Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


widget @ surfing-waves.com




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2016
     
    Well I'm certainly glad my home insurance covered neighbour disputes. There's no way I would have been prepared to gamble £ 60k on costs to reach a solution to the problem Marcus, long live home insurance that's what I say. :wink:

    Some development here on the proposed chimney alterations. Our expert witness has said he is "reasonably" happy that the 1080 increase will solve the problem (no guarantees there then). However, he would be happy to roll with the 1350 increase if I feel it would be more beneficial. So it looks like he's thrown the ball back in my court to make a decision on the height of the flu opening. Erm, bit higher please ....

    I've taken on board all the comments about the consequences of signing the Tomlin order and have thought about contacting the barrister that works for my insurers to see if the wording in the order can be altered in a way that will give us some rights if the alterations to the chimney fail to work.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2016
     
    You are not interested in the height of the chimney, it is irelavent, you are very keen not to suffer any more problems of the rediculous smoke or fumes that it might cause.

    Don't get sidetracked
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2016
     
    Well said Tony
  1.  
    Posted By: Mikeee5Our expert witness has said he is "reasonably" happy that the 1080 increase will solve the problem (no guarantees there then). However, he would be happy to roll with the 1350 increase if I feel it would be more beneficial. So it looks like he's thrown the ball back in my court to make a decision on the height of the flu opening.

    You can't make a decision on the hight of the chimney - you are not qualified! What happens if you agree to any height and it does not work? you will be stuck with the problem because you have agreed to a solution (that did not work). IMO your position should be that you can't comment upon the height of the chimney, you just want the problem fixed.

    Posted By: Mikeee5I've taken on board all the comments about the consequences of signing the Tomlin order and have thought about contacting the barrister that works for my insurers to see if the wording in the order can be altered in a way that will give us some rights if the alterations to the chimney fail to work.

    Why sign it at all in any form. It offers you no benefits or advantage and risks scuppering any chance of a solution if ANY fix applied fails.
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2017 edited
     
    .
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2017
     
    :) now what?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2017
     
    Is that for the flue/chimney extention?
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2017 edited
     
    .
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2017
     
    Are they still allowed to burn the dodgy timber, or was that stopped?
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2017 edited
     
    .
  2.  
    'That was stopped steamy .''

    Burning dodgy timber, or burning at all?

    If the latter then the Planners can delay as long as they like!
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2017 edited
     
    .
  3.  
    Perhaps a situation where you *don't* want the Planning system to work fast, then!
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2017 edited
     
    .
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2017 edited
     
    .
  4.  
    IMO quite correct to turn down the offer. You don't know if the lower height will solve the problem - come to that you don't know if the experts recommendation will solve the problem either. I think you will be in big problems if you accept a solution that later turns out not to work. At the moment the expert has recommended a solution, if that solution fails then its back to the drawing board, however if you accept a solution (even the recommended one) and it fails then it will be difficult for you to 'unaccept' the solution. By the way did the expert give a guarantee with their recommendation?
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2017 edited
     
    .
  5.  
    Unless you get a 100% guarantee this stops the pollution its not worth taking the risk as there is no safe level of PM's?

    https://laqm.defra.gov.uk/public-health/pm25.html

    PM2.5 pollution comes from domestic wood burning than traffic http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2017
     
    .
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2017
     
    Interesting read



    www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/29/air-pollution-sadiq-khan-calls-for-ban-on-wood-burning-sto
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2017
     
    Plans have been passed here !!
  6.  
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Mikeee5</cite>Plans have been passed here !!</blockquote>
    Plans to do what ??
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2017
     
    Increase the brickwork of the chimney by 1 metre and chuck the flat top terminal in the wheelie bin.
    • CommentAuthorMarkyP
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2017
     
    what's the situation with the Tomlin order?
  7.  
    I would be a little suspicious about Sadiq Khan's claim that 30% of London's PM2.5s come from wood burning stoves.

    I am not sure how they calculate their figures but I know that Defra's calculations for road vehicles when apportioning pollution to different vehicle types is way off. Until very recently Defra used 'test data' - the same test data which caused the VW scandal, which is now accepted to be a factor of 5 to 10 times out. In the last year to counteract criticism Defra moved to using 'real-world' data derived from speed dependent 'real-world' monitoring. Unfortunately, as O'Driscoll et al, in their paper "A portable emissions measurement system (PEMS) study of NOx and primary NO2 emissions from Euro 6 diesel passenger cars and comparison with COPERT emission factors" point out this is still a factor of 2.5 too low Defra assume cars travel at constant speed and don't accelerate.

    I have googled around but can't immediately find Sadiq's source for his claims and whether they use a similar methodology to Defra for apportionment. If they do then there is a good chance the 30% might also be overstated by perhaps a factor of 3 in London - so less of an issue than claimed.

    However, wood burning stoves are not great for the health of occupants of a home. I live rurally, and use a cheap Chinese particulate monitor to ensure good levels of air quality within the room in my home with a wood burner. My general tips would be 1. only open the door for very brief periods of time (max 10 seconds) 2. if the air intake is room fed, open internal doors during the initial lighting phase 3. light the stove with a gas burner (I use a weed killer stick, takes under 30 seconds) rather than using kindling and some blowing - all 3 of these techniques generally keep the max internal PM levels below 10ug/m3. I have tried using a top specification air filter and ioniser but have found it doesn't make that much difference, I think because it causes a lot of churn of the air in the room which can make PM levels worse.
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2017
     
    Thank you for the information AP. I'm very impressed that you take care not to cause to much pollution when you light your stove. My neighbours were doing the opposite, bung it all on and chuck a match at it.
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2017
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: MarkyP</cite>what's the situation with the Tomlin

    We've been asked for our consent by the defendants solicitor to allow them to chuck a metre of brickwork on top of the existing joint stack. Unfortunately that is about 350 mm shorter than what the expert witnesses recommended. I've had a look at the stack this week and the mortar is in very poor condition between the bricks and the feathers. I'm going to request a report from a structural engineer, either pre design or to be included in their construction phase plan as per CDM regs 2015.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2017
     
    what happens if it makes little or no difference to the nuisance?
  8.  
    Once again, I think you have to find a wording that agrees to let them try it out, but makes it abundantly clear that you do not agree that, if the nuisance persists, this is the last act. One would have hoped that your solicitor would have provided or assisted with a form of words.
  9.  
    Posted By: Mikeee5We've been asked for our consent by the defendants solicitor to allow them to chuck a metre of brickwork on top of the existing joint stack. Unfortunately that is about 350 mm shorter than what the expert witnesses recommended.

    I would not consent because
    1) you have no idea what the effect of the works will be (and you are not qualified to judge this).
    2) it is not what the expert witnesses recommended.
    3)if planning permission has been granted already what is the requirement / need for your permission - other than to limit your options in the event that the works fail to provide a solution.

    I would have thought that a reasonable action would be to stick a metre of tube onto the chimney to see how that affects the problem and if it provides a fix then do it properly in brickwork. i.e. avoid the expense of upgrading the chimney until the proposal is shown to work. (Same goes for the experts 1350mm extension). The fact that they want to go ahead with 1 metre of brickwork without knowing if it will work to me implies that they see this as a way to get out of their problems and to avoid further actions if this fails. It is evident that they have no interest in solveing the problem, they just want to carry on using the stove with the minimum cost to themselves and never mind the trouble caused to others. IMO anything they do should be seen in this light
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press