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.




Heating and cooling: Smoke Nuisance from a wood Burner

Bottom of Page

1 to 30 of 32

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
  1.  
    Our neighbour installed a wood burning stove last year, since then we have suffered smoke pollution all through (2015-2016) autumn, winter and spring (5 or 6 times a week+) 80+ incidents (many witnessed by a Council EHO) of pollution coming into our home and garden (not a smoke control area). Whilst wood burners are acceptable in the correct environment i.e. rural areas where the particulates can be safely dispersed with no significant risk to others health they should be avoided in built up urban environments.

    We've kept diary of events, purchased an air monitor and had EH officers witness the nuisance (whilst our neighbour continued to pollute) but to no avail. On investigation we found DEFRA’s own advices state wood smoke represents a serious health risk and is also potentially carcinogenic <10um and <2.5um particulates. However, just as Mikeee5 found involving the local Councils Environmental Health and Building Control, etc proves difficult if not impossible to get the EHO's or Building Control to accept there is a problem or take any action to abate it (is it a cost issue?).

    We thought we could get the nuisance stopped quickly after contacting our local councils EH Officers, Building Control etc to no avail the officers rely on the small print of the legislation and legal definitions regarding minimums so that in spite of many incidents of smoke entering our house which were witnessed the Councils EHO's no action is taken.As a Chartered Engineer in my own field of engineering I expect officers with legal responsibilities to behave in a fair, honest and even handed way. O how wrong could I be? According to the EH Officers the smell of smoke in our home is only a "Statutory Nuisance" if they deem it to be, based only on their opinion and the DEFRA guidance regarding frequency, duration, ect (F.I.D.O.L.) is, it seems, ignored. A law unto themselves?

    We have tried to engage our neighbour on a number of occasions but they’ve confirmed they do not intend to change their behaviour and we expect the nuisance to re-start sometime very soon, at which time we will have no option left to us but go to court as a private nuisance. Your support and helpful comments will be welcome (not just close doors and windows which was the initial advice by the EHO's).
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2016
     
    Good luck proving a nuisance in court without the backing of an official body.
    Pop this in your arsenal anyway.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2016
     
    Posted By: cleanairforall2We thought we could get the nuisance stopped quickly after contacting our local councils EH Officers, Building Control etc to no avail the officers rely on the small print of the legislation and legal definitions regarding minimums

    What is it they are saying is the relevant small print and/or legal definition that means it is not a nuisance?
  4.  
    DJH

    My point on this was that the visiting EH Officers effectively can make their own rules regarding nuisance without regard for the impact of that nuisance on the complainant. The legislation and guidance is silent on what level constitutes a "Statutory Nuisance" (no objective measure) and therefore their decision whether or not to issue an abatement notice is entirely based on their opinion, they don't have to quantify it making it difficult to challenge, refusal to call a nuisance a "Statutory Nuisance" hence they are "a law unto themselves".

    The decision EH Officers are making regarding nuisance is entirely subjective (their nose) regardless of what they’ve just eaten, if they smoke or what perfume they are wearing (which will obviously affect their smell). Also due to other external influences, departmental budgets, costs and risks of objections/appeals, the Officers decision seems to be more likely than not to result in the officers wishing to avoid issuing an abatement notice.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2016 edited
     
    As I understand it if an EHO identifies a Statutory Nuisance is occurring then they are obliged to take action. However they have few recourses and no money so there is a lot of pressure on them not to find a SN is occurring. At best they will do what they can without spending money. eg write to the neighbours.

    Consider adding legal cost insurance to your house insurance. It's cheap but unlikely to help because they only agree to pay out if they think you have a reasonable prospect of succeeding. They will probably listen to the EHO and agree with him. However you might improve your chances of getting funded if you find your own expert before trying to get the insurance co involved.

    Something else to consider doing...

    If you go to court you will usually have to show that you have incurred damages as a result of their action. That might include curtain cleaning costs, hotel bills if you have to move out. If you haven't incurred any actual costs then there is little to claim for. (I mean in addition to getting an abatement notice).

    However if you tell the neighbour in writing that you believe they are causing a statutory nuisance, and they continue to cause harm, then they also leave themselves open to a claim for negligence as well. That can significantly increase the cost for them if you win. So one option might be to have a solicitor write them a letter spelling out the increased consequences of continuing now that they have formally been made aware of the problem.

    PS There is a lot of prep to do before taking court action...

    https://www.wrexham.gov.uk/assets/pdfs/env_services/env_protection/L22_advice_on_taking_your_own_legal_action.pdf
  6.  
    I really hate to say this but there is a point after which you would need to reveal your dispute with your neighbour were you to try to sell your house. If you have past this point then there is nothing to lose but if you have not then you need to ask yourself a very simple question - would I be prepared to live in this house forever were the neighbours to continue to make the smoke? It goes against pretty much every emotion to accept that you would have to sell but you must consider it right now and if you continue, accept that you can live there like this period.
  7.  
    I can't help thinking that trying to use EHOs and the law is not going to work. Maybe what's needed is some sort of Clean Air Action Group that uses legal but increasingly unpleasant protest actions to persuade polluters to change their ways. In an urban situation the smoke must be harming many more people than you. How about a placard waving crowd outside his/her house chanting “What do we want? Clean air! When do we want it? ...” and so on.
  8.  
    SteamyTea - Thanks for your support

    CWatters - Thank you for your support, we are already a long way down your suggested path. I've had a look at the link (very useful) and will probably use some it in due course as needed. To date we are not pursuing financial damages as the ongoing damage will be to our health, difficult to put an upper limit on that Ă‚ÂŁĂ‚ÂŁ's and to be able to use all the rooms in our house, it seems the health risk doesn't get weighed in an EHO analysis, we just want the nuisance stopped.

    Gotnewlife - Thanks, its too late to stop now we went past the point of no return months ago and have no choice but to carry on with complaint.

    EasyBuilder - Thank you. The Chanting idea did made us smile, yes needs an action group it feels like the various EHO's around the country all take the same line, don't give the problem any publicity and hope that people will give up first.
    • CommentAuthorMarkyP
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2016
     
    I'm far from an expert in the law but in other similar smoke nuisance threads the following link has been shared: http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/the-law/nuisance

    this describes the option of taking your own statutory nuisance action via the magistrates court which seems potentially faster and far less risky in terms of costs than a private nuisance action.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2016
     
    Posted By: cleanairforall2DJH

    My point on this was that the visiting EH Officers effectively can make their own rules regarding nuisance without regard for the impact of that nuisance on the complainant. The legislation and guidance is silent on what level constitutes a "Statutory Nuisance" (no objective measure) and therefore their decision whether or not to issue an abatement notice is entirely based on their opinion, they don't have to quantify it making it difficult to challenge, refusal to call a nuisance a "Statutory Nuisance" hence they are "a law unto themselves".

    I think you're rather misinterpreting my question. I agree with you that the legislation relies on the judgment of the individual inspectors in a similar way to the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' to represent the opinion of a reasonable person, and not the particular individual that is experiencing the nuisance. But for better or for worse, that is how the law is worded. You implied that they had explicitly relied on two particular aspects of the law, presumably in conversation with you (written comments would be even more valuable, of course) and it seems to me that those comments might provide a chink that could be prised open to change their minds. Hence my question as to exactly what they have said to you.

    The decision EH Officers are making regarding nuisance is entirely subjective (their nose) regardless of what they’ve just eaten, if they smoke or what perfume they are wearing (which will obviously affect their smell). Also due to other external influences, departmental budgets, costs and risks of objections/appeals, the Officers decision seems to be more likely than not to result in the officers wishing to avoid issuing an abatement notice.

    I believe the officers are specifically trained in how to reach such judgments in an as objective a way as possible, so attacking their jusdgment in that way is likely to prove difficult. It is entirely possible that they are motivated to make non-impartial judgments by other concerns that people have summarised, but attacking their judgment on those grounds is unlikely to succeed in an individual case, in my view. Indeed it could be viewed as slander or libel.

    To my limited knowledge of such disputes, the best advice is to engage both a solicitor and an expert to build your case.
    • CommentAuthorSimonMF
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2016
     
    Air pollution is a huge problem even though our air is much cleaner than even a few decades ago. The rapid growth of wood burners in urban areas now mean that wood smoke is now the single largest contributor to PM2.5 in our cities. If we believe the 29 000 death rate from PM2.5 then wood smoke is now responsible for 5000 deaths a year (mostly old people diving a few months sooner than otherwise).

    Whenever I read of personal cases, the recommendations tend to be pursuing a private nuisance case which tends to have limited success. A bold solicitor might be tempted to pursue a case of assault but evidence would have to be strong.

    A new Clean Air Act is in discussion stage at the House of Commons and a worthwhile course of action might be to write to Matthew Pennycook MP detailing your case.

    My belief is that we should adopt a ambient average (away from individual sources) value of 5ug/m3 for PM2.5. (Zero is impossible due to natural, abrasive and transboundary sources). We should also set limits for individual exposure (but cooking is a huge localised source!) and I suggest 10ug/m3 as an annual average, with 20ug/m3 for 24 hour average and 50ug/m3 for one hour peaks not to be exceeded more than a dozen occasions a year.

    Join a Facebook group. Search for Doctors + Scientists Against Wood Smoke Pollution.
    • CommentAuthorJamster
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2016 edited
     
    Posted By: SimonMFAir pollution is a huge problem even though our air is much cleaner than even a few decades ago. The rapid growth of wood burners in urban areas now mean that wood smoke is now the single largest contributor to PM2.5 in our cities. If we believe the 29 000 death rate from PM2.5 then wood smoke is now responsible for 5000 deaths a year (mostly old people diving a few months sooner than otherwise).


    Hi Simon, do you have a source for the PM2.5 being mainly caused by wood burners in cities? I'd be interested in this for the day job.
    FYI, the 29k deaths isn't individual people collapsing in a heap (smogs excepted) but its the cumulative effect on the entire population leading to 'early' deaths, expressed as total life years lost across the population and then shown as lifetimes. We generally think that to all intents and purposes PM10 / PM2.5, etc is non-threshold, i.e., there is some theoretical risk at all levels, especially when seen across a population. We are still learning about the mechanisms by which this harm occurs.

    Posted By: SimonMFMy belief is that we should adopt a ambient average (away from individual sources) value of 5ug/m3 for PM2.5. (Zero is impossible due to natural, abrasive and transboundary sources). We should also set limits for individual exposure (but cooking is a huge localised source!) and I suggest 10ug/m3 as an annual average, with 20ug/m3 for 24 hour average and 50ug/m3 for one hour peaks not to be exceeded more than a dozen occasions a year.


    I don't think much of the UK complies with 10 ug/m^3 at the moment - would be a big public health improvement!
  13.  
    SimonMF

    Thank you thats very useful, will give it a look and possibly make contact with the MP as you suggest.

    We had already found a lot of information about smoke pollution problems, which, until we suffered it ourselves we had no idea about the real risks that <2..5um and <10um smoke particulates represents to individuals, there surely needs to be better regulation and controls. Is a new act likely to help?

    Given the nature of this forum, open and public to all, we cannot share specific details about our case at this time but suffice to say our experience mirrors the other smoke pollution cases across the country in many respects, similar EHO approach to investigations, self regulation process allows approval of installations by installers to go ahead with no meaningful appeal process to protect neighbours from inconsiderate wood burning. How can it be acceptable for a neighbour to put others health at serious risk?

    Unlike pollution from other sources which is controlled by specific legislation to control pollution at source, (power plants, cars, lorries, etc) is it not about time that this included more robust controls on domestic wood burning that are weighted to protect the public from the inconsiderate polluter? Whilst there is a DEFRA Approved Stoves list unfortunately this is irrelevant in areas not defined as smoke control areas and whilst the polluters may have a modern appliance they can burn what they like and pollute at will and even smokless burning still produces unseen harmful particulates.

    We will not let this go until we get closure, no matter how long it takes. Pollution is a choice Breathing isn't.
    • CommentAuthorringi
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2016 edited
     
    Posted By: cleanairforall2How can it be acceptable for a neighbour to put others health at serious risk?


    Well you are allowed to use a old car, even when it puts my health at risk.....
  15.  
    Ringi - Not very helpful or constructive.

    Perhaps I could drive an old car if I didn't care about the environment but I choose not to as I don't wish to pollute the environment uneccessarily. Try to only use B.A.T.
    • CommentAuthorSimonMF
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2016
     
    I cannot find the wood smoke is 18% of urban air but this source suggests that wood burning is a third of all uk pm2.5 emissions but a lot of wood emissions are in fact rural: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486085/Emissions_of_air_pollutants_statistical_release_2015_-_Final__2_.pdf

    These BMJ letters are of interest

    http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1

    http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-0

    The UK emissions data 1990 - 2014 where figure 2.5.2 is of interest

    https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat07/1609130906_NAEI_AQPI_Summary_Report_1990-2014_Issue1.1.pdf
    (traffic now doesn't feature all that much)
  17.  
    cleanairforall2 – I'm glad to have made you smile, but I was also trying to make a serious point. Unfortunately in life not all problems can be effectively resolved by appealing to some authority and so it is sometimes necessary to stick up for ourselves directly. As you have already made reasonable requests to the stinker it's appropriate to look at other options. How about offering to pay a proportion of the cost of replacing the wood burner? You may not feel happy to do this, but it could well be much cheaper and quicker than going to law. Next you could consider ways to make life unpleasant for the stinker. Whenever the wind's in their direction a small fire with wet leaves on will send acrid smoke their way. Do they put laundry out to dry? If you're semi-detached then some 3am DIY on the party wall will send a clear message. If other neighbours are affected by the stinker then enlist their help too. I'm sure other forum contributors can come up with more creative ideas.
    • CommentAuthorMarkyP
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2016
     
    I'd be very cautious of fighting fire with fire (sorry, couldnt resist).

    if things did go the legal route, what case would OP have when the neighbour's solicitor brings out the list of their own complaints regarding OPs late night noise and bonfires? It will sound like some ridiculous tit for tat spat between feuding neighbours. I think best advice is to keep to the moral high ground and keep pushing through lawful means.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2016
     
    Posted By: EasyBuilderHow about offering to pay a proportion of the cost of replacing the wood burner?
    That is a sensible way to look at it. Put a price on the nuisance, and if the cure is cheaper, pay for it.
    Same applies to planning permission, if you don't want any development, buy the plot, simple.
  20.  
    Posted By: SteamyTeaThat is a sensible way to look at it.
    In all the debates and discussions, and it is thousands of posts, this is the first time I have seen a solution proposed that has a significant chance of working (aside from moving home before a complaint is made). The simple, painful, ridiculous reality is that there are no legal routes with more than a cat in hells chance of working.
    Posted By: SteamyTeaPut a price on the nuisance, and if the cure is cheaper, pay for it.
    unarguable logic - but most people will put their emotions,principally their pride, first.
  21.  
    I understand the logic of all the suggestions, unfortunately the principle that someone who has been told they are causing a nuisance but refuses to change is unlikely to care about helping us. Until we have exhausted all legal means of stopping the nuisance and returned the status quo that we enjoyed for over 20 years we will pursue this to the bitter end.

    There is no way I would offer to pay a bully to stop bullying us. A nuisance that breaks the rules cannot be allowed to succeed but I will break no laws or give the bully anything to use against us.

    On a practical level is there anyone who can reccomend an independant expert?
    • CommentAuthorringi
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2016
     
    You have just reduced the value of your home by Ă‚ÂŁ20K or more! As you must tell anyone that is thinking of buying it about the smoke.
  23.  
    I do agree that getting into a smoke wars situation might not be the way to go. However, giving the stinker at least one good smoking may help them to appreciated the problem they are causing.
  24.  
    I started this thread to inform and to seek helpful not unhelpful comments. All we would ask that commentors respect this aim.

    Ringi-You are completely off topic and missing the point, stating the obvious. Your comments have nothing to do with our problem or our reason for posting, pollution is a choice breathing is not, the laws on this topic allow it to be challenged polluters need to be stopped and publicity given to this largely hidden and improperly regulated problem.

    Constructive and helpful comments please.
    • CommentAuthorbillt
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2016
     
    It does amuse me when contributors to an open forum demand that all other (usually much more senior) members comply with rules known only to that contributor!

    It's an open forum, members can say what they like, within the rules of the forum - and Ringi's comment wasn't that far off topic, if somewhat self evident.

    FWIW, I don't have any constructive comments either. You are in an invidious position, with a very difficult path ahead of you and you have my sympathy. I do think it's about time that the issue of pollution from wood burners in densely populated areas was addressed, but I won't hold my breath.
  26.  
    I have too :-)
  27.  
    Ringi BTW our neighbour will be equally affected.

    PM2.5 um and <10um particulates from wood burners are recognised as a serious health risk and are produced in large quantities by wood burners. Before anyone says its not worth doing something about such a serious health risk please review the data relating to the detailed research and evidence;

    DEFRA;
    "Health Effects of PM: Inhalation of particulate pollution can have adverse health impacts, and there is understood to be no safe threshold below which no adverse effects would be anticipated"

    Health Effects of PM2.5
    http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/public-health/pm25.html

    https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat11/1212141150_AQEG_Fine_Particulate_Matter_in_the_UK.pdf

    Please ask yourselves is it acceptable to ignore the implications of doing nothing and allowing this type of pollution to continue in a densly populated urban environment?

    Wood burners are not in themselves a problem, where the pollution they do produce can be safely dispersed without affecting others health.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2016
     
    Posted By: cleanairforall2Wood burners are not in themselves a problem, where the pollution they do produce can be safely dispersed without affecting others health.

    So we don't need to worry about global warming then? :devil:
  29.  
    I'm sure we do but my immediate concern was health protection, saving the world will have to come later. :-)

    One step at a time.
  30.  

1 to 30 of 32

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press