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.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.
Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




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.

The AECB accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site. Views given in posts are not necessarily the views of the AECB.



Heating and cooling: Smoke Nuisance – is wood wood?

Bottom of Page

991 to 1020 of 1647

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 30
  5. 31
  6. 32
  7. 33
  8. 34
  9. 35
  10. 36
  11. 37
  12. ...
  13. 55
  14. >
  1.  
    Posted By: longjohn2When I had dealings with our local Eho they made very sure that in the letters they sent to me and I believe my neighbour they stated....that they had not witnessed a smoke, fume or odour nusiance and added, just because they had not witnessed it did not mean there was not one. And we were advised that we could take our own court action!

    Of course that's what they said. That way they don't have to do anything and its all down to you. If they admit that they saw any breach then they would actually be obliged to do some useful work:devil::devil:
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2015
     
    I`m just looking back through the letters I have received from the EHO and on the 15 Feb 2012 he states “I am satisfied that the wood burning stove that has been installed in the living roof at **** is on the DEFRA Approved list and is exempt from the above legislation when burning certain fuels. I am also satisfied that the appliance has been installed by a HETAS approved competent person and has been fitted in accordance with their operating instructions”.

    The letter is headed with:

    RE: Complaint regarding an alleged smoke nuisance emanating from a chimney at ****.
    Clean Air Act 1993 Section 20
    Smoke Control Area *** operative from ****


    The officer concludes the letter by saying “ In summary, whilst I note your concern regarding emissions from said chimney, if Mr *** continues to operate the wood burner using the fuel that I have inspected and advised him to burn, then I cannot substantiate any contravention of any Environmental Health legislation. I trust that this confirms the current position and thus be advised that I have now concluded my investigation into your complaint.
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2015
     
    Just looked back through the Freedom of Information bumff and it was on the 13 January 2012 when the Officer noted my wifes information regarding the delivery of freshly cut logs with leaves on. He has logged "Explained to Mrs *** that DEFRA allow for some smoke to be emitted from their approved stoves when they are first lit and when they are being re-fueled".
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2015 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: longjohn2</cite>Hi mikeee5.

    nd we were advised that we could take our own court action! Is your Eho stating No nusiance....or just that he did not witness it?</blockquote>

    The last letter I received from the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services concluded by saying "I could of course take action privately.

    The EHO stated he is satisfied a nuisance does not exist!
    • CommentAuthorsnyggapa
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2015 edited
     
    do you know the make and model of the stove?

    My reading, if you have only complained about smoke (not fumes) and the neighbour is using a DEFRA appliance, and fuel in accordance with the conditions (both instructions as stated here, plus fuel type http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2404/schedule/made ) then there is nothing the EHO can do with respect to the clean air act re smoke. Hence the EHO is technically correct, IF the correct fuel is used and the other conditions are followed. How much, or when, smoke generated does not matter since it is "exempt" - it can generate as much smoke as it likes but not breach the clean air act.
    If you don't know the make and model of the stove you cannot verify this.

    If you complain about FUMES being prejudicial to health, then that is under the EPA act, defra exemption only relates to the clean air act and does not exempt the appliance from the requirements of the EPA, so you would appear to have a case here that the EHO should look at (statutory nuisance under the EPA) - but only if you complain about FUMES and not about SMOKE. It may seem pedantic, but that's what the rules appear to say.

    and not forgetting - whether the appliance breaches the EPA, CAA or building regs, or does not breach the EPA, CAA or building regs - none of this makes a difference to whether the use of the appliance is causing you a nuisance, which is a matter of fact and degree.

    (I am not a lawyer, only a pedant)
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2015 edited
     
    I`ts an AGA Little Wenlock SE Snyggapa. I thought the DEFRA exemption only allowed it to burn unauthorised fuels in a smoke controlled area.
    • CommentAuthorsnyggapa
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2015
     
    ok, so the page says:

    Fireplace: Little Wenlock Classic SE Wood Fuel Stove manufactured by Aga, Station Road, Ketley, Telford, Shropshire, TF1 5AQ

    Conditions: The fireplace must be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the following specifications: Operating instructions dated 19th December 2008, reference: N00471AXX Rev 001 DP081219

    Conditions: Permitted fuels (other than authorised fuels): Dry and split wood logs of a maximum length of 25 cm and a maximum diameter of 10 cm(1)

    so, if burning fresh logs then it is not being fuelled in accordance with it's DEFRA permission, hence in breach of the CAA. (note, other appliances are allowed to be fuelled with just "wood logs" , the exemption for this appliance is much more specific/restrictive)

    Stove instructions can be found here : http://www.hetas.co.uk/wp-content/mediauploads/Little-Wenlock-MF-Classic-SE-Installation-Operating-Instructions.pdf which also give guidance about flue siting but I guess it complies with that?
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2015
     
    Not sure what the definition of fumes is but presumably CO would count. I recall you said something about smoke alarms going off but is one of them a CO detector? Perhaps buy one and if it goes off ask the fire brigade if they can investigate.
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2015 edited
     
    The expert witness placed CO monitors in my home when he did his assessment. It showed excessive CO and he put it down to solid fuel combustion and included the results in his report. The times were a bit obscure and unfortunately I didn't record the chimney smoking during the times on the charts. My neighbours have disputed the times and are trying to make out I had a faulty gas flu! The times do not correspond with the times my Heating switches on and off too!
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2015 edited
     
    This has got the potential of costing my neighbours 50 k in costs, Yep 50 thousand pounds. Half of me says they deserve a kick in the wallet for what they have put us through and half of me says call a meeting with the chief exec of the LA and the head of planning and regulatory services and go through this with a fine tooth comb. We're in the right here, the fumes have been strong enough to give me a bloody nose, it's unhealthy to stay where the fumes are present. I'm a hard working citizen of the UK,it's unbelievable that we have been left in this situation!!!

    Mikeee5
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2015
     
    Did the EHO say anything about the CO ?
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2015 edited
     
    They didn't comment direct to me CWatters. The information was sent to the LA via my solicitor. The EHO wrote to my solicitor saying a statutory nuisance does not exist. The EHO never visited my property to make an assessment of the fumes! He must have visited my neighbours again and made a judgement from their side of the fence! The expert witness report is mentioned in the freedom of information bumff and the EHO has stated that I have no training or qualifications to use the equipment. The EHO has mentioned that the equipment may not be calibrated too! My instructions from the Expert Witness was to place the monitors where the fumes were present, nothing to technical about that!

    Someone also instructed the EHO to make two more visits and look at closing the case down. The EHO has queried the installation with someone in building control and they have stated that the installer would have checked the performance when commissioning and they have a signed copy of the certificate of conformity from the installer and that is good enough for them! I witnessed the smoke when it was tested by HETAS last year and there was nowhere near the amount of smoke produced than my neighbour has been creating. This was on one of the hottest days of the year and the smoke drifted up and away from my property. This ticked the box as conforming. The EHO and Building Control have assumed that the chimney conforms all the time!!

    As previously mentioned, HETAS recognise that the minimum requirements will not be succesful on every occasion and now recommend that their installers exceed the minimum heights wherever structurally possible. HETAS have made recommendations for alterations of the chimney that "may" improve the situation but unfortunately my neighbour has not carried out the recommended work.

    I rest my case your honour!!!!

    :confused:
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2015
     
    Guess I should have thrown Sec 79 (1) (c) in there somewhere !!!
  14.  
    snyggapa - IMO the problem here is that the chimney is not carrying away the products of combustion. This has nothing to do with the type of stove or fuel used. Of course if improper fuel is use the problem of smoke / fumes will be worse, but it will matter little what the stove is or what the fuel is - the chimney won't perform according to the regs (i.e. carry away the products of combustion) because it is built to the minimum acceptable standard (I understand) not to a design that will work in the location it is sited. I would expect the defence in this case to labour the point that the stove and fuel comply, but this is a red herring and has nothing to do with the performance of the chimney in its particular location.
    • CommentAuthorsnyggapa
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2015
     
    Hi Peter, absolutely agree. As I said earlier, there is huge danger of the case getting over complicated and de-railed but the basic points of the case that I believe Mikeee has is that the use of the fire is affecting his health.

    Unfortunately all of the rest is evidence that is technically unrelated (the LA should in theory take action under the EPA act for the fumes prejudicial to his health, if they are burning fresh logs then the defra exepmtion is not valid so the LA should take action about the smoke under the CAA, and if the chimney is not not carrying away the products of combustion then the (LA?) should take action for a breach of the building regs)

    Unfortunately there is a common thread here, the fact doesn't change that the use of the appliance is clearly prejudicial to mikeee's health and therefore causing a nuisance. the fact that they believe it complies with all the rules does not affect this
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2015
     
    Nice summary, we win!
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2015 edited
     
    I hope so Tony. Yes two very good summaries. Peter is still correcto with the chimney not working properly and failing to carry away the products of combustion. As posted last week, the fumes were horrendous around my back door and there was very little smoke being produced.

    Well we've reached over 1000 posts on the thread, it's absolutely amazing. The support I have had from the members of GBF has been absolutely phenomenal, I can't thank you all enough. There's no way I would be here now without the help of you pesky kids (I'll get to do my Scooby Doo ending before I'm done!! )

    All my technical information has now been disclosed the next stage is the disclosure of the witness statements. I have received a nice letter from the guy from Australia that witnessed the fumes in and around my property on one occasion in 2013. I think I mentioned him on the thread a while back, he had said that he used to work in air quality monitoring. He has provided details of his career and it turns out he has had a hand in writing publications on the subject. It looks like he is the JR Hartley of Australia, I guess he must have visited my home for a reason, it's a very small world!!

    Mikeee5
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2015 edited
     
    If the EHO attends court, do you think it would start the 6 month time scale rule ticking for the European Court of Human Rights?
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2015
     
    Sorry folks, bit of an open ended question there! Probably best to assess the situation after the court case.

    Cheers

    Mikeee5
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2015 edited
     
    I`m just writing my statement ready for the big day and I`ve been going through some correspondence from the Chief Executive of my Local Authority regarding the none DEFRA Exempt Multi Fuelled Boiler. I mentioned the toxic fumes and the carbon monoxide monitor being triggered in one of my letters and the Chief Exec said in the reply letter “This particular aspect of your complaint would be dealt with under a different statute, Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This requires the Council to inspect its area and take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of Statutory Nuisance. In this case fumes or gases emitted from private dwellings so as to prejudicial to health or a nuisance (sect. 79(1)(c) and (4)".

    By jove, it was there all along! This was the LA`s obligation for fumes for the first installation and is applicable to the DEFRA exempt Stove. The LA have never visited my property to make an assessment of the severity of the fumes under sec 79(1)(c) of the EPA 1990.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2015
     
    I think you ought to write to them (the LA) saying that they have never visited your property to make an assessment of the fumes.

    Keep the letter very short and ask for an acknowledgement of them receiving it.
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2015
     
    Let's hope he turns up to court Tony. Will make an interesting cross examination! Fumes horrendous here again tonight!!
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeJun 3rd 2015 edited
     
    Just received the witness statements from the defence. I am amazed how many anomalies there are, think there will be one or two noses growing on the big day!! They have even got an elderly neighbour from several properties away to falsify a statement. We are good friends with these people and I went to see them yesterday. She said that my neighbour had told her what to write and told her it would not go any further. The elderly lady was very upset when I spoke to her yesterday. She said she would see my neighbour and request that the statement is withdrawn. I'm not sure if that can be done now as the papers have been provided to the court. Just shows what nasty vindictive people I have for neighbours.

    All my witness statements have now been provided to the court and there is a trial hearing next month.

    Mikeee5
    • CommentAuthorborpin
    • CommentTimeJun 3rd 2015
     
    Posted By: Mikeee5She said that my neighbour had told her what to write and told her it would not go any further.
    May be willing to go to court and testify that the statement was given under duress.
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeJun 3rd 2015 edited
     
    Her husband said she had done it under duress Borpin. I've been friends with this family for years, I grew up with their kids and we meet the couple every Friday for lunch, I nearly dropped through the floor when I saw the statement. She said she comes back from bingo three times a week and turns around in the culdesac in front of the smokey neighbours bungalow. She has got her to write that she hasn't seen any smoke on these occasions. She told me she wouldn't have seen any smoke at the time as it was dark when she returned from bingo.
  26.  
    Mikeee5, another document showing the possible dangers of living near inconsiderate wood burning neighbours. Good luck with your case.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2015
     
    Is the culdesac turn around up wind or down wind of the problem house?
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2015 edited
     
    Thanks for the information and the well wishes Peter, much appreciated.

    The culdesac is up wind of problem house CWatters. It was dark at the time the elderly lady didn't see any smoke too. The elderly lady has contacted my neighbour and requested that the statement is withdrawn as she didn't give her permission to use it. My neighbour has used emotional blackmail on her now by saying that she could lose her house over this and it will be her fault. She's making out that we are harassing her witnesses!!
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2015
     
    Might be worth someone asking Age Concern or the local community support officer to look in to make sure they are ok and not being harassed or pressurised.
  30.  
    Just was I was thinking then I turned the page and CW had already said it.

991 to 1020 of 1647

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 30
  5. 31
  6. 32
  7. 33
  8. 34
  9. 35
  10. 36
  11. 37
  12. ...
  13. 55
  14. >
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press