Mon, 15 Jun 2026 10:01:12 +0100 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210411#Comment_210411 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210411#Comment_210411 Sat, 04 Oct 2014 19:05:03 +0100 tony https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210412#Comment_210412 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210412#Comment_210412 Sat, 04 Oct 2014 19:51:29 +0100 bot de paille
It would appear that its not as black and white as "if its DEFRA exempt then it cant be polluting"

Of interest are the last couple of paragraphs....





Building regulations and building control approval

Exempt appliances must either be installed by a Competent Person (in the case of wood burning stoves this must be a HETAS accredited installer) or the resident should seek Building Control approval to ensure compliance with Part J and, potentially, Part L of the Building Regulations. Part J deals with flue heights and sizes, ventilation rates and other safety issues relating to combustion appliances and Part L addresses the conservation of fuel and power in new and existing buildings where specific alterations are proposed.

Planning and environmental health
In certain situations (for example where exempt appliances require new flues or where new emissions from existing chimney stacks are likely to have a negative impact on neighbouring properties), installations may also need to be considered on planning and environmental health grounds and the conclusions of this process may prevent the installation of exempt appliances.

From a planning perspective, a new external flue will normally not require planning consent if it is on the rear or side elevation of the building and extends no more than one metre above the highest part of the roof.

If the building is in a designated Conservation Area the flue should not be fitted on the principal or side elevation if it would be visible from a highway. Where these conditions are not met, planning consent will be required and may be refused or accepted on design grounds.

In all instances it is advisable to check with Camden’s planning team before a flue is fitted.


From an environmental health perspective, there may be occasions where, despite planning approval and an exempt appliance, third parties consider that the consequent emissions still have a negative impact on their quality of life.

On such occasions, the claim may need to be assessed by Camden’s Environmental Health team to determine whether or not the emissions are, in fact, causing “nuisance”.
Registration
The Council should be notified of all new wood burning stove installations and the following information must be submitted:



Camden has some of the poorest air quality in London and has been declared an Air Quality Management Area. The major sources of pollution are motorised transport and gas boilers.

Although fuels such as wood, wood chips and pellets are renewable fuels with lower CO2 emissions than gas, coal or electricity, they still have a negative impact on air quality and public health (notably through emissions of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)) even when burnt in exempt appliances.

The cumulative impact of exempt appliances across Camden needs to be considered in this context and the proposed registration process noted above is important in this regard.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210415#Comment_210415 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210415#Comment_210415 Sat, 04 Oct 2014 20:49:31 +0100 Mikeee5
I'm reading the stat nuisance same as you CW. I think my LA are singing from a different song sheet and there Is private nuisance too.

I've emailed DEFRA and the smoke control team at Recardo AEA today to see if they can confirm if it's acceptable to create a statutory nuisance in a smoke control area, be intetesting to see what they come back with!

Mikeee5]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210417#Comment_210417 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210417#Comment_210417 Sat, 04 Oct 2014 22:15:25 +0100 Mikeee5
Hard going at the moment, brain is being strained in quite a few directions!

Mikeee5]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210470#Comment_210470 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210470#Comment_210470 Sun, 05 Oct 2014 19:36:59 +0100 Dessie http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance_in_English_law]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210490#Comment_210490 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210490#Comment_210490 Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:57:09 +0100 Mikeee5
Mikeee5]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210521#Comment_210521 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210521#Comment_210521 Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:33:22 +0100 Mikeee5
It's all getting very cryptic 😊

Mikeee5]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210525#Comment_210525 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210525#Comment_210525 Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:16:56 +0100 snyggapa
From my quick skim, DEFRA exempt appliances are only valid when burning the appropriate fuel - if you know the make/model of the stove you can check if it's compliant.

http://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/appliances.php?country=e

Note that the specification "wood logs" specifically notes "The fuel must not contain halogenated organic compounds or heavy metals as a result of treatment with wood-preservatives or coatings."

my interpretation being that if anything burned is treated or painted (or could be deemed as "construction waste") then that violates the smoke control rules.

might be another stick to wave, although not sure if you have waved that one already..]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210527#Comment_210527 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210527#Comment_210527 Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:32:22 +0100 Ed Davies Posted By: Mikeee5Ping. The penny has dropped! You may well get away with causing a nuisance in a smoke control area according to the Enivonment Protection Act 1990…I don't think so. The penny which needs to drop is the distinction between nuisance (ancient civil/criminal law as per Dessie's Wikipedia link) and statutory nuisance which is (as far as I can see) a specific thing defined by the EPA which the local council is obliged to deal with.

Something (eg., smoke from a DEFRA exempt stove in a smoke controlled area) can be a nuisance (as per civil law) without being a statutory nuisance (per the EPA).

The amount of smoke produced is irrelevant. The EPA says that if it's a properly exempt stove under the clean air act in a smoke controlled area then it's not a statutory nuisance. Revoke the smoke controlled area without making any changes to the installation or operation of the stove, how much smoke it produces or where the smoke goes and it might become a statutory nuisance. Weird, but that's what the EPA says.

Actually, I don't think it's all that weird. I guess that, effectively, the deal was that when a smoke-controlled area is created the council takes on enforcing the Clean Air Act (or its predecessors) in exchange for no-longer having to deal with any residual statutory nuisance caused by smoke.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210553#Comment_210553 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=210553#Comment_210553 Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:11:19 +0100 Mikeee5
Ed, It will be interesting to see what DEFRAs take on this will be. I`ll update the thread as soon as I get a reply.


Mikeee5]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211269#Comment_211269 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211269#Comment_211269 Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:16:30 +0100 garee
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/79

79(1)[F2Subject to subsections (1A) to (6A) below], the following matters constitute “statutory nuisances” for the purposes of this Part, that is to say—

79 (1) (c)fumes or gases emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;

It looks like fumes can be considered a nuisance, even though smoke can't (in a Smoke Control Area).]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211279#Comment_211279 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211279#Comment_211279 Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:51:17 +0100 ringi https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211292#Comment_211292 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211292#Comment_211292 Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:35:21 +0100 Peter_in_Hungary
This problem (IMO) has nothing to do with the stove but rather a bad chimney. The regs actually provide for this situation.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211306#Comment_211306 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211306#Comment_211306 Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:24:09 +0100 Mikeee5
Where it is not possible for the Local Authority to obtain the necessary evidence to
take action, or where they are reluctant to take action, individuals can consider taking
their own action under Section 82 of the Act. This allows an individual to take action
in the Magistrates’ Court and attempt to satisfy the magistrates that a smoke
nuisance exists and is likely to recur.

I know we have covered the section 82 earlier on the thread but I thought it was interesting that DEFRA gave reference to Local Authorities not being able to obtain the necessary evidence or "where they are reluctant to take action" !!

Thanks for the extra information on fumes Garee. I have asked DEFRA directly if it is acceptable to have fumes in and around my property on regular occasions as I live in a smoke control area? I have also asked what constitutes as a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection act 1990?

I have informed DEFRA that the expert witness has stated that the chimney is not working properly and HETAS have made recommendations to increase the height and remove the flat top terminal. I have also asked DEFRA whose responsibility it should be, Building Control, HETAS or The Environmental Health Department?

My Local Authority have said that they wouldn't consider the nearby high trees. I have asked HETAS what their inspectors opinion on the trees was but unfortunately for some strange reason they haven’t answered my question! The trees are towering above the chimney now, you are correct Peter, no one is prepared to take responsibility.

Mikeee5]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211696#Comment_211696 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211696#Comment_211696 Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:44:26 +0100 Mikeee5


22 October 2014


Dear Mr Redacted

SMOKE EMITTED FROM NEIGHBOUR’S CHIMNEY

Thank you for your emails of 4 October and 10 October about smoke being emitted from your neighbour’s chimney.

I am sorry to read that you continue to suffer distress and health problems that you believe are linked to this smoke. As you will appreciate, Defra cannot comment on individual cases. However, I will deal with the general issues raised by each of your questions in turn.

1. Is your neighbour allowed to cause a statutory nuisance with regard to smoke emissions as you are in a smoke control area?

The Clean Air Act 1993 (CAA) grants local authorities powers to control emissions of dark smoke, dust and fumes from industrial premises and furnaces, and to declare smoke control areas in which emissions of smoke from chimneys are banned unless the occupier is using an authorised fuel or exempted fireplace. Smoke emitted from domestic premises in a smoke control area is specifically excluded from the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) to avoid duplication with the smoke control provisions of the CAA.

2. What constitutes a statutory nuisance under the EPA?

Under the EPA, local authorities have a duty to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate complaints of statutory nuisance. The different categories of statutory nuisance are listed in section 79(1) and these include smoke, fumes or gases emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. The decision as to whether or not the smoke, fumes or gases is a statutory nuisance is made by the local authority’s environmental health practitioner on a case by case basis. They take into account a number of factors when investigating and assessing smoke, fumes or gases complaints, including the reasonableness of the activity being carried out, the time of day of the occurrence, its duration and its frequency of occurrence.

If satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or is about to occur or recur, the local authority must serve an abatement notice requiring that the nuisance is abated or restricted. There is a fine on conviction for non-compliance of up to £5,000 (together with a further fine of up to one tenth of that level for each day that the non-compliance continues).

As stated above, smoke emitted from domestic premises in a smoke control area is specifically excluded from the statutory nuisance provisions of the EPA to avoid duplication with the smoke control provisions of the CAA.

3. Is it acceptable to have fumes in and around your property on regular occasions as you are in a smoke control area?

Section 79(i)(c) of the EPA says that “fumes or gases emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance” can be deemed to be statutory nuisance for the purpose of the Act. Whether or not particular emissions can be classified as fumes or gases and as a statutory nuisance is both a legal and a technical question that only your local authority can judge.

4. Should your local authority incorporate technical guidance published by HETAS into its procedures?

It is for the local authority as the regulator to decide whether and how to make use of particular technical guidance.

5. Who is responsible for dealing with the issues relating to your neighbour’s chimney?

Local authorities are responsible for enforcing building regulations. It is for the local authority as the regulator to decide whether your neighbour’s chimney complies with the relevant requirements. However, building regulations only apply when the building is first built or where building work is carried out.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Yours sincerely,


Redacted]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211697#Comment_211697 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211697#Comment_211697 Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:55:41 +0100 Mikeee5
4: The chimney is not sufficiently carrying away the products of combustion. Is this the responsibility of HETAS, my Local Building Control or the Environmental Health Department?


There`s no yes no answers too, wonder if it was written by a politician

Mikeee5]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211698#Comment_211698 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211698#Comment_211698 Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:37:33 +0100 CWatters
Under the EPA a private individual can take legal action for statutory nuisance if the council fails to act. Is it also possible for a private individual to take similar action under the CAA?]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211824#Comment_211824 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211824#Comment_211824 Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:32:04 +0100 Mikeee5
I've been looking at the clean air act 1993 and can't see where it gives reference to statutory nuisance from smoke or fumes. I'm a bit confused as the statutory nuisance provisions are excluded from the EPA 1990 as I live in a smoke control area. Does this mean there are no provisions for statutory nuisance in a smoke control area?



Mikeee5]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211828#Comment_211828 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211828#Comment_211828 Fri, 24 Oct 2014 22:54:50 +0100 CWatters
"Smoke emitted from domestic premises in a smoke control area is specifically excluded from the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) to avoid duplication with the smoke control provisions of the CAA."

The big question is does the CAA offer equivalent protection to the EPA? That's why I'd be interested to know if a private individual can take action under the CAA?]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211830#Comment_211830 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211830#Comment_211830 Fri, 24 Oct 2014 23:26:54 +0100 garee
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/79

79(1)[F2Subject to subsections (1A) to (6A) below], the following matters constitute “statutory nuisances” for the purposes of this Part, that is to say—

79 (1) (c)fumes or gases emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;


The difficulty (certainly in my area) seems to be that the council are unwilling to measure fumes (particulate matter) and I haven't been able to find anybody who is able to record/log/witness the problem independently. This effectively puts the guilty parties above the law, and my family under the threat of ill health and recurring nuisance.

Mikeee's earlier comments about contacting the press make me think that that would be a good step - basically embarass my local EHO's into action and get some bad press for these hideous stove things.

I'm find that the longer my situation carries on, the more incompetence and negligence I unearth in the EHO's and planning departments. I don't know how these people can sleep at night.

Given that my EHOs and planning departments are unwilling to do anything to help, I'm tempted to go public with the particulate matter readings that I have for my house. After all, if my neighbours have not been witnessed doing anything, then they won't mind a splash of data going public will they :-)

MPs are not interested (mine didn't even reply to me) because it's not a big enough problem.
EHOs and planning officers are not interested because it's difficult to investigate.
Fumes are an invisible nuisance - it's difficult for by-standers to understand something they can't see and experience directly for themselves.

I'm sure it's been said before, but I have to say that I'm convinced the situation would be fixed quickly if an EHO or a lawyer were suffering from the problem.

Sorry for the rant.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211834#Comment_211834 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211834#Comment_211834 Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:09:58 +0100 Ed Davies Posted By: Mikeee5I've been looking at the clean air act 1993 and can't see where it gives reference to statutory nuisance from smoke or fumes. I'm a bit confused as the statutory nuisance provisions are excluded from the EPA 1990 as I live in a smoke control area. Does this mean there are no provisions for statutory nuisance in a smoke control area?Yes, that means there's no provision for statutory nuisance by some smoke in a smoke control area.

That doesn't mean it isn't a nuisance. Please stop obsessing on the word “statutory” which has a very narrow meaning in this context: a “statutory nuisance” is a nuisance which the local council is supposed to deal with under the EPA. If they're not obliged to deal with it under the EPA it's not a “statutory nuisance” even if it's a nuisance which they're obliged to deal with under some other legislation or a nuisance which somebody else can or should deal with under the EPA or any other act.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211838#Comment_211838 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211838#Comment_211838 Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:59:56 +0100 SteamyTea My partner asks me the same things many different ways, she always gets the same answer from me. Not the one she wants ]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211840#Comment_211840 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211840#Comment_211840 Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:04:15 +0100 Gotanewlife Posted By: SteamyTeashe always gets the same answer from meNo, the Green Building Forum isn't a dating site!]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211842#Comment_211842 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211842#Comment_211842 Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:25:22 +0100 owlman
http://www.airqualitynews.com/2014/02/20/eu-takes-legal-action-against-uk-over-air-pollution-failure/

If they give in to one particular perceived problem in one narrow area, it may open up a whole can of worms in every other walk of life. They, officialdom, will view it as potential; never ending litigation and they won't want to risk it.

Most of us on here Mikeee5 are sympathetic to your plight; but ages ago someone suggested it may be better to move. With the stress all of this may be causing you, and little likelihood of any immediate success walking away may be a solution.
A case of; "Discretion being the better part of Valour" and saving your health.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211848#Comment_211848 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211848#Comment_211848 Sat, 25 Oct 2014 15:15:24 +0100 tony https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211861#Comment_211861 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211861#Comment_211861 Sat, 25 Oct 2014 20:41:05 +0100 Mikeee5
I have a significant announcement to make next week, stay tuned clean air fans.

Mikeee5]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211865#Comment_211865 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211865#Comment_211865 Sat, 25 Oct 2014 22:09:13 +0100 SteamyTea ]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211949#Comment_211949 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=211949#Comment_211949 Mon, 27 Oct 2014 07:03:49 +0000 longjohn2 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=212125#Comment_212125 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=212125#Comment_212125 Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:16:39 +0000 Mikeee5
Has anyone got any information on wood smoke? I'm sure I've read somewhere that wood smoke is inherantly heavy and there is no known safe limits of exposure.

Cheers

Mikeee5]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=212147#Comment_212147 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=9305&Focus=212147#Comment_212147 Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:03:04 +0000 tony