Environmental Protection Act 1990

[FadeToScarlet]

Does it apply to boats?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents

 

It seems to be far more far reaching thsn the Clean Air Act which has come up in discussions before as not applying to boats.

 

I ask because I've received a circular from our council asserting that it does apply and that using non smokeless fuel is an offence under this Act, and I was wondering if this was true.

[jelunga]

A quick scan says it applies to premises and their definition of premises says a vessel of any kind, so imho it does apply. Thanks fir this. I can now have some legal backing to requiring our neighbouring boats to stop burning smelly sox in their stoves! (or should that be Mrsmelly's sox?)

[Tuscan]

Is this really necessary , maybe in urban areas but is it really a problem. I'm in favour of less laws not more especially in the environmental , health &safety areas. Back cabin stove smoking , frosty morning on the cut lovely. Can President run on smokeless?

[The Lockie]

It's 10 years since I lived aboard so things may have changed, but I seem to remember that boats were exempt from smokeless zone regulations at that time, just can't remember why. Agree with you Tuscan, woodsmoke,boats and water just seem to belong together

[Iain_S]

Does it apply to boats?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents

 

It seems to be far more far reaching thsn the Clean Air Act which has come up in discussions before as not applying to boats.

 

I ask because I've received a circular from our council asserting that it does apply and that using non smokeless fuel is an offence under this Act, and I was wondering if this was true.

 

Did the circular specify the section of the Act? I've had a very quick look through it, and haven't found a section that applies.

 

Iain

[FadeToScarlet]

Did the circular specify the section of the Act? I've had a very quick look through it, and haven't found a section that applies.

 

Iain

 

No, I might contact them and ask.

[Higgs]

It's 10 years since I lived aboard so things may have changed, but I seem to remember that boats were exempt from smokeless zone regulations at that time, just can't remember why. Agree with you Tuscan, woodsmoke,boats and water just seem to belong together

 

Admittedly, smoke rising from the chimney of a boat on a misty morning is a picture. But, some seem to burn some really manky stuff that just smells of industrial pollution.

[Jambo]

My understanding is that it applies to all but you can use smokey fuel in exempted stoves even if you're in a smoke control area. If you live in a smoke control area but you don't have an exempted stove then you need to burn smokeless fuels.

 

http://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/guidance.php

http://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/locations.php

http://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/appliances.php

[tillergirl]

My understanding is that it applies to all but you can use smokey fuel in exempted stoves even if you're in a smoke control area. If you live in a smoke control area but you don't have an exempted stove then you need to burn smokeless fuels.

 

http://smokecontrol....uk/guidance.php

http://smokecontrol....k/locations.php

http://smokecontrol..../appliances.php

 

my understanding too...............cash strapped councils will be trawling their archives now to see now they can raise extra funds..............

 

 

 

[Dave_P]

I work for a local authority environmental health dept so maybe I can shed some light / muddy the waters here. The legislation which is generally used to prosecute in smokey fuel cases is the clean air act which specifically exempts boats. That said there is nothing to stop a LA from prosecuting under the EPA except that as far as I know there is no existing case law for a boat owner being successfully prosecuted in this way.

 

This situation commonly occurs across a range of issues where there is more than one piece of legislation which is relevant. LAs are all cash strapped at the moment so it would be a brave officer to bring a prosecution in this case, risking court costs etc.

 

I would reply to the letter, pointing out the clean air act exemption.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Dave_P

[Dave_P]

Update: I've been thinking about this some more and here's what I believe to be the 2 key factors:

 

1. The authority of a council to declare a 'smokeless zone' is given under the clean air act. Therefore, burning wood or non smokeless coal in such a zone is an offence under the clean air act. Unless you are exempt. Which boats are.

 

2. To prosecute under the EPA the council must demonstrate that you have caused a statutory nuisance which is either 'prejudicial to health or a nuisance'. This applies nationwide, not just in smokeless zones. To demonstrate the existence of a stat nuisance in this case, a council officer would need to demonstrate that smoke from your chimney was entering a neighbouring premises. Otherwise anyone burning wood in any house would be potentially liable to prosecution.

 

Can I ask which council sent the circular and perhaps you could post up a picture of it? I'd be interested to show it to my boss.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Dave_P

[mayalld]

A quick scan says it applies to premises and their definition of premises says a vessel of any kind, so imho it does apply. Thanks fir this. I can now have some legal backing to requiring our neighbouring boats to stop burning smelly sox in their stoves! (or should that be Mrsmelly's sox?)

 

A longer scan says not in most cases.

 

Basically, if you are in a Smokeless zone, they have to use the clean air act, and you are exempt under the clean air act.

 

If you are NOT in a smoke control area, they could use this against you.

[Dave_P]

A longer scan says not in most cases.

 

Basically, if you are in a Smokeless zone, they have to use the clean air act, and you are exempt under the clean air act.

 

If you are NOT in a smoke control area, they could use this against you.

Not quite. The EPA applies everywhere. You are quite entitled to complain to the council about fumes and odours coming from your neighbours, even if it is from from something as silly as smelly socks (and believe me, people do). The council has a statutory duty to investigate.

[Tiger 1057]

We live in a strange old world.

 

Boaters get the hump if people dump stuff in the canal thus polluting it but they are quite happy to pollute the air that we breathe!

 

Now if the there was no smokeless fuel available I could understand.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Tiger 1057

[Dave_P]

We live in a strange old world.

 

Boaters get the hump if people dump stuff in the canal thus polluting it but they are quite happy to pollute the air that we breathe!

 

Now if the there was no smokeless fuel available I could understand.

Fair point. I only burn smokeless coal but I do also burn wood.

 

Cheap non-smokeless coal is a waste of time IMHO. Pound for pound I get more heat for longer from smokeless with less ash, less chimney sweeping and less lugging heavy bags around. Even cheaper smokeless coal is often a false economy. I like supertherm. Not the cheapest but it burns for ages.

[Iain_S]

Did the circular specify the section of the Act? I've had a very quick look through it, and haven't found a section that applies.

 

Iain

 

Ah, Found it. 79(1)(, with definition of premises in subsection 7.

 

Still a long process, involving a complaint, investigation, service of statutary notice (which could be complied with by moving)

 

Iain

[Keeping Up]

Ah, Found it. 79(1)(, with definition of premises in subsection 7.

 

Still a long process, involving a complaint, investigation, service of statutary notice (which could be complied with by moving)

 

Iain

 

 

Do you know if a boat can be defined as a premises when it is not on a residential mooring?

[Iain_S]

Do you know if a boat can be defined as a premises when it is not on a residential mooring?

 

I think it can

“premises” includes land and, subject to subsection (12) section 81A(9)] below, any vessel;

 

However, not as a private dwelling

“private dwelling” means any building, or part of a building, used or intended to be used, as a dwelling;

 

Iain

 

(Not a lawyer )

 

(snip)

Basically, if you are in a Smokeless zone, they have to use the clean air act, and you are exempt under the clean air act.

 

If you are NOT in a smoke control area, they could use this against you.

 

I'd disagree. The relevant exemption is (IMHO)

(3)Subsection (1)(B ) above does not apply to— .

(i)smoke emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling within a smoke control area,

and

“private dwelling” means any building, or part of a building, used or intended to be used, as a dwelling;

 

Iain

 

edited to add : Basically, as per Dave_P post #13

Edited January 3, 2013 by Iain_S

[jelunga]

I think it can

 

 

However, not as a private dwelling

 

 

Iain

 

(Not a lawyer )

 

 

 

I'd disagree. The relevant exemption is (IMHO)

 

and

 

Iain

 

edited to add : Basically, as per Dave_P post #13

So since boats are not buildings the application to any vessel applies

[Iain_S]

So since boats are not buildings the application to any vessel applies

 

We agree

 

Iain

[Grace and Favour]

Does it apply to boats?

 

http://www.legislati...990/43/contents

 

It seems to be far more far reaching thsn the Clean Air Act which has come up in discussions before as not applying to boats.

 

I ask because I've received a circular from our council asserting that it does apply and that using non smokeless fuel is an offence under this Act, and I was wondering if this was true.

 

Irrespective of whether boats/floating dwellings are exempt - - - should not boaters respect their fellow boaters, and utilise fuel that minimises noxious gas problems with their neighbour (whether their neighbour be a boat, or other dwelling?)

 

We could always choose to set the best example of 'treating others as we would best treat ourselves'

[Hairy-Neil]

Perhaps we can insist the Ridgacre Branch is cleaned up under the terms of it.....

 

From what I can make out on a quick scan through it says...

 

(b)smoke emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;

 

But goes on to state...

 

(3)Subsection (1)( above does not apply to—

 

(i)smoke emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling within a smoke control area,

 

So to me that means the Clean Air Act covers private dwellings, and boats are exempted in that act...

[FadeToScarlet]

Irrespective of whether boats/floating dwellings are exempt - - - should not boaters respect their fellow boaters, and utilise fuel that minimises noxious gas problems with their neighbour (whether their neighbour be a boat, or other dwelling?)

 

We could always choose to set the best example of 'treating others as we would best treat ourselves'

 

Yes, it is always best to think of others, for example we only burn smokeless and, apart from a bit when first starting, Its generally smoke free.

 

The thing is that not everyone can afford to do so. We burnt house coal and pallet wood when we first bought the boat as it was all we could afford. There are also boaters affected by this council edict who are probably in a similar situation, burning scavenged wood, etc., without the opportunity to season it properly. Whilst I'm thankfully not in that situation myself anymore, as chair of the local boaters' group I have to consider the circumstances of everyone.

 

The main reason why I wanted to find out was to be able to say to the council, if it does not apply, that the vast majority of boaters are being considerate to their neighbours through burning smokeless and being considerate not because of legislation, but off their own bat, and were doing so before the council got involved.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for loopholes or saying, "we'll, as this act doesn't apply, I can burn old tyres with impunity", I'm just seeking to get local boaters a bit of recognition for things they already do voluntarily, and, if the Act does apply, to ensure everyone knows about it and help out people who need it.