Amanda's discussion is at http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14206

Posted By: Mikeee5My solicitor is basically saying we will have to put up with the fumes on the occasions that the fumes come down caused by downdrafts from the high trees!

He could be right but that would depend upon the definition of ' occasions '. If the occasions happen daily or weekly then I don't see that you should put up with the fumes, if the occasions were once a month then maybe. Ask your solicitor what he thinks would be a reasonable number of occasions per month - perhaps relate this to noisy parties every weekend, once a month or twice a year? There will be accepted guidlenes as to what frequency of nuisance is actionable. But this approach is accepting a compromise. First get the chimney extended and get an abatement order to stop the nuisance until that is done.

I also don't think that because the trees are out side the neighbours property they can be ignored. They have to be taken into account and your neighbour has to act accordingly. If an object(s) are outside of your control it does not mean that you can ignore their effects. If the experts and your solicitor are ignoring the trees because they are outside your neighbours property then this IMO is a cop-out.

Posted By: Mikeee5The conclusion was, because the trees are not on my neighbours property, there was nothing that could be done.

What they should have said is ' because the trees are not on my neighbours property, there was nothing that could be done ' about the trees.

This does not mean that your neighbour is allowed to pollute because he can't cut down the trees. He has to stop the pollution / nuisance -if the only way he can do this is by not using the stove then that is his problem

Mikeee5,
I cannot help feeling sorry for your neighbour, I genuinely do not intend this to come over as personal, but just perhaps there is some middle ground, i.e. are you perhaps now "hyper-sensitive" to wood-smoke or even the preception of wood smoke.
Which, after all, most-all of humankind evolved to live with.
This opinion based on being 57 years old, and an observation of the foibles of human nature.
Where some on the absolute perhipery of tolerance or intolerance, demand the impossible, from everyone else.
i.e the many, or majority, must suffer for the perhaps unrealistic demands of a very few.
Will barbecues or bonfires be banned next.
Live and let live, or consider moving.
Seriously.
Regards,
Marcus.
PS
Mods, feel free to edit or remove this post, but this entire thread appears to be very very one-sided, and I have followed it with growing frustration for some time.

Posted By: orangemannotbarbecues or bonfires be banned next.

Barbecues *were* banned where in the last place I lived (large city), even though we had a garden, and any sort of garden fire, camp fire or bonfire is banned where I now live...

Posted By: orangemannotthe many, or majority, must suffer for the perhaps unrealistic demands of a very few.

what is meant by "perhaps unrealistic" ? surely, the law is the law, period.

Sorry but I cannot agree with your take.

gg

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: orangemannot</cite>Mikeee5,
I cannot help feeling sorry for your neighbour, I genuinely do not intend this to come over as personal, but just perhaps there is some middle ground,

I'm not sure if you have followed the thread from the start Marcus but the option of middle ground was exhausted a couple of years ago. My neighbour witnessed the severity of the fumes during a meeting on my property along with another neighbour who's smoke alarms have also been triggered by the smoke. My neighbour agreed to do something about it and it was his son that insisted that they were doing nothing wrong and to take them to court. As you are aware court action has followed and the judge ordered a meeting of both expert witnesses. The fire was lit by my neighbour during the meeting and there was very little smoke produced. The experts made an assessment on my property and witnessed the fumes. There has been recommendations made by the experts which will hopefully bring the problem to an end.

Regarding living with wood smoke, if the fumes are strong enough to cause burning sensations to nose throat and lungs and cause nosebleeds, i.e Hazardous to Health, then I would sooner not live with it. The Building Regs and the Environmental Protction Act 1990 cover for this but getting someone to action both laws has proved very difficult.

I did ask a few pages back if anyone wanted me to keep the thread updated with progress and a couple of members said they did. I Will be writing to the European Court of Human Rights soon as I believe I have been thoroughly let down by the system.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: orangemannot</cite>Mikeee5,
I cannot help feeling sorry for your neighbour, I genuinely do not intend this to come over as personal, but just perhaps there is some middle ground,

I don't think unless you have lived with this problem you can make a comment like this.

When you sit in your house and you know immediately when your neighbour has lit their stove because the smell is coming into your house, your getting a burning sensation in your throat which lasts for days. You can't open your windows because the acrid smell will be unbearable. You can't sit in your garden because the smell is overpowering, your throat is burning and you stink of smoke. No-one can tell me that is normal and to put up with it.

I don't think you are 'hyper-sensitive' to wood when it is burning the back of your throat, that is showing something is wrong.

Remember you have no control over this, you can't stop this and there doesn't seem to be anyone that wants to help.

If it was a workplace you could hand your notice in an leave, when it is your home you have no choice.

As for selling, who is going to come and view your house and say they want it when it smells of acrid smoke and you can't even sit in some rooms without feeling ill. It is not sorting the problem out selling, it is just passing your problem on to someone else.

It is mad that you can show everyone a problem but no-one wants to take ownership of it and sort it out.

Most of my sympathy is with Mikeee7 and Waddler who shouldn't have to put up with turning into kippers every time they go outside.

But if so much smoke is getting into their houses maybe they ought to do something about their airtightness. Until they do they're just wasting energy and causing more pollution than they need on a wider scale (assuming they heat with fossil fuels themselves - as almost everybody in the UK does) so being a bit hypocritical about this spot of more local pollution. At most the complaint should be that they're having to change the filters on their ventilation more often than is reasonable.

Ed. please don't sidetrack this discussion with what about airtightness. Bad enough to have to listen to Marcus and his false equivalence.

Posted By: Ed DaviesWell, it's not a complete sidetrack - it might provide a partial solution.

Yes, I agree, good airtightness might keep the occupants alive a little longer. We should not lose sight of the fact that the daily inconvenience is unpleasant, annoying and stressful but that there is also a clear expectation of a reduction in lifespan (on avg) for which my previous adjectives are wholly inadequate!!!

So worth another thread on just what the effect of improving airtightness would or might achieve and how much effort it would be but I would say not here as it would sidetrack the discussion to some degree, even if not completely.

The comments of orangeman and Ed Davies are rather astonishing.

I'm old enough to remember the days shortly after the introduction of the 1956 clean air act, when it was common to have streets of houses burning house coal with the resultant foul air quality. We have had an enormous improvement in air quality since then, largely due to the use of gas heating which generates very little local pollution.

One person operating a wood burner badly, wet wood, not enough oxygen, can generate an enormous plume of foul pollution covering many dwellings. It seems very odd to me to condone the return to pollution levels of the 1950s.

Of course, 99% of operators of wood burners do it as a choice. They will certainly have the option of using a low pollution form of heating, but they choose not to. I do not see why a selfish choice which impinges badly on third parties should be condoned. If the EH officials were doing their job properly, they would have stopped Markeee's neighbour years ago.

Presumably Markeee's house is like ours and most of the UK housing stock and doesn't have filters on the ventilation system - the ventilation consisting of numerous largely undiscoverable cracks.

But Marcus, that is the very point of this thread. Today we take steps against bullying, even though it has moved into the cybersphere. In the same way that you don't have to tolerate the unrealistic demands of your accident victim neither should the OP have to tolerate the threats to his health from his neighbours negligence.

We shrugged off the bullies in the past, taking it as a "man", but we don't have to, especially when young people are taking their lives in desperation.

And Mykeee is to be applauded for his resolute campaign against this injustice.

There, I feel much better now.

As I read and commented many many pages ago on this thread the issue in my opinion is nuisance and I firmly believe and have read in the building regs that the devise must not cause a nuisance even if it complied with the " mechanics" of the building regs. This neighbour is obviously causing nuisance to his neighbours and I cannot understand for the life of me why the authorities let it happen.

However I am planning to install a small modern ( clean ish ) wood burning stove in my new build but I am in a very rural location away from neighbours who also burn wood so I cannot be a accused of being one sided on this argument. I wish Mikeee all the success with his case as I firmly believe he is right to seek justice.

I actually thought Ed's suggestion about air tightness was relevant and reasonable. Mikee seems unlikely to stop the nuisance at source any time soon (and many doubt it will stop after the new flue is fitted) so I can't see why a discussion about other measures is a side track. If there's a side track that ought to have its own thread it's these other ramblings about tat from china, capping volcanoes and humans having evolved with smoke inhalation!

Marcus - you clearly don't live in a smoke plume. If you did you would not feel 'sorry' for the perpetrator.

I live 75 feet away from an American import known as a Central Boiler (Outside Wood Boiler). Mikee's experience is identical to mine. I have complained to EPA, DEFRA, EH, Planning, Welsh Ombudsman, my MP, MCS, HETAS and more.

From reading this blog it is clear that Section 82 is the only way forward. The Council officers are spectacularly useless and they do not understand the regulations. I've been trying to educate them for the past three years and even though they can see the smoke they say it is not a nuisance! The chimney is only 10ft high with smoke forced downwards to ground level due to the slope of the land. With this kind of stupidity prevailing at County Council level there is really no point talking to them.
I'm restarting my incident log, with recordings and photographs. When the evidence is compiled I'll add it to the already substantial folder of irrefutable evidence, bite the bullet, hire a specialist EH lawyer and head for the Court.

By the way Moving is not an option - you can't sell your house. Living in a smoke plume is somewhat off-putting to potential buyers. They worry about the brain and lung damage smoke causes to their children. It is not an option to conceal the truth - legally you must disclose any disputes with neighbours. Believe me - I would sell tomorrow if I could.

If you want to see how fast your property value can plummet all you need is to live next to an OWB. I saw the value of my home reduce by £100 000 six months after I bought it.

I have nothing but total respect for Mikee - anyone that finds themselves in this position really has no option but to carry on.
Make no mistake, Marcus - Smoke kills - there is nothing 'natural' about it. It is full of toxins that cause life-long permanent damage - and cancer. New studies show children exposed to smoke are far more likely to display learning and behavioral problems. Smoke can trigger strokes, heart attacks and asthma attacks. It would be a pity to die when this problem is entirely preventable - all we need is EH officers that know how to do their jobs.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed valuable information to this blog and especially Windy and Gavin who have offered real insight, knowledge and experience - that has been truly helpful.

Thank you Mikee - keep going - this blog is helping so many other people who, like you, are having their lives blighted by smoke.

Marcus can get back to stoking his fire now - hopefully with a little more humility.

Kind regards
KB


PS 1. Re Legal Insurance: the firms that provide the 'advice' under a house owner’s policy are paid by the insurance company - their job is to make sure it doesn't get to Court and cost them money.

PS 2. The particle size from an OWB can be as small as .05 - You can't keep them out of your home- that's why they are so dangerous – if you are breathing then you will inhale them - and they are absorbed directly into your bloodstream. They can lodge anywhere in your body and then cause cancer.





http://www.nescaum.org/topics/outdoor-hydronic-heaters

http://www.nescaum.org/topics/outdoor-hydronic-heaters/technical-information-reports

http://www.nescaum.org/documents/source-characterization-of-outdoor-wood-furnaces/

http://gasp-pgh.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/johnson_wood-health-reg_EM2011.pdf

http://www.ehhi.org/reports/woodsmoke/woodsmoke_report_ehhi_1010.pdf

http://www.vtwoodsmoke.org/pdf/Brown-OWB-Risk_HERA2007.pdf

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef2012694

So is that 3 of you that now have a neighbourhood smoke problem
Mikee
Karen (KBI)
Waddler.