<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>what happens if it makes little or no difference to the nuisance?</blockquote>

As it stands I believe signing the Tomlin order will draw a line / finalise the current case and as said before my solicitor has said we are guided by the expert witnesses and the court will follow what they say. I totally agree with Peters comments but don't think my solicitor will be swayed from what has already been agreed. However , however, I wonder if there's a possibility of moving to a different solicitor to finalise the agreement. I'd be happy to pay for that if it gets the result I need. Does anyone know if that could be a possibility? Perhaps I have to stop with the same solicitor at this stage in the case.

Change solicitor - possible, is your solicitor funded by your insurance co.? in which case you will need their consent and approval of the new solicitor otherwise the insurance co. could use it as an excuse to dump the case. However there is nothing to stop you going to take advice from your own solicitor independently from the insurance co. funding.

The problem as I see it is that as the Tomlin order will draw a line / finalise the current case if the experts proposal does not fix the problem then you are stuffed.

You could ask the solicitor if they are prepared to guarantee that the proposed works that you are expected to sign up to will fix the problem. The solicitor can then also ask the expert to guarantee that his proposal will solve the problem. If neither will offer a guarantee of a fix then you should be asking the question "why should I agree to something before it is tried and tested when there is no guarantee / certainty that the problems will be solved"

As an after thought - your neighbour is causing a problem to you that he has to solve or abate. Why do you have to agree to anything other than that problem has been solved or ceased.

Perhaps you should also ask the barrister why you have to sign anything before the problem is fixed if there is no easy comeback (e.g. a guarantee) should the proposed works fail to resolve the problem.

Chimneys can be fickle things with external factors having unpredictable consequences (hence the building regs caveats) so to me a trial solution with a 1m or 1.4m metal tube would seem the sensible option rather than demanding that you sign up to an untested design with no guarantee of success.

Of course if a trial extension is undertaken you don't have to agree or approve that, the trial would be up to your neighbour to arrange and then act on the results.(Although you would need to be involved to monitor / measure the results).

IMO you don't have to sign anything until the problem is solved - and even then in your place I would be waiting one heating season without problems before I signed off the problem as fixed.

+1 to everyone who says don't sign anything to say it's a satisfactory solution when you don't know if it is going to work.

Posted By: cleanairforall2Pollution is a choice breathing is not.

So is punctuation

Are the chimney filters readily available in the UK now Renewable John ?

long overdue -- her is one piece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/22/government-investigate-whether-wood-burning-stoves-damage-peoples/

One problem I can see with putting a filter on the chimney is the attitude developing of 'I have a filter now so no problems, I can burn anything I want' - and I am left wondering how much dirty smoke the filter can cope with before particles get past.

I would much prefer to see a passive solution, that is one where the chimney worked by default rather than rely on a bit of technology that can be abused or fail.

Do the electro static filters drop the accumulated particles when the power is switched off? And do they loose efficiency as particle build up occurs?

Posted By: Peter_in_HungaryDo the electro static filters drop the accumulated particles when the power is switched off? And do they loose efficiency as particle build up occurs?

You will get normal chimney soot falls if you switch the power off if there is to much soot to stick to the chimney. As for loosing efficiency the rods are normally in the centre of the chimney so not normally affected by soot build up.

Posted By: Pile-o-StoneWe’ve removed one of our two old wood burners on the strength of this thread (and others) on this forum. I looked at more efficient modern stoves, but the particulates were still massively higher than the wood effect gas stove we installed. The lack of mess from ash pans, wooden logs and the convenience of clicking a switch to turn it in is also a big bonus!

The room the wood burner was involved is now much warmer (when unlit, the wood burner was sucking heat out of the room) and is much cleaner. We moved to a renewable energy company that offsets all of the carbon from gas, so we are greener too.

I’m looking at removing the second wood burner as soon as funds allow.

Makes a big difference if you have your own wood supply that you can control the moisture content to within the stove manufacturers recommended range. Rarely see any smoke from our Dunsley stoves. If I was that concerned then I would fit an electrostatic filter but at present I dont think its a significant problem.

Too true Tony.
I don't know what to say when you still get people thinking that if you cannot see smoke, there is not a problem.
Just shows their lack of education on these matters, and I don't mean that as an insult. Strange how people easily accepted that diesel cars cause problems (the the scandal was more about oxides of nitrogen), but cannot accept that burning timber is wrong.

Posted By: renewablejohnCome on Steamy lets get real we have all seen the forest fires in America and Portugal and your worried about a few particles out of a wood burning stove

You just don't get it do you.

Just to put in context UK PM 2.5 levels

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/latest/currentlevels

Posted By: gyrogear

Posted By: SteamyTeaI don't know what to say when you still get people thinking that if you cannot see smoke, there is not a problem.

I quite agree: not many people (apart from yachtsmen etc.) see the smoke from Channel shipping, or Atlantic / world shipping for that matter...

*That's* what worries me, not wood stoves...

cf. https://www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/shipping/air-pollution-ships

"NOx from shipping is set to exceed NOx from all EU land-based sources in the coming decade."

gg

Always wonder why people go on a cruise and then sunbathe down wind of the ships exhaust pipes. Cannot be good for you.
Shipping would be an easy conversion to torrefied wood with the corresponding reduction in NOx.