New electricity advisory wayleave payments announced

The NFU has been working closely with the Energy Network Association (ENA) giving input on how the advisory arable payments are calculated. This is to ensure farmers are receiving an accurate payment to cover the cost of the interference caused by poles and pylons in fields. The new payments start this week.

The annual wayleave payment also includes an advisory rate for grassland, hedgerows and a landowner’s payment.

NFU Vice President Stuart Roberts said: “It’s pleasing that after many years of gathering data and the ENA developing calculations, the new advisory rates for arable land have now been published.

“We have been working long and hard with the ENA giving our input to their calculations to ensure farmers are paid correctly and accurately for the interference caused by these structures.

“The payment covers the losses incurred by farmers including time loss, area loss, yield loss, wasted inputs, weed control and health and safety. The last time the different inputs were looked at was in 1994 and it was clear that the changing practices on farm must be represented in these updated calculations.”

This document explains how the new occupier's payment covering arable operations which includes grass leys has been calculated.

:: The Energy Networks website also has a summary spreadsheet of all payments made under electric wayleave in England and Wales.

See also:

Published: 04/04/2019 at 10:37

Print this page

Recent Comments:

Posted by: Michael Wheeler Posted on: 06/04/2019 09:18:21

Comment: The rulings are to be commended BUT they apseem preserved in aspic. They do not take into account the usage of pylon lines to carry fibre optic cables which is of great benefit to the electricity company but this benefit is not passed on to the landowners. I also think the NFU legal department should look into this in great detail.

Posted by: Richard StanleyPosted on: 09/05/2019 08:37:18

Comment: The calculation for potatoes does not come anywhere near the true cost and in comparison with the loss if it was in cereals is not a reasonable multiple at all. The land area loss is much greater as machinery is so long and large that a significant area is lost. Any ground driven over is not worth planting at all and that is determined by the harvesting machinery not the planting machinery. At harvest the loss of time maneuvering round the poles extends for a large number of beds either side as it affects not just the harvester but the trailers. No calculation is made for the potential damage if the harvester elevator touches the trailer and if there is any undulation (rut) in the ground from the multiple maneuvering of the machinery then this is increased. Spraying for potatoes cannot be done by just driving in a circle round the pole. It must be done by driving in a straight line up to the pole, folding the booms then moving and backing up to the pole then unfolding. Then somehow managing not to miss a bit as blight in particular only needs one small miss to infect the whole field. Plus we often have to put a whole extra run or two in a field to fit around the poles. It does seem that any input from a potato farmer or any other similar like carrots has been missing as these calculations are way out. And that is without going into the cost of fitting the irrigation around the poles...…… to leave for another day