I reasonably conclude that Vector does not understand the rules we should all be following. Two weeks ago I sat down with Vector in my role as co-director of SANZ to talk through the close approach consent process. I put the meeting minutes to them for acceptance. Fourteen days later, nothing. So I’m sharing the outcomes with my peers now, based on the circulated record.
I’ll be fair. Vector had been inviting me for some time and I’d been turning them down. I wanted substantive answers before I walked in the door. We did eventually get to the table, and some things were agreed.
The regulations are unclear, this doesn’t mean they can be misapplied by Vector. Developers are left guessing. We are not told the wind speeds used to calculate clearances, the measurement error allowances, or that support structures are adjusted. I was told months ago that info was IP. North Power publishes theirs. Vector have now agreed to publish too.
I also read out written statements Vector had sent claiming it was the developer’s job to maintain safe distances post-construction. That is not what the regulation says. They agreed the interpretation was wrong. The maintenance obligation falls on the lines owner. Lines sag and poles lean over time. And I note that I don’t accept Google Earth photos as evidence of no movement.
On scaffolding: it’s temporary. It should not be assessed at the same wind speed as a permanent building. Some scaffolds are being assessed at 120 km/h. I pointed them to AS/NZS 7000. They agreed to review it.
On solutions: aerial bundled conductor gives back about 0.8 metres of clearance. Vector has already run 300 km of it in Auckland. It needs to be offered before anyone hands a developer a $250,000 undergrounding quote. Vector also agreed to require approved engineers to submit full documentation upfront with every application, to stop the RFI cycle that drags on for months.
At my own Berwyn site, Vector shut work down over 24 centimetres, assessed against a conductor that wasn’t even there. Another developer was quoted $250k for undergrounding until someone checked the engineering report properly and found the error was Vector’s. Another had to shut their company down after Vector’s team would not engage.
Vector’s go-to position is safety. They told me directly: “If we consent, we are complicit.” Of course we all want safety. But who do we listen to, our certified professionals, or one anonymous team at Vector that can’t see alternative solutions? Vector holds all the power and they use it. There is a clear action list. I will be holding them to it.