Pylons and Lines

loremolis

I'm looking for some old documentation relating to ESB wayleaves, or easements in respect of high voltage electricity lines erected in the 1950's, 60's, 70's or 80's.

My particular area of interest is what rights are acquired by the ESB under a wayleave notice.

I know that the ESB have "policies" and a "code of practice" where their lines interfere with the development of land, but these are non-statutory and the ESB are a statutory body and must abide by their statute.

My belief is that the ESB have adopted policies and code's of practice with the IFA to avoid the real statutory provisions.

dermot_sheehan

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0053.html#sec53

loremolis

Thanks, but I know that section off by heart at this stage.

My query relates to the wayleave notices that were used pre 1985 before Mrs. Gormley won her case in the Supreme Court and any other relevant material.

The whole ESB wayleave/landowners rights/IFA code of practice setup that the ESB (and Eirgrid) are using to con landowners when they want to erect lines is one giant smoke and mirrors trick.

People who oppose power lines get so heated about the possible negative health effects that they forget that they own the land and the ESB is simply a statutory body acting under statute.

Why does a statutory body carrying out a statutory function have an non-statutory code of practice "agreement" with the IFA which landonwer and the ESB are to abide by. Another smoke and mirrors trick to keep people looking away from the statutory provisions under the Electricity Acts.

It's akin to a local authority refusing planning permission under the planning acts and having a code of practice whereby people can get planning permisson by another system.

The problem is that there is no case law for what happens after the electricity lines are erected.

Anyone got some?

Victor

loremolis wrote: »

Why does a statutory body carrying out a statutory function have an non-statutory code of practice "agreement" with the IFA which landonwer and the ESB are to abide by.

I don't know the details, but many such agreements exist, e.g. the IFA have one with the NRA about road projects and getting early access to land for ground and archaeological investigations. It gives both sides a certain benchmark to work from, the NRA gets access and the farmer gets cash and certain limits to behaviour. It cuts out unnecessary arguments and litigation and allows the NRA avoid ground that is unsuited for road construction, thereby cutting overall cost.

The problem is that there is no case law for what happens after the electricity lines are erected.

Wasn't there a case about a farmer operating a quarry on his land being unable to get insurance because of overhead power lines? I can only assume the ESB won. I have no case reference.

loremolis

I agree with your example and understand that where the NRA & IFA have an informal agreement it can suit boths sides in the majority of cases.
However, there is a clear statutory compulsory acquisiton procedure for the NRA to fall back on if the landowner does not wish to co-operate under an informal agreement.

Everyone knows that the NRA or Local Authority have a clearly defined set of compulsory purchase powers and that the landowner has the right to arbitration if he/she feels that they are not getting a fair deal.

Where the ESB make a planning application for an electricity line they include copies of the code of practice/policy agreement they have with the IFA. There is no mention of the statutory position or the statutory ghts of the landowner once the line is erected.

If you check any planning application made by the ESB to any planning authority or to An Bord Pleanala for a high voltage line the only reference made is to the code of practice.

One statutory body (ESB) applying to another statutory body (the planning authority) for permission to carry out a statutory process (building electricity lines) and the only evidence given is the informal non-statutory IFA code of practice.

Am I missing something?

loremolis

Also, if you (or anyone) has more information on the quarry case you mentioned I would appreciate it

Any other ESB legal info would also be appreciated

dermot_sheehan

The Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act 1985 was passed after ESB v. Gormley (which held the previous procedure under s. 53 an unconstitutional attack on property rights that an offer of ex gratia compensation could not remedy

it deals with arbitration when wayleaves are compulsorily acquired by the ESB under s. 53
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1985/en/act/pub/0006/sec0001.html#sec1

It states that the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 apply to such an arbitration and compulsory acquisitions.

This is the same mechanism used by local authorities when compulsory purchasing land or Irish Rail or the RPA acquires land for railways or tramways, or the NRA acquiring land for roads etc.

Under this mechanism a property arbitrator is appointed to assess the value of the property compulsory acquired.

Also see ESB v. Harrington http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2002/35.html

loremolis

Dermot,

Thanks, I'm up to date on those too.

The Gormly and Harrington cases deal with compensation arising when the line is placed on the land. The placing of an electricity line isn't really a compulsory acquisiton of any rights other than the right to enter onto the lands , to erect the line and to access in the future for altering or maintaining the line.

Under this mechanism a property arbitrator is appointed to assess the value of the property compulsory acquired.

No property is acquired. Thats the advantage of a wayleave as opposed to an easement. A wayleave is the right to place the service, not to acquire any rights.

It's not a compulsory acquisition in the normal NRA sense. The ESB acquires no legal interest in or rights over the land other than access.

What the Arbitrator in an ESB claim assesses is the loss of crops, loss of grazing, physical damage to the land arising over the period of time it takes the ESB to carry out the works. It's relatively small money and thats why very few go to arbitration.

The difficulty arises after the line is erected when/if the lands become capable of development. The ESB suggest in their "Code of Practice" that if the lands are to be developed that they will alter or divert the line or pay compensation.

However, like any statutory body, when it comes to putting their hand in their pocket to sort out a "loss of development" problem they refuse. The " Code of Practice" goes out the window because it's an informal non-statutory document and the statute kicks in.

The problem is that there is no case law for this "loss of development2 situation. One can only be guided by the ESB legislation which leave a lot of loop holes to jump through.

Basically, when the line is erected , the ESB acquire no rights, easement or legal interest in the land other than a right of access for alteration or maintainance of the line.

If building development is proposed then the landowner is obliged to give 2 months notice to the ESB. The legislation indicating what the ESB must do in circumstances where building are proposed under electricity lines is in the links below.

The problem is that they do nothing and make the landowner force the issue.

It's kind of like the part of the film (movie) Fight Club where Ed Norton explains the factors and calculations involved in a car firm considereing a fault recall. If the total cost of settling the claims arising from the accidents is less than the cost of the recall them they don't recall.

With the ESB it's a case of; if the cost of abiding by the Electricity Supply legislation is greater than the legal costs and damages involved in defending the small number of cases made against them then they do nothing.

You clearly have some legal experience, have a look at these and tell me what you think of the ESB's statutory poisition with respect to building under electricity lines.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0020.html#sec20
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0019.html#sec19

Victor

Note: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/isbc/1934.html refers to S.I. No. 280 of 2008.

loremolis wrote: »

The Gormly and Harrington cases deal with compensation arising when the line is placed on the land. The placing of an electricity line isn't really a compulsory acquisiton of any rights other than the right to enter onto the lands , to erect the line and to access in the future for altering or maintaining the line.

No property is acquired. Thats the advantage of a wayleave as opposed to an easement. A wayleave is the right to place the service, not to acquire any rights.

You are slightly understating things there. The two halves of "A wayleave is the right to place the service, not to acquire any rights." directly conflict.

It's not a compulsory acquisition in the normal NRA sense. The ESB acquires no legal interest in or rights over the land other than access.

They obtain a right to build, operate, maintain, access and to sanitise a corridor and keep it clear.

What the Arbitrator in an ESB claim assesses is the loss of crops, loss of grazing, physical damage to the land arising over the period of time it takes the ESB to carry out the works. It's relatively small money and thats why very few go to arbitration.

The difficulty arises after the line is erected when/if the lands become capable of development. The ESB suggest in their "Code of Practice" that if the lands are to be developed that they will alter or divert the line or pay compensation.

However, like any statutory body, when it comes to putting their hand in their pocket to sort out a "loss of development" problem they refuse. The " Code of Practice" goes out the window because it's an informal non-statutory document and the statute kicks in.

You need to appreciate that property rights in the constitution are tempered by the common good. It is the common good that everyone has access to electricity if they want it. This is a double-edged sword for land owners - they have to give access for lines across their lands, but also gain from lines being across other people's lands.

The problem is that there is no case law for this "loss of development2 situation. One can only be guided by the ESB legislation which leave a lot of loop holes to jump through.

Mixed metaphors - do you mean "jump to hoops" or "loop holes"?

Basically, when the line is erected , the ESB acquire no rights, easement or legal interest in the land other than a right of access for alteration or maintainance of the line.

If building development is proposed then the landowner is obliged to give 2 months notice to the ESB. The legislation indicating what the ESB must do in circumstances where building are proposed under electricity lines is in the links below.

The problem is that they do nothing and make the landowner force the issue.

It's kind of like the part of the film (movie) Fight Club where Ed Norton explains the factors and calculations involved in a car firm considereing a fault recall. If the total cost of settling the claims arising from the accidents is less than the cost of the recall them they don't recall.

With the ESB it's a case of; if the cost of abiding by the Electricity Supply legislation is greater than the legal costs and damages involved in defending the small number of cases made against them then they do nothing.

You clearly have some legal experience, have a look at these and tell me what you think of the ESB's statutory poisition with respect to building under electricity lines.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0020.html#sec20
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0019.html#sec19

Most councils won't let you build under or near medium / high voltage power line in their development plans, so development issues don't arise. Adjusting low voltage power lines usually isn't a major issue. There is no absolute right to development of land and most legislation points to an 'existing use' method of compensation, ignoring development potential. The courts don't seem to object to this.

The (non-statutory) code of practice says: http://www.ifa.ie/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=P0F1PmQxt9I%3d&tabid=654&mid=2535

Introduction

This Code of Practice, drawn up between the Electricity Supply Board and the Irish Farmers’ Association is intended as guidelines for the various activities associated with the survey, construction and maintenance of overhead lines for voltages of 110kV and above, and sets out schedules of compensation which are payable to landowners in certain circumstances.

The agreement does not supplant or derogate from the Boardís [sic] statutory rights and duties as laid down in the Electricity Supply Acts. The agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual agreement. It shall remain in force pending any negotiations on any revisions of the agreement or its schedules. The ESB undertakes to inform all landowners concerned of this Code of Practice and to provide a copy to each landowner on request.

Any indication that they will abide by the code of practice also means they reserve the rights to use their statutory powers. Maybe the IFA didn't get the deal you want.

loremolis

Victor,

Thanks for your reply.

I can see that I'm going to have to be more precise in the way I present the information.

Please consider the following;

Note: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/isbc/1934.html refers to S.I. No. 280 of 2008.

I'm not sure what you are indicating with the link. Can you clarify?

You are slightly understating things there. The two halves of "A wayleave is the right to place the service, not to acquire any rights." directly conflict.

I would like to expand on that sentence as follows;

"A wayleave is the right to place the service, not to acquire any legal interest or beneficial rights over the land".

They obtain a right to build, operate, maintain, access and to sanitise a corridor and keep it clear.

They are statutorily entitled to access, place, operate, alter and maintain the line but they are not statutorily entitled to sanatise a corridor, keep it clear or prevent forestry or building without an easement.

Do we need to clarify the differences between a wayleave and a legal easement?:)

In support of my point I refer you to the following extracts from the Supreme Court Judgement in ESB V Gormley.

"Section 53 of the Act of 1927 Act as amended must be interpreted as granting to the Plaintiff a power to compulsorily impose a burdensome right over land.
That is in the instant case the right to place below and above the right of the Defendant three large structures connected by wires carrying electricity; to keep them there permanently, if necessary, and to enter the lands from time to time for the purpose of repairing and maintaining them.
The results of the exercise of that power, are, firstly, that the use of the land for agriculture is permanently interfered with to a greater or lesser extent, depending on whether at any time the area in which the masts are situated is used for grazing or tillage; secondly, that in the case of any particular land-owner who wished to erect a building or other structure on the portion of land occupied by one of these masts he would be prevented from doing so...." (my emphasis)

No mention of a sanatised corridor, only building on the portion of land occupied by one of the masts.

When referring to Section 98 of the 1927 Act the judgement states;

"..there does not appear to be any injustice in the imposition of the relatively minor burden on land-owners of the cutting or lopping of trees, shrubs or hedges so as to make and keep safe the existence of a major electricity transmission line..."

If the judgement refers to cutting trees and hedges, surely it would have mentioned a sanatised corridor if there was one.

You need to appreciate that property rights in the constitution are tempered by the common good. It is the common good that everyone has access to electricity if they want it. This is a double-edged sword for land owners - they have to give access for lines across their lands, but also gain from lines being across other people's lands.

With respect, this is a bit of a fudge of the points I'm making.

The ESB, albeit within their own Code of Practice and policy documents, clearly spell out that compensation is payable to a landowner whose forestry rights and building rights are interfered with by an electricity line.

If you want constitutional argument on the validity of my argument then we could be here until next year and I may never convince you that I'm right.

Most councils won't let you build under or near medium / high voltage power line in their development plans, so development issues don't arise.

For every development plan you show me with restrictions, I'll show you two which show no restrictions for development under electricity lines.

Have you ever come across a planning application refused solely because of proximity to electricity lines? The matter is outside the remit of a planning authority to consider.

I refer you to Section 19 of the 1934 Electricity Suppy Amendment no. 2 Act, particularly sub-section (1) which takes the issue of building under electricity lines away from the planning authority.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0019.html#sec19

Adjusting low voltage power lines usually isn't a major issue.

Low voltage and High voltage power lines are erected under exactly the same section of the Electricity Supply Acts. The legislation does not differentiate between voltages or types of lines. Therefore why would one line be adjusted while another is not?

There is no absolute right to development of land and most legislation points to an 'existing use' method of compensation, ignoring development potential. The courts don't seem to object to this.

The "existing use" of the land only arises when an easement (or the land itself) is compulsorily acquired.

I'm not sure what point you are making here.

Any indication that they will abide by the code of practice also means they reserve the rights to use their statutory powers. Maybe the IFA didn't get the deal you want.

I accept that they can use their statutory powers at any time, but can the ESB as a statutory body have a policy and code of practice that differs from those statutory powers?

If not then the Code of Practice and policy must be an accurate description of those statutory powers.

Victor

loremolis wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are indicating with the link. Can you clarify?

Merely that the legislation is (slightly) modified.

loremolis wrote: »

I would like to expand on that sentence as follows;

"A wayleave is the right to place the service, not to acquire any legal interest or beneficial rights over the land".

But you accept the wayleave is a right and that the ESB can protect their rights using section 19.

loremolis wrote: »

In support of my point I refer you to the following extracts from the Supreme Court Judgement in ESB V Gormley.

"Section 53 of the Act of 1927 Act as amended must be interpreted as granting to the Plaintiff a power to compulsorily impose a burdensome right over land.
That is in the instant case the right to place below and above the right of the Defendant three large structures connected by wires carrying electricity; to keep them there permanently, if necessary, and to enter the lands from time to time for the purpose of repairing and maintaining them.
The results of the exercise of that power, are, firstly, that the use of the land for agriculture is permanently interfered with to a greater or lesser extent, depending on whether at any time the area in which the masts are situated is used for grazing or tillage; secondly, that in the case of any particular land-owner who wished to erect a building or other structure on the portion of land occupied by one of these masts he would be prevented from doing so...." (my emphasis)

No mention of a sanatised corridor, only building on the portion of land occupied by one of the masts.

When referring to Section 98 of the 1927 Act the judgement states;

"..there does not appear to be any injustice in the imposition of the relatively minor burden on land-owners of the cutting or lopping of trees, shrubs or hedges so as to make and keep safe the existence of a major electricity transmission line..."

This refers to the 1927 Act, I thought we were discussing the 1934 (No.2) Act.

Have you ever come across a planning application refused solely because of proximity to electricity lines? The matter is outside the remit of a planning authority to consider.

It isn't a matter I have applied myself to. In the only case I have known, the ESB were happy to move a pole from the centre of a field to the side, so that the house could be positioned centrally in the field.

If the judgement refers to cutting trees and hedges, surely it would have mentioned a sanatised corridor if there was one.

I refer you to Section 19 of the 1934 Electricity Suppy Amendment no. 2 Act, particularly sub-section (1) which takes the issue of building under electricity lines away from the planning authority.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0019.html#sec19

Surely Section 19 (where applied) creates a sanitised corridor? I don't know how often it is applied.

Low voltage and High voltage power lines are erected under exactly the same section of the Electricity Supply Acts. The legislation does not differentiate between voltages or types of lines. Therefore why would one line be adjusted while another is not?

Cost and security of supply. There is a difference between moving a single pole on a local line and the moving of a pylon on one of the 400kV lines between Moneypoint and Dublin. The difference might be comparing €1,000 (and cutting off a few users temporarily) with €50,000 or more (and impairing security of supply to or cutting off a thousands of users for a longer period).

Victor wrote:

There is no absolute right to development of land and most legislation points to an 'existing use' method of compensation, ignoring development potential. The courts don't seem to object to this.

I'm not sure what point you are making here.

Cork County Council planned to build a bypass along the N72 at Mallow. They went through the procedure and when they went to acquire the land, they found they would have to pay the price of development land, not agricultural land, as they themselves had zoned it for development, not a road corridor.

Likewise, if the ESB puts a line across farm land and 1/10/50 years later the land owner wants to put tall buildings on the land adjacent to the line, should the landowner be allowed this? Would the courts be inclined to say "the land owner should be entitled to sell this land for the same price as the next field (with no power lines)" or would it say "having taken payment from the ESB, should the landowner's entitlements be reduced?"

I accept that they can use their statutory powers at any time, but can the ESB as a statutory body have a policy and code of practice that differs from those statutory powers?

If not then the Code of Practice and policy must be an accurate description of those statutory powers.

I imagine they are entitled to have a difference. To not have the ability to have a difference would bind the ESB to a single course of action, that I imagine that the Oireachtas has not imposed on it and would be loathe to impose on it or any other company.

Victor

Question: Is an ESB wayleave different to other wayleaves, e.g. is it defined in the various acts? An ESB wayleave may give the ESB more rights than other wayleaves, just like a Rolls Royce might exceed people's normal understand of 'car'.

Re-reading the thread.

loremolis wrote: »

I know that the ESB have "policies" and a "code of practice" where their lines interfere with the development of land, but these are non-statutory and the ESB are a statutory body and must abide by their statute.

I take it that you understand the difference between "shall" and "may" in legal terms?

My belief is that the ESB have adopted policies and code's of practice with the IFA to avoid the real statutory provisions.

I think "avoid" might be misplaced. It is convenient for both sides to use the CoP. One imagines that back in 1985, individual IFA members encouraging the IFA to make any agreement so they could receive payment "now" and be damned any future issues coupled with the grubby rubbing of hands. I am possibly stereotyping, but it may be accurate in some cases.

loremolis wrote: »

The whole ESB wayleave/landowners rights/IFA code of practice setup that the ESB (and Eirgrid) are using to con landowners when they want to erect lines is one giant smoke and mirrors trick.

"Con" might be over-stating things. Surely the IFA had their own professionals there when the agreement was made? The IFA represent the bulk (by land area) of the land owners in the country.

People who oppose power lines get so heated about the possible negative health effects that they forget that they own the land and the ESB is simply a statutory body acting under statute.

Not the ESB's fault.

Why does a statutory body carrying out a statutory function have an non-statutory code of practice "agreement" with the IFA which landonwer and the ESB are to abide by.

There is no obligation to abide by it. The agreement gives no privity between the ESB and individual land owners.

Another smoke and mirrors trick to keep people looking away from the statutory provisions under the Electricity Acts.

Another?

It's akin to a local authority refusing planning permission under the planning acts and having a code of practice whereby people can get planning permisson by another system.

Hardly. In complying with the CoP, is the ESB breaking any law?

loremolis wrote: »

Where the ESB make a planning application for an electricity line they include copies of the code of practice/policy agreement they have with the IFA. There is no mention of the statutory position or the statutory ghts of the landowner once the line is erected.

If you check any planning application made by the ESB to any planning authority or to An Bord Pleanala for a high voltage line the only reference made is to the code of practice.

One statutory body (ESB) applying to another statutory body (the planning authority) for permission to carry out a statutory process (building electricity lines) and the only evidence given is the informal non-statutory IFA code of practice.

Am I missing something?

It is for the land owner to make their case to the planning authority / ABP or indeed an arbitrator. The ESB aren't going to do it for them. The ESB may however offer the CoP as evidence of what others have agreed to and as to what might be reasonable in the circumstances.

loremolis

Victor,

Thank you for your consideration of this particular issue.
I appreciate the time taken to give your views.

Rather than respond to every point you've made I've responded to your questions and set out a summary of the keys points.

Question: Is an ESB wayleave different to other wayleaves, e.g. is it defined in the various acts?

The right of the ESB to place lines on land (their wayleave) is defined within section 53 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act as amended.

The act gives the ESB right to;

1.Serve the landowner with a wayleave notice describing the proposed works.
2. Enter onto the land for the purpose of placing (erecting) the line.
3. Pay the landowner compensation for the phyisical damage caused to the land by the works eg loss of crops, loss of grazing, ground repairs.
4. Re-enter onto the land in the future for the purposes of altering or maintaining the line.
5. Pay the landowner compensation for any physical damage caused to
the land by the works arising from the maintainance or alteration of the line eg. loss of crops, loss of grazing damage to the ground.

There is no compensation paid to the landowner for a sterilised corridor, for any easement or any other legal or beneficial rights in the land.

Surely Section 19 (where applied) creates a sanitised corridor? I don't know how often it is applied.

A quick read of Section 19 will show you that a sanitised corridor, or any other prohibition on building under lines, is granted to the ESB at the disretion of the Minister.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0019.html

It is noteworthy that the DCENR has no records relating to an application for a Building Prohibition Order from the ESB.

It is also relevant that Section 19 contains no provisions for compensation to be paid to the landowner whose lands are the subject of a Building Prohibition Order. The 1934 Act obviously pre-dates the constitution.

Likewise, if the ESB puts a line across farm land and 1/10/50 years later the land owner wants to put tall buildings on the land adjacent to the line, should the landowner be allowed this? Would the courts be inclined to say "the land owner should be entitled to sell this land for the same price as the next field (with no power lines)" or would it say "having taken payment from the ESB, should the landowner's entitlements be reduced?"

Why should a landowner suffer any loss as a result of the electricity line?
If the ESB had acquired (and compensated the landowner for) an easement when the line was erected then I'd say that the landowner and any subsequent landowner would have to abide by the terms of that easement.

However, where the ESB erect a line under a section 53 wayleave notice they acquire no easement and do not compensate the landowner for any
loss of building or forestry rights.

If the line is threatened by forestry or building in the future, the idea is that the ESB has the right to compulsorily acquire an easement any time they so desire. The landowner is then compensated for the loss of development rights, loss of forestry etc.

As I described above, the payment the landowner received when the line was erected is minimal and relates to the loss of (or damage to) crops, loss of grazing and any physical damage to the ground. The compensation paid has no bearing on the compensation that would be due for a sanitised corridor.

The ESB Code of Practice and Policy documents.

There is no obligation to abide by it. The agreement gives no privity between the ESB and individual land owners.

What is required to give the Code of Practice and Policy documents privity?

In my view, the use of the documents within planning applications made by the ESB (and Eirgrid) for high voltage electricity lines establishes privity.

To support this I would like to para-phrase a section of Garrett Simons book where he quotes a judgement (Glenkerrin Homes v Dun Laoighre Co Co) (I think).

It indicates that where a public body has established a particular practice or adopted a particular policy over time and where members of the public or specific groups of people has acted in accordance with the terms of the established practice or policy, then it is not appropriate for the public bosy to resile from that practice or policy without giving due notice to the person or persons affected.

I don't have the book in front of me so forgive me if I've misquoted.

Given the number of planning applications made by the ESB which have included and referred to the COP and Policy, and the number of Oral Hearings held by the Board which have considered the Code of Practice as the established norm for dealing with future claims of loss of development rights, how can the ESB resile from the promises made to thousands of landowners in those documents.

While the ESB and Eirgrid continually use the "Code of Practice" and the "Policy Towards Landowners for Overhead Lines" to describe the procedure which landowners should follow where the development of their lands are impeded or prevented by electricity line, the statutory process is never described by the ESB or Eirgrid.

summereire

This is a very interesting topic, thanks for exploring it.

I was wondering, what is the basis of the wayleave that the ESB have? Does it just exist in law and therefore apply to all folios that have lines placed on them?

Our site has the lines from large steel pylons crossing it, in addition to regular wooden poles, which greatly restricts the ability to build, or grow trees as they insist on cutting them down.

On my folio though I don't see any wayleave for the ESB to do this. Also I'm not even entitled to compensations as far as I know for mast interference as the pylons themselves are not on my land, but on each adjoining neighbours.

The lines were up before I bought the land so it's not like I didn't know they were there but I'm surprised that I've no paperwork for it. I certainly didn't know about all the cutting and felling of trees that would take place.

Victor

loremolis wrote: »

What is required to give the Code of Practice and Policy documents privity?

While I imagine any landowner (certainly IFA members) could try to hold the ESB to the CoP, it would be difficult for the ESB to hold a landowner to it and the individual landowner hasn't signed up to it.

Victor

loremolis wrote: »

It is noteworthy that the DCENR has no records relating to an application for a Building Prohibition Order from the ESB.

One could ask the ESB for a copy of such orders, but potentially that just puts them on notice and they apply for an order.

It is also relevant that Section 19 contains no provisions for compensation to be paid to the landowner whose lands are the subject of a Building Prohibition Order. The 1934 Act obviously pre-dates the constitution.

Why should a landowner suffer any loss as a result of the electricity line?

But many acts of the state deliver benefit or disbenefit to landowners - the zoning of land, the alignment of a road or other service, the cleaning of a blocked stream - for which there is no direct charge or compensation. What if field A is zoned for development and field B zoned for green belt? Should the owner of field B be entitled to compensation?

To support this I would like to para-phrase a section of Garrett Simons book where he quotes a judgement (Glenkerrin Homes v Dun Laoighre Co Co) (I think).

It indicates that where a public body has established a particular practice or adopted a particular policy over time and where members of the public or specific groups of people has acted in accordance with the terms of the established practice or policy, then it is not appropriate for the public bosy to resile from that practice or policy without giving due notice to the person or persons affected.

At the design stage, they could state they aren't applying the CoP.

Given the number of planning applications made by the ESB which have included and referred to the COP and Policy, and the number of Oral Hearings held by the Board which have considered the Code of Practice as the established norm for dealing with future claims of loss of development rights, how can the ESB resile from the promises made to thousands of landowners in those documents.

Surely that it is presented (or deemed presented) in those cases means it isn't presented to those where it isn't presented.

While the ESB and Eirgrid continually use the "Code of Practice" and the "Policy Towards Landowners for Overhead Lines" to describe the procedure which landowners should follow where the development of their lands are impeded or prevented by electricity line, the statutory process is never described by the ESB or Eirgrid.

I'm not sure there is an obligation for them to do so. While a prudent applicant would demonstrate that they are in compliance with a specific policy, they are applying for whatever they are applying for. If someone applies for an explosives factory on Main Street, then it is for the applicant to say 'yes' and council / ABP and any observers to say 'no', with the council / ABP 'no' holding sway, save any court application.

loremolis

summereire wrote: »

This is a very interesting topic, thanks for exploring it.

I was wondering, what is the basis of the wayleave that the ESB have? Does it just exist in law and therefore apply to all folios that have lines placed on them?.

The wayleave the ESB have arises from Section 53 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act as amended. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0053.html#sec53

Section 53 gives the ESB the right to serve the landowner with a wayleave notice, to enter onto the land, to place the line, to compensate the landowner for any damage, to re-enter at any time in the future for the purpose of altering or maintaining the line andto compensate the landowner for any damage caused during the re-entry.

The compensation paid to the landowner is for the physical damage to the land and such items as loss of crops, loss of grazing etc.

The ESB acquire no other rights from the landowner under a wayleave notice.

If the ESB wish to acquire other rights from the landowner, such as a sterilised corridor, they must acquire an easement.

The compulsory acquisition of an easement or any other rights by the ESB is permitted under Section 45 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0045.html#sec45

ANy rights acquired under this section would be registered on the title of the land to which they relate.

If your folio has no easement registered on it or the vendor did not inform you of any burdens or easement on the property when you purchased it, then the ESB only have the right of entry for altering or maintaining the line.

If the ESB want to access land for the purpose of placing, altering or maintaining a line and the landowner refuses access then the ESB must acquire a court order to force entry. They cannot simply trespass as they often do.

Our site has the lines from large steel pylons crossing it, in addition to regular wooden poles, which greatly restricts the ability to build, or grow trees as they insist on cutting them down.

While the ESB have the right to lop trees or bushes which may interfere with the line under Section 98 of the 1927 Electricity Act, if the ESB does not have an easement registered on the folio then they cannot stop you from building or planting trees under the line without paying compensation.

On my folio though I don't see any wayleave for the ESB to do this. Also I'm not even entitled to compensations as far as I know for mast interference as the pylons themselves are not on my land, but on each adjoining neighbours.

Are the cables running directly over your property? If so then you have a right to compensation if the lines are preventing building or tree planting on the land.

The lines were up before I bought the land so it's not like I didn't know they were there but I'm surprised that I've no paperwork for it. I certainly didn't know about all the cutting and felling of trees that would take place.

It doesn't matter that the lines were there before you bought the land. The ESB didn't acquire any further rights beacuse the land was sold.
You have no paper work because the wayleave rights which the ESB have are very limited and clearly defined under section 53.

If the ESB had more rights then they would have an easement and you would know about it from your folio.

However, if you ask the ESB what your rights are they won't tell you.

I hope the above is of some assistance.

jakdelad

can the ESB use the wayleave act to put poles all over your land
if the poles are carrying power from a private windmill farm??

loremolis

jakdelad wrote: »

can the ESB use the wayleave act to put poles all over your land
if the poles are carrying power from a private windmill farm??

jakelad,

I don't think that they can.

A private wind farm is a commercial venture which is outside the existing Electricity Supply legislation.

If you have a look at ESB V Burke, the judgement rules that the ESB were entitiled to erect the line.

However, because that line was serving a wind farm, even with the benefit of a court order, the ESB chose to put the line underground.

Given that the line was solely to serve a wind farm, the ESB must have believed that the line wasn't within the power granted under the Electricity Supply Act.

Even with a court order they decided to underground it.

Excuse the pun, but they don't have the power that they would like everyone to believe that they have.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

jakdelad wrote: »

can the ESB use the wayleave act to put poles all over your land
if the poles are carrying power from a private windmill farm??

If that windfarm is connecting to the Grid (and it probably is) then normal wayleave rules apply. It's no different then if the lines were feeding from any generating plant. Despite what others here may say to you, the best option is to contact Eirgrid and ESB Networks, ask for their legal department and get the details from them. If you don't believe them (who are obliged to state the true facts) check with your solicitor on what they tell you.

loremolis

Kairo Wrong Volunteer wrote: »

If that windfarm is connecting to the Grid (and it probably is) then normal wayleave rules apply. It's no different then if the lines were feeding from any generating plant.

If a windfarm is privately owned and a connection is required to the National Grid then the windfarm owner pays the ESB a substantial sum of money (varying on the length of the line) to put the line across private property. The ESB use the wayleave powers under Section 53 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act to place the line. What I suggested to jakdelad was that "I don't think that they can" do this.

Here is why I think that.

In the ESB v Burke judgement that I referred to in my previous post, this exact situation was addressed by the High Court. The ESB were proposing to place an electricity line for a winfarm across private property and following service of the wayleave notice by the ESB, the landowner refused to permit them access.

The ESB argued that they were entitled to enter onto the lands to erect the overhead line and the landowner argued that the line should be placed underground, and was willing to let the ESB enter on that basis.

The High Court ultimately granted the ESB the injunction which would allow them access the lands to erect the line overhead.

What happened then.... the entire line (I believe it was 14km) was placed UNDERGROUND.

Why did they put it underground.... Perhaps they did it because they are just plain nice and felt bad for how they had treated the landowner?

I think it was because their wayleave powers do not entitle them to do whatever they want, particularly when they are using them purely to facilitate private windfarm companies and their own high profit margins.

I'm happy to hear any counter argument from any ESB employees who hang out here.

Despite what others here may say to you, the best option is to contact Eirgrid and ESB Networks, ask for their legal department and get the details from them. If you don't believe them (who are obliged to state the true facts) check with your solicitor on what they tell you.

jakdelad, by all means contact the legal department of Eirgrid and ESB Networks looking for the information and the facts pertaining to any lines you are concerned about. I'm not suggesting that they will outright lie to you but I hope you live long enough to get a straight answer.

You should also contact Joe Burke, who I understand is the landowner referred to in the case above. You're more likely to get information and a straight answer from him.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

You think a lot of things with no foundation other than your own bias.

Check the very recent ESB V Mullen (sligo direction from memory) for another up to date case where Wayleaves stood.
Remember too that the court held for ESB in the Blake case, so I can't see where you are going with that argument.

As for suggesting they will lie to people - be careful of accusing people with no basis or proof.

234

loremolis wrote: »

If a windfarm is privately owned and a connection is required to the National Grid then the windfarm owner pays the ESB a substantial sum of money (varying on the length of the line) to put the line across private property. The ESB use the wayleave powers under Section 53 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act to place the line. What I suggested to jakdelad was that "I don't think that they can" do this.

Here is why I think that.

In the ESB v Burke judgement that I referred to in my previous post, this exact situation was addressed by the High Court. The ESB were proposing to place an electricity line for a winfarm across private property and following service of the wayleave notice by the ESB, the landowner refused to permit them access.

The ESB argued that they were entitled to enter onto the lands to erect the overhead line and the landowner argued that the line should be placed underground, and was willing to let the ESB enter on that basis.

The High Court ultimately granted the ESB the injunction which would allow them access the lands to erect the line overhead.

What happened then.... the entire line (I believe it was 14km) was placed UNDERGROUND.

Why did they put it underground.... Perhaps they did it because they are just plain nice and felt bad for how they had treated the landowner?

I think it was because their wayleave powers do not entitle them to do whatever they want, particularly when they are using them purely to facilitate private windfarm companies and their own high profit margins.

I'm happy to hear any counter argument from any ESB employees who hang out here.



jakdelad, by all means contact the legal department of Eirgrid and ESB Networks looking for the information and the facts pertaining to any lines you are concerned about. I'm not suggesting that they will outright lie to you but I hope you live long enough to get a straight answer.

You should also contact Joe Burke, who I understand is the landowner referred to in the case above. You're more likely to get information and a straight answer from him.

I havn't been keeping up with the details of this thread but there is a clear contradiction in your post though it may be unintentional.
If the High Court granted a declaration that the ESB were entitled to enter onto the land to erect overhead lines then that is the correct interpretation of the law. The fact that the ESB then placed the lines below ground could be for a variety of reasons and is not an admission that they were wrong. The ESB cannot give an authoritative interpretation of a statutory provision, only a court can. Even if their conduct runs contrary to the findings of the court, what the court says is still the law; the fact that the ESB acted more pleasently than they were legally required to do does not change the law.

loremolis

Kairo Wrong Volunteer wrote: »

You think a lot of things with no foundation other than your own bias.

Check the very recent ESB V Mullen (sligo direction from memory) for another up to date case where Wayleaves stood.

The electricity line in that case wasn't from a windfarm.

The most recent part of this thread has related to lines serving windfarms, and my point, which you have not bothered to respond to, is that the ESB may have a difficulty in using their statutory powers purely to facilitate private windfarm companies and their own profit margins.

Also, now that you've brought up the Mullen case, it's interesting that the ESB have been trying to construct that particular line for about ten years and that, due to "wayleave issues" the cost of that line has run over budget by more than €30 million euro. Ten years on and that line still isn't finished.

If the ESB's wayleave powers are so all powerful then why do these "wayleave issues" which result in 10 year delays and significant additional costs?

Guess who pays for the additional €30 million it has cost the ESB to erect that line? Everybody using electricity in this country.

http://www.cer.ie/en/electricity-transmission-network-decision-documents.aspx?article=163210c1-f11f-4713-bfc9-d3b1c2fb4df3

Appendix E of the SKM Review of TAO costs 2006-2015 cer10102 document on this page details the cost overrun and the stated reason... "Difficulty in obtaining Wayleaves".

Is it a coincidence that all of the lines mentioned in Appendix E have run over budget and the most common reason given..."Difficulty in obtaining wayleaves".

Is that enough foundation or would you like more?

Remember too that the court held for ESB in the Blake case, so I can't see where you are going with that argument.

You obviously didn't read the last post. In ESB V Burke, the High Court ruled that the line could be erected overground but it ended up going UNDERGROUND.

I think the reason the line was undergrounded is because the ESB's wayleave legislation simply isn't strong enought to cover lines of that type.

Weak legislation is also the reason that the ESB have an "agreement" with the IFA which is trotted out anytime a semi-legal questions on electricity lines and landowners rights are raised.

If the statutory provisions governing wayleaves were sufficient for the ESB then there would be no need for them to hide behind a non-statutory agreement with the IFA.

As for suggesting they will lie to people - be careful of accusing people with no basis or proof.

Again, why don't you read my post before jumping in with this nonsense.

What I said was;

I'm not suggesting that they will outright lie to you but I hope you live long enough to get a straight answer.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

loremolis wrote: »

the ESB may have a difficulty in using their statutory powers purely to facilitate private windfarm companies and their own profit margins.

Where do you get the MAY from. Again your assumtion with no basis. They won the blasted court case so where are you going with this angle?

the cost of that line has run over budget by more than €30 million euro.

As the Capital approval and CER allownace was €42Million gross cost and current spend is €37Million then there is no €30million over-expenditure.

I think the reason the line was undergrounded is because the ESB's wayleave legislation simply isn't strong enought to cover lines of that type.

You THINK? Based again on what. They won the court case and opted to go undergound. What exactly are you trying to say? Your argument is all over the place and just doesn't make sense. The ruling give them all the strength they needed. Why are you so blind to that fact?

Weak legislation is also the reason that the ESB have an "agreement" with the IFA which is trotted out anytime a semi-legal questions on electricity lines and landowners rights are raised.

Bloody hell! Here we go again. The legislation ahs been proven solid time and time again. The COP with the IFA is to avoid heavy handed invasion of land and to try and keep good relations with landowners. You really need to get over whatever chip you have on this matter.


Anyway, it seems that you have some axe to grind and I'll leave you to do so. But, I think it sad that you seem incapable of accepting facts and it's clear you have some major gripe with ESB that no amount of discussion will settle here. So, farewell.:rolleyes:

loremolis

Kairo Wrong Volunteer wrote: »

Where do you get the MAY from. Again your assumtion with no basis. They won the blasted court case so where are you going with this angle?

"Blasted court case"? Touchy

I get MAY from looking at the facts and drawing a conclusion. If it's the wrong conclusion then it will have to do until a better one comes along.

The facts are that;
-The ESB took a landowner to court to get an order to enter onto his lands and to erect an electricity line across his land against his wishes.
- They spent a large amount of money to do this.
- They got the court order they so desperately wanted.
- They ignored the court order and the line was put in underground at a cost of between 8 to 10 times more than what the overground line would have cost.

The two conclusions I have come to so far are;

1. The ESB spent a lot of money to get what they wanted in the High Court and then had a crisis of conscience, felt sorry for the landowner and decided to spend an awful lot more money doing something else for no particular reason.

OR

2. The ESB had a difficulty with their wayleave (or some other legal difficulty) which left them in a position where they didn't want to force the issue with the landowners and they decided to underground the line.

If you want to go with 1. then good for you because I was being sarcastic.
If it's not 2. then it's something else. Any suggestions?

Seeing how you are not going to offer any alternative reason or suggestion as to why they wasted electricity customers money fighting a court case and then undergrounding the line when they had "won the blasted case" I'll stick with 2.

As the Capital approval and CER allownace was €42Million gross cost and current spend is €37Million then there is no €30million over-expenditure.

And you accuse me of not providing evidence to support my views.

Where are those figures from?

The total cost overruns on electricty projects undertaken by the ESB and Eirgrid for the period 2006 to 2011 ran to €150 million euro.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/1007/1224280568535.html

From the report at the end of the link on my previous post, the line in question is the Srananagh line. The Irish Times reported that the Srananagh line has run €30 million over budget and the SKM report on the CER website states that it has run €30 million over budget. Reason given in the report... "WAYLEAVE DIFFICULTIES".

And ten years later...it's still not finished. I wonder why.

You THINK? Based again on what. They won the court case and opted to go undergound. What exactly are you trying to say? Your argument is all over the place and just doesn't make sense. The ruling give them all the strength they needed. Why are you so blind to that fact?

If the ruling gave them all the strength they needed then why did the line go underground? At least I'm making an argument. All I hear in reply is moaning and groaning about my point of view. If you actually read it and understood it then it wouldn't appear all over the place to you.

Bloody hell! Here we go again. The legislation ahs been proven solid time and time again. The COP with the IFA is to avoid heavy handed invasion of land and to try and keep good relations with landowners. You really need to get over whatever chip you have on this matter.

"Heavy handed invasion of land". At last an honest comment on how the ESB operate.

The legislation wasn't so solid in 1985 when Mrs. Gormley put it to the test. The flaw that the Supreme Court found was quickly patched over with the introduction of the 1985 amendment and the other gaping holes in it were then hidden by the introduction of the ESB/IFA policy.

For years before the Gormley case the ESB's excuse was that they had no legislation which allowed them to pay landowners compensation for the disturbance caused by electricity lines. They told the Supreme Court that they paid ex-gratia compensation and that had done the trick for the previous 60 odd years. Whoop-de-do.

60 years of erecting electricity lines without paying compensation.

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1301951245&view=oho-view&docrank=7&numhitsfound=24&query=electricity%20poles%20compensation&query_rule=%28%28$query1%29%3C%3DDATE%3C%3D%28$query2%29%29%20AND%20%28%28$query4%29%29%3ASPEAKER%20AND%20%28%28$query5%29%29%3Aheading%20AND%20%28%28$query6%29%29%3ACATEGORY%20AND%20%28%28$query3%29%29%3Ahouse%20AND%20%28%28$query7%29%29%3Avolume%20AND%20%28%28$query8%29%29%3Acolnumber%20AND%20%28%28$query%29%29&query1=19600319&query2=19690222&docid=127693&docdb=Debates&dbname=Debates&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

Anyway, it seems that you have some axe to grind and I'll leave you to do so. But, I think it sad that you seem incapable of accepting facts and it's clear you have some major gripe with ESB that no amount of discussion will settle here. So, farewell.:rolleyes:

"Accepting facts... no amount of discussion".

You have presented no facts or any discussion

All you seem bothered about is that I appear to have a chip on my shoulder or that I'm grinding an axe.

How can someone who works for the ESB be objective about this?

You choose to moan and groan about my views but don't put forward any yourself.

But I guess that the ESB don't pay people for that.

loremolis

234 wrote: »

I havn't been keeping up with the details of this thread but there is a clear contradiction in your post though it may be unintentional.
If the High Court granted a declaration that the ESB were entitled to enter onto the land to erect overhead lines then that is the correct interpretation of the law. The fact that the ESB then placed the lines below ground could be for a variety of reasons and is not an admission that they were wrong. The ESB cannot give an authoritative interpretation of a statutory provision, only a court can. Even if their conduct runs contrary to the findings of the court, what the court says is still the law; the fact that the ESB acted more pleasently than they were legally required to do does not change the law.

Good point.

I agree with you re: the High Court judgement and that the ruling was a correct interpretation of the law.

I am not arguing that the ESB don't have legislation which permits them to erect electricity lines on private lands.

However in the ESB V Burke case, for whatever reason, having received permission to place the line overground, the line was undergrounded.

I am suggesting that it was a wayleave or some other legal issue arising from the fact that the line was to serve a private windfarm.

Why else would they have spent money on the High Court case and then spent far more money undergrounding the line?

The SKM report linked in my earlier post does raise some questions on the power of an ESB wayleave.

Almost every line mentioned in that report has run over budget and has encountered the same "wayleave difficulties".

In particular, the Srananagh line mentioned in my last post has cost in the region of €15 million on wayleave payments.

As the line is approximately 60 km long, it would have been cheaper for the ESB to buy all of the land under the line along it's entire length than to have paid the landowners €15 million for the wayleaves.

If the legislation is so solid then why have they got wayleave difficulties?

234

The problem is that there are simply no facts to support the position that they were having difficulties in the case mentioned. They won the case and there has been no evidence of difficulties. Maybe they eventually decided to do it for PR reasons? The fact that they won the case shows that they were clearly acting within the law. The fact that the ESB did not subequently fully avail of their legal rights as declared by the court does not restrict the law in question or its application.

loremolis

234 wrote: »

The problem is that there are simply no facts to support the position that they were having difficulties in the case mentioned. They won the case and there has been no evidence of difficulties. Maybe they eventually decided to do it for PR reasons?

Have you read the ESB V Burke judgement? Did anything stand out?

The evidence of wayleave difficulties I have mentioned comes from the SKM report. I have a link to the document on a previous post.
Have you read it?

From that document it is clear that there are a number of High Voltage electricity lines around the country which have been under construction for years and are only partially completed.
In many cases the reason given for the delay and significant cost overruns is "wayleave difficulties".

Why aren't the ESB using their statutory wayleave powers to complete those lines?

Further evidence of dfficulties comes from the fact that they won the Burke case and chose to underground the line. The ESB have argued on many occasions that they don't underground lines because it is too expensive and creates technical problems.

http://www.esb.ie/esbnetworks/en/downloads/connemara_english.pdf
See the right hand column on the second page.


PR reasons? At least my "wayleave difficulties" argument has some basis to it. The ESB don't underground lines because they want good PR.

I don't doubt that they won the case but if they really won it and were 100% happy with their legal postion then the line would have been erected overground because the High Court said that they could do it that way.

The fact that they won the case shows that they were clearly acting within the law. The fact that the ESB did not subequently fully avail of their legal rights as declared by the court does not restrict the law in question or its application.

Which law exactly?
Section 53?



srameen, nice to see you're still interested enough to read.:)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

loremolis wrote: »

srameen, nice to see you're still interested enough to read.:)

Yes, but not stupid enough to waste my energy arguing with you, when you clearly have an agenda that is not for listening to anything other than your assumptions based on your ignoring the facts and implying your imaginations. I said it before - based on your posting history you have clearly a gripe and no amount of discussion here will solve it. So carry on.......

BTW: you referred to me earlier as an ESB employee - that is untrue.

loremolis

Kairo Wrong Volunteer wrote: »

Yes, but not stupid enough to waste my energy arguing with you, when you clearly have an agenda that is not for listening to anything other than your assumptions based on your ignoring the facts and implying your imaginations. I said it before - based on your posting history you have clearly a gripe and no amount of discussion here will solve it. So carry on.......

BTW: you referred to me earlier as an ESB employee - that is untrue.

To summarise the FACTS;

The ESB erect an electricity line on private lands using Section 53 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act.

This section gives the ESB the right to enter onto privately owned lands for the purposes of placing, altering or repairing the line.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0053.html#sec53
Thats a wayleave.

Following the erection of the line, when the landowner wants to construct a building or structure under or within 25 yards of the line they must notify the ESB 2 months in advance.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0020.html#sec20

The ESB must then consider whether they will remove the line to allow the landowner erect the building or structure or seek a Building Prohibition Order from the Minister.

Where the Minister refuses to grant a Building Prohibition order the ESB must remove the line.

Where the Minister grants a building prohibition order, the landowner may object and the Minister may revoke or amend the Order or hold a public hearing on the matter.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1934/en/act/pub/0038/sec0020.html#sec20

Therefore, it is clear from the legislation that when the landowner wants to erect a building or structure the ESB's wayleave is not sufficient to allow them to retain the line and either a Building Prohibition Order must be granted by the Minister or the line must be removed.

Thats the law and a summary of the points I've made in this thread.

When jakdelad asked about electricity lines from a windfarm, I gave my opinion, based on what happened with the line in the ESB V Burke case and on the contents of the SKM Report prepared for the Commission for Energy Regulation and other material I have to hand.

Your analysis of what I've posted amounts to making comments like "untrue", "misleading", "chip on my shoulder" & "axe to grind".

What I've posted above is directly from the Electricity Supply Acts.
Just because it doesn't suit you to see it presented here isn't my problem.

Instead of the moaning and groaning, lets hear some rebuttal argument to the way I'm presenting the facts.

If you don't like the way the topic is going or you disagree with the facts I've presented then respond and make your own points.

If you want to sulk about it then thats fine too.

Victor

loremolis wrote: »

The two conclusions I have come to so far are;

1. The ESB spent a lot of money to get what they wanted in the High Court and then had a crisis of conscience, felt sorry for the landowner and decided to spend an awful lot more money doing something else for no particular reason.

OR

2. The ESB had a difficulty with their wayleave (or some other legal difficulty) which left them in a position where they didn't want to force the issue with the landowners and they decided to underground the line.

Or the ESB fought a point of principal, won, but realised that there might be reasons to put it underground.

OR maybe, just maybe, there was money avaialble from somewhere (where?) to put it underground.

loremolis wrote: »

"wayleave difficulties"

Is this a euphamism? You know the way it's easy for a construction project to blame "unforeseen circumstances" or "difficult ground conditions"?

loremolis

Victor wrote: »

Or the ESB fought a point of principal, won, but realised that there might be reasons to put it underground.

OR maybe, just maybe, there was money avaialble from somewhere (where?) to put it underground.

Victor,
A key point made by the ESB in the case was that they were obliged to install the line using the "least cost technically acceptable solution".

While the landowner involved wanted the cable buried, the ESB argued that they could not do so due to the increased cost.

If all they had to do to keep the landowner happy was to place the cable underground, then why take the landowner to court in the first place?

Is this a euphamism? You know the way it's easy for a construction project to blame "unforeseen circumstances" or "difficult ground conditions"?

Definately not a euphamism.

From Appendix E of the SKM Report commissioned by the CER.

"Dificulties in obtaining wayleaves/easements lead to delays in project".

There are 5 or 6 projects listed within Appendix E which give this as the sole reason for the delay and cost overrun on electricity lines.

If the ESB have statutory powers allowing them to place a line on any land, why are significant delays and cost overruns arising from "wayleave difficulties"?

From Appendix E of the same report:

Wayleaves for the Srananagh line cost €12 million
Note: Not all of the landowners are paid yet.

The total length of the line is 68.84 kilometers.

Wayleaves cost per kilometer of line = €174,317 (12,000,000/68.84)

Say ESB requires width of 15 meters on each side of the line.

Area of land required per kilometer of line = 1000 m x 30 m = 30,000 sq m

30,000 sqm = 3 Hectares of land required per kilometer of line.

Therefore the wayleave payments to landowners for the line cost €58,105.75 per hectare (174,317/3)

That is a payment to landowners of €23,524 per acre (58,105.75/2.47) for a wayleave i.e the right to enter and place the line.
No land is purchased.

The value of agricultural land in the region in 2004 = €6,500 per acre
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/agriculture/current/landsales.pdf

Wayleave difficulties.

Daidalos

As you both seem to be extremely knowledgeable on ESB; I was wondering if either of you can help me. I am compiling research on the ESB and want to actually record and map lands in the full ownership. Any where I could begin source this?

loremolis

Daidalos wrote: »

As you both seem to be extremely knowledgeable on ESB; I was wondering if either of you can help me. I am compiling research on the ESB and want to actually record and map lands in the full ownership. Any where I could begin source this?

The Land Registry office would seem to be the best place to start.

234

Daidalos wrote: »

As you both seem to be extremely knowledgeable on ESB; I was wondering if either of you can help me. I am compiling research on the ESB and want to actually record and map lands in the full ownership. Any where I could begin source this?

You will be looking for land registered to ESB Networks and Eirgrid then. Don't get confused with property owned by any of the suppliers such as ESB Electric Ireland, Bord Gais, Airtricity etc.

Daidalos

Thanks for that lads. I think it would be very interesting to record just how much land is in their possession, and where it is strategically, given that they are substantially state owned. From what I can gather, they have about €500m in property assets.

loremolis

Daidalos wrote: »

Thanks for that lads. I think it would be very interesting to record just how much land is in their possession, and where it is strategically, given that they are substantially state owned. From what I can gather, they have about €500m in property assets.

Does that include the value of the electricity network itself?

PCDave

Hi Loremolis,

apologies for "dumbed down" question but I have 90 acres here in Kerry with power lines coming from Tarbert to Tralee coming through my land. My questions are around the following:

Can the ESB put any capacity lines on the poles they have on my land?Or is there a payment structure based on what they hang on the poles?

Also, now with talks of selling off the ESB, will a private company "inherit" all existing ESB rights to my land and if so will they be bound by the same existing rules as the ESB?

I read most of your postings and you refer agreements made based "the common good", but what is the scenario now when the common good has become a private good?

I find this akin to the scenario whereby land for railway links were used by digiphone to run phone cables. The common good was the allowance of the railway line through peoples land but where is the common good in the private company's usage of the same lands?

Also I agree wholeheartedly when you pose the question of why the landowner should be bound by an agreement between the IFA and the ESB when the same landowner has no affiliation with this organisation.

loremolis

PCDave wrote: »

Hi Loremolis,

apologies for "dumbed down" question but I have 90 acres here in Kerry with power lines coming from Tarbert to Tralee coming through my land. My questions are around the following:

Can the ESB put any capacity lines on the poles they have on my land?Or is there a payment structure based on what they hang on the poles?.

The wayleave notice served for the line would indicate the voltage and number of lines on the poles.

If by payment structure you mean compensation due for the placing of the line, you should seek specific legal and valuation advice for that.

Information on the annual "mast compensation" payment made by the ESB is available here:

http://www.esb.ie/esbnetworks/en/domestic-customers/farming/mast_interference_payments.jsp

Also, now with talks of selling off the ESB, will a private company "inherit" all existing ESB rights to my land and if so will they be bound by the same existing rules as the ESB?

If anyone can answer that I'll eat my dog.

I read most of your postings and you refer agreements made based "the common good", but what is the scenario now when the common good has become a private good?

Many recent reports on the privatisation of the ESB include reference to the fact that the transmission and distribution networks will not be privatised.

My belief is that they won't privatise the networks because they can't. It would mean updating the legislation significantly and that would let the cat out of the bag.

I find this akin to the scenario whereby land for railway links were used by digiphone to run phone cables. The common good was the allowance of the railway line through peoples land but where is the common good in the private company's usage of the same lands?

Whether the electricity systems are operated by the ESB or a private company, electricity is an essential part of life and some people must take a small hit for the benefit of society as a whole.

My only issue with the current system is the lack of transparancy and openness in the way the ESB operate some aspects of their business.

Victor

PCDave wrote: »

Can the ESB put any capacity lines on the poles they have on my land?Or is there a payment structure based on what they hang on the poles?

See link above. The size of the pole / mast somewhat dictates what number and size of cables they put up. However, they could, for example, put it a big mast, but only put up one cable initially. I imagine however it they need access again to put up more / different cable, resulting in disruption, then there would be an entitlement to payment.

Also, now with talks of selling off the ESB, will a private company "inherit" all existing ESB rights to my land and if so will they be bound by the same existing rules as the ESB?

The current proposal is to only sell some shares in the ESB (staff already own 5%), so it will retain its current rights. However, if futher disposals are likely, I imagine the rules may be redrawn.

It would be imprudent for the state to sell certain assets, although imprudence doesn't always stop people doing what they are doing. Such assets would be the transmission (high voltage) network, interconnectors to other countries and hydro-electric & pumped hydro stations. I think the distribution (mostly low voltage) network should be moved more towards Eirgrid than the retail part of the company.

I read most of your postings and you refer agreements made based "the common good", but what is the scenario now when the common good has become a private good?

I find this akin to the scenario whereby land for railway links were used by digiphone to run phone cables. The common good was the allowance of the railway line through peoples land but where is the common good in the private company's usage of the same lands?

The common good applies to the whole (or most of) society. It is who benefits from something, not who owns it. It is for the common good that people are healthy and educated and can find meaningful work for themselves. While me not having a rabidly contagious disease also benefits you, it mostly benefits me, likewise the education and income I have benefit me mostly. However, I can share part of my education with you, thereby benefitting you.

While a phone company will benefit from the profit it makes from a telephone system and could be considered the primary beneficiary, could you imagine if all the telephones were removed from Kerry? While the phone company would lose, the people of Kerry would lose more. It may be that the phone company wouldn't even be the single biggest loser.

That said, Esat Telecom* (I don't think Digifone was involved - they only did mobile phones) was paying rent / providing service to CIÉ, which goes towards running the transport network.

Also I agree wholeheartedly when you pose the question of why the landowner should be bound by an agreement between the IFA and the ESB when the same landowner has no affiliation with this organisation.

While I don't think it is binding on individual landowners, the alternative may not suit landowners either.


* I think Esat Telecom are now owned by Vodafone.

PCDave

Loremolis,
so just to pick your brains and a little off topic but youre the only one that seems to have researched this.
The ESB put large timber poles thoughout our lands in 1981 as far as I can remember and originally these were setup to carry 35kv lines from Tarbert to the Burlington factory in Tralee.My father and mother do not remember signing anything to agree or disagree with this. I think we receive €96 per year per set of poles but that is it. Also the ESB come into our lands everyso often to cut trees and genertal maintenance.
Question.When can we find if a wayleave or easment agreement is in place?
If one is not in place then where do we stand? The reason that I am now looking into this is because we've been cpo'd by the NRA and between the two of them i.e. the ESB and the NRA, they've sterilised a lot of land.We've reached an agreement with the NRA but the ESB pay little or nothing for the subsequent restrictions on our lands.

loremolis

PCDave wrote: »

Loremolis,
so just to pick your brains and a little off topic but youre the only one that seems to have researched this.
The ESB put large timber poles thoughout our lands in 1981 as far as I can remember and originally these were setup to carry 35kv lines from Tarbert to the Burlington factory in Tralee.My father and mother do not remember signing anything to agree or disagree with this. I think we receive €96 per year per set of poles but that is it. Also the ESB come into our lands everyso often to cut trees and genertal maintenance.
Question.When can we find if a wayleave or easment agreement is in place?
If one is not in place then where do we stand? The reason that I am now looking into this is because we've been cpo'd by the NRA and between the two of them i.e. the ESB and the NRA, they've sterilised a lot of land.We've reached an agreement with the NRA but the ESB pay little or nothing for the subsequent restrictions on our lands.

The ESB's Code of Practice for access to lands is here:
http://www.esb.ie/esbnetworks/en/commercial-downloads/code-of-practice-for-access-to-lands.pdf

Section 5.1 indicates that all lines should be wayleaved and a record of the wayleave kept for the life of the line.

If you want a copy of the wayleave (or easement if one exists) then why not ask the ESB quoting the section of the access to lands document.

If you don't have a copy of the easement or wayleave then how do you know there are restrictions on your land?