- Location
- North Wales
As I said in post you've replied to, the current British standard was written in a way to not exclude any style of fencing as long as you could pull the wire tight and it stayed tight. People have different styles and opinions on how to fence and the committee didn't want to dictate how a fence should be built.Unfortunately the only diagrams are in the British standards currently BS1722.2.2020
Had the same issue 20 years ago under the CSF (catchment sensitive farming grants)
They saw sense and agreed that the current BS at the time 1722.2. 2006 overrode their requirements and agreed the use of box struts.
Yes, They cost more to erect, materials wise but I would rather that than my staff causing injury to themselves using equipment that they have been trained to use, by a Lantra instructor.
Why would any employer or member of staff knowingly go against what they have been instructed and trained to do just to appease the RPA.
Currently replacing fencing, still fit for purpose at 20 years old. (CSF) tax payers are paying.
Box struts all the way!
It has some recommendations in post sizes etc to help you achieve those aims but they are not specific requirements to meet the standard just a guide to help you meet the aim of keeping the wire tight.
How the RPA have Interpreted that to mean that box strainers aren't eligible is a mystery. There is no mention of a 45° angle in relation to timber fencing in the 2020 version although there is in the 2006 version so it's either a carry over left over from previous specs or they've interpreted the new standard incorrectly. Having said that they can write whatever they want into the spec and if they say they want an angle no greater than 45° there's nothing stopping then doing it.
I'm surprised they wouldn't allow the use of box struts under the csf grants as there is a diagram of a box as a recommended strainer assembly in the 2006 standard.
Edit, you've said virtually the same as me in your post as I was trying this