Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"The dangers posed by wood burners in urban areas have become increasingly clear in recent years. Emissions from wood burners result in almost £1bn in health costs a year and are responsible for nearly half the cancer risk caused by urban air pollution."


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/14/wood-burning-air-pollution-uk-doubled-decade.


So - where can you smell them being used. I only started this thread as the smoke coming from one on Melbourne Grove South was triggering my asthma. Should they be banned in urban areas, or regulated in some way?

The number of houses on Trossachs road with a stack of wood outside the front door would seem to indicate that it’s nearly every house on Trossachs on both sides. It’s not an outlier but the wider porches clearly leave storage - also lots of houses done up on there at totally the wrong time in terms of the wood burner delusion!
I explained quite clearly that there are visible from the street piles of wood in many of the doorways. So on that basis people in those houses are burning wood. Unless it’s a weird style statement ‘pile of wood in the porch gives your house a rustic feel’ that i was previously unaware of!

I was tickled to see George Monbiot decided he could no longer use his.


On this one I agree. I love a woodburner or open fire, who doesn't. However, having read the data I just don't see how anyone living in the city can use one with a clear conscience. If it really is your only source of heating then there may be a case and you live in the Scottish Highlands then that is different, but in London...? No.

Wood burners should be banned, they emit 750 times more pollution than an HGV....


From what I understand most of East Dulwich is a smoke controlled area, you only have to walk outside on a cold day/night to understand this is not being adhered to, but the policing of this is non existent, they have neither the numbers or the budget to keep on top of it.

That was a daft comment and is not in the slightest bit helpful. It

also made me login on my mobile, I've not posted for tonks on it. So that shows how silly it was.


Funnily enough you should alert the local authority but not sure how they would respond. We have a neighbour I expect has been burning unseasoned wood and the street smelt like a bonfire


I know shed loads on the subject, PMs from wood burners has been known about for at least a decade but I expect DEFRA/government does not want to upset either nice metropolitan professionals or middle England country folk.


Of course these nice urban professionals should know better.


More later when I have a proper keyboard. Back to mobile phone exile

Not all burners are bad. Not all fuel is bad. Some burners exceed current legislation. Some fuel, especially that made from what would otherwise be wasted sawdust or coffee grounds etc., burns exceptionally cleanly.

Burning unseasoned wood or coal that’s not been treated should be reported (but what about bonfires and barbecues…)

I have had them in holiday let’s, and the child in me loves a bit of flame and heat, but once you understand the cellular pathology connected to particulates it is a very dangerous pleasure and very selfish too.

I hadn’t really noticed the smell in ED but they must have been burning some green wood in Melbourne because although it psychologically smelt of childhood bonfire nights it triggered my first asthma attack of the year.

I suppose I also connected it to the LTN argument as well, surely if we are supposedly encouraging active travel, we should be banning or at least regulating such a polluting and lethal activity?

It is regulated. A general plea to all, do a bit of research before you post. Well at least this forum isn't as alarmist as WhatsApp and Twitter - big dig at the Street WhatsApp that even has a nutter antivaxer who posts all types of conspiracy theory.


Back to the subject, smokeless area, ban on some solid fuels including wet wood and burners need to be approved, properly fitted etc. More regulation is needed.....

It is regulated. A general plea to all, do a bit of research before you post. Well at least this forum isn't as alarmist as WhatsApp and Twitter - big dig at the Street WhatsApp that even has a nutter antivaxer who posts all types of conspiracy theory.


Back to the subject, smokeless area, ban on some solid fuels including wet wood and burners need to be approved, properly fitted etc. More regulation is needed.....

It is regulated. A general plea to all, do a bit of research before you post. Well at least this forum isn't as alarmist as WhatsApp and Twitter - big dig at the Street WhatsApp that even has a nutter antivaxer who posts all types of conspiracy theory.


Back to the subject, smokeless area, ban on some solid fuels including wet wood and burners need to be approved, properly fitted etc. More regulation is needed.....

 

What kind of regulation did you have in mind? How would such a regulation be carried out?

Mums for Lungs do a good free flyer about woodburning that can be ordered online. Maybe pop it through doors with a woodpile outside to help raise awareness? Agree it’s a serious problem.


https://www.mumsforlungs.org/resources-and-downloads

Sorry should have said better regulation as most of powers there already. Messaging from government doesn't help. DEFRA approved burners doesn't mean that they do not pollute. Tightening of standards would help to bring in filtering or scrubbing of emissions would be a start. In the same way that modern cars emit a fraction of the PMs that they did 15 years ago. Search DEFRA approved burners and all you get is stuff from manufacturers and suppliers,one I read talked about conspiracy theories and anti-wood burners, but gave no details

Lol

Maybe the residents are collecting wood to burn the demonising people who disagree with their point of view (pro or anti) as outlined in the current LTN discussion 🤔


Can't wait till the mob roams around the streets of ED with burning torches crying "kill the monsters" because that's how it's starting to feel on the Forum lately 🙄

I thought this thread, unlike the LTN one, was a safe space for a good debate. Anyway my posts are almost always in good spirit, often with humour (maybe too subtle for some, even when I am being self deprecatory), and well informed. You of course can disagree with me.


At times I do have to stifle a 'for Christsake, get a life' but that would not be appropriate for this forum (maybe some of the rabid stuff on Next Door).

There is one behind my house. They also have a fire pit in the garden and during lockdown decided it was a good idea to burn household rubbish including plastic. During the summer I can’t open my windows. They even have a big chimney fitted. I reported it to the council who did nothing

There is one behind my house. They also have a fire pit in the garden and during lockdown decided it was a good idea to burn household rubbish including plastic. During the summer I can’t open my windows. They even have a big chimney fitted. I reported it to the council who did nothing

 

That's awful.


Have you spoken to the people concerned about the burning plastic in particular?


If the council did nothing, you could try asking your councillor to chase it up if it happens again on a regular basis?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The US has been one of the most dynamic high growth economies for several years. They have planning zones. The two are not mutually exclusive.  Two recent mobile phone mast applications in the area. Both of such terribly poor quality they were refused. They both broke the code of conduct all mobile operators singed up to. The agents were just trying it on. So huge cost of repetition and low productivity. Planning is blamed but it's just shoddy work.  Recent case of the new Kent Thame tunnel talking about £200m of planning costs - which turned out to be design, project planning and planning. I would suggest mostly the former.  It is lazy to blame planning process and generally by those who wont a no holes bar approach for their schemes without any consideration of the opportunity cost imposed on others.
    • There are excuses like this everywhere people want to build anything, which is why the UK economy is in such a state.  Each individual project holdup like this (and the mast on Dog Kennel Hill) seems small in isolation but the compound effect of it UK-wide is why we are so unproductive and why there is no money for anything else like the NHS, fixing roads, collecting bins and so on. I'd be interested to know how the zoning rules (which of course can be changed!) compare to other much more liveable cities in northern and central Europe.  I doubt cities like Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Zurich etc have inner areas like Darrell Road (to pick an extreme example) with bungalows! The "confidence to move into" argument is just pulling up the ladder.  Before East Dulwich was built it was presumably green fields?  Should East Dulwich residents have right to preserve everything in aspic to disadvantage over the generations that follow?
    • Hi Hillbilly, Your obviously correct that the committee members must consider the scheme in the context of planning laws, Southwark Policy documents. Those policy documents are clear the site should be considered suburban. As a Councillor when this was decided I can assure we considered this site and all others in the then East dulwich Ward and the Dulwich Community Council area. Ignoring that as the officer report does unconvincingly in my view would be a poor decision. The officer report states I believe highly inflated economic benefit of students to help justify the scheme. I have a student currently and they really don't have the sums being talked about and nor do their network for friends.  The council officers report states students will move in at the academic yea start over two weekends/4 days. 360 students will suggest worst case 360 cars. Unlikely to be perfectly balanced hence 50-100 vehicles per day.  The proposed building top 2-3 floors look like metal cladding and not the local vernacular of bricks and tiled roofs. The top two stories and roof enclosures will be invisible for some distance. I don't think it unreasonable to call that out of character for the area. I think it would be hard to argue it would be in keeping.  Yes, we have a housing crisis. But we have falling student numbers. The site could be used for more regular homes that the proposed 53. Southwark has the highest number of unoccupied homes for a borough. Southwark Council fixing that and they have plenty of powers to really dent those figures.  The development will have a huge negative impact on the neighbouring streets in dominance of the proposed structures parking pressures, etc. Your username suggests you wont be one of those affected. Nor will I directly. But I hate to see injustice from a poorly thought through scheme. If you feel strongly you could attend the Planning Committee Tonight as supporter.   Hi malibu, Far from. The homes completed on Bassano and Hindmans were sites I proposed to the council for them consider for new council homes. I have campaigned for the council to approve schemes with 35% social housing for many years. I dare not comment on people football team :-0 Hi the-permit, Southwark has zoning for density to protect the character of areas and to protect peoples confidence to move into, purchase and live and put down roots in areas. East Dulwich is under Southwark planning rules suburban. In the north of the borough the density rules are much higher. Yes they could. developers quite often get approval for a size of scheme. Sit on it and then come back for the same site but more. It might be a new feasibility study to say they can no longer afford that much social housing, etc. Classic developer gaming of the system. We don't yet know the pricing of the student accommodation but the Champion Hill student accommodation when open was priced around the £200 pw mark. Some is proposed to be discounted, but likely that will inflate the mainstream pricing. You have to be a rich student for such prices. It resulted in mostly foreign students affording that.  Any developer is likely to set their pricing close to this. For transparency I live on Champion Hill.
    • So you are against affordable rents and ownership for those on low incomes, key workers etc.  Who is going to clean our buildings, serve in our shops, and look after us when we are old or ill? Some state intervention, particularly social housing, extremely welcome.  Sorry if I have misquoted you. Meanwhile with the quality of football I'm surprised that DHFC aren't considering relocating to Peckham Town FC.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...