The news report is behind a pay wall, but you'll get the gist of it, farm equipment is a lot bigger than it used to be particularly booms on sprayers and the like.
So maybe it's time to increase the clearance of overhead electricity cables.
www.fwi.co.uk/.../overhead-power-line-height-rules-need-safety-update-say-farmers
Hmm, without meaning to downplay the issue (as it's rather serious), this is nothing new
HSE guidance for farmers working new OHLs ... from 2012
Easy as it is to put this on the network operators, is this really an issue with the OHLs? Or, given that the hazard is well-documented is it an issue with underinformed/undertrained contractors carrying out insufficient risk assessments? After all in construction we have to consider the same hazard when for example selecting plant for lifting operations and erecting goalposts etc. I dare say isolated incidents occur in both industries, no doubt for similar reasons. I don't think legislation to raise the lines (by how much?!) throughout the land is the right answer, especially if expecting the cost of that to be socialised. For sure it's an item on the table during negotiations for wayleaves for new and refurbished lines.
What might help would be more accurate information to facilitate risk assessments where the clearances under maximum sag are clearly more than the legal minima. I find NGET quite good with swing/sag profiles through CBUD requests but DNOs tend to only have generic information (other than pole heights) particularly for wood pole lines.
Obviously if the lines don't meet the specified clearances thats a whole other story.
On the other hand, this article is more likely to make farmers think about it when planning this season than the perennial generic reminder.
Hmm, without meaning to downplay the issue (as it's rather serious), this is nothing new
HSE guidance for farmers working new OHLs ... from 2012
Easy as it is to put this on the network operators, is this really an issue with the OHLs? Or, given that the hazard is well-documented is it an issue with underinformed/undertrained contractors carrying out insufficient risk assessments? After all in construction we have to consider the same hazard when for example selecting plant for lifting operations and erecting goalposts etc. I dare say isolated incidents occur in both industries, no doubt for similar reasons. I don't think legislation to raise the lines (by how much?!) throughout the land is the right answer, especially if expecting the cost of that to be socialised. For sure it's an item on the table during negotiations for wayleaves for new and refurbished lines.
What might help would be more accurate information to facilitate risk assessments where the clearances under maximum sag are clearly more than the legal minima. I find NGET quite good with swing/sag profiles through CBUD requests but DNOs tend to only have generic information (other than pole heights) particularly for wood pole lines.
Obviously if the lines don't meet the specified clearances thats a whole other story.
On the other hand, this article is more likely to make farmers think about it when planning this season than the perennial generic reminder.
Easy as it is to put this on the network operators, is this really an issue with the OHLs?
For LV installations in agricultural premises, where the limited to 1 kV AC, experts agree (and hence it's a BS 7671 requirement) that the conductors ought to be both insulated, and installed with a minimum height of 6 m.
There are only two possible conclusions, either:
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
