Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Señor Chris

Wood burning stoves to be banned in London

Featured Posts

I wonder why no mention of possibly the biggest polluters passing over the capital at a rate of 1 every 45 secs I 'm talking commercial airliners & Heathrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't know why he bothers. We need population reduction and pollution poisoning is a random way of selecting those to go, normally the weak and feeble.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

of course building an extra runway will reduce the time spent by planes circling aimlessly over London in a stack waiting for a landing slot. 

Or encourage more traffic up to the point where there are planes circling aimlessly over London and pressure starts for yet another runway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposed new terminal for cruise liners at Greenwich will cause huge pollution.  Each behemoth spews out the equivalent pollution of 2000 lorries.

Another of Boris' bright ideas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Well, if it is to include boats, that will require changes to Primary Legislation as boats are exempt from the clean air acts.

The attached Pdf explains it all.

Clean Air Legislation and boats.pdf

Am I reading the link wrong, it seems from my reading that the Clean Air Act 1993 (which repealed the Clean Air Act 1956) according to the author of the document does apply to boats. There may be some confusion with policing and enforcement by Local Authorities but it would seem that it does apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadiq Khan is hopeless . Boris Johnson was hopeless . Neither gives a toss about anything but furthering thier own career . They ll say the odd important here and there and appear as a strong & determined leader etc etc .

Its all just fluff & nonsense . Londons air is dirty ? Quelle surprise ! Its always been dirty . It always will be . 

Clean air is Sadiq Khans chosen crusade because he cannot be proven wrong . If the air isn t better by the time he leaves office he can claim that his efforts may take more years to have an impact .  Anything he does during this campaign will have little effect on Londons air quality as he , the population , business leaders etc couldn t care less . But Sadiq  must have his " thing " so he claim a legacy . 

The irony for me is this air quality drive  is recent . Boris had his bike lanes . Theyve choked up the roads - especially the embankment  on tje north side of the Thames from Parliament Sq to Tower Hill and elsewhere . Just as the all the road traffic starts sitting around going nowhere fast , churning out diesel fumes whilst waiting due to virtually empty bicycle lanes the new mayor chooses to make air quality an issue and diesel engines an enemy . 

Banning wood burning stoves - Wow , what a difference that ll make whilst more and more cars sit around in traffic and more and more aircraft land and take off from Heathrow .

The man is a prick . But then he is Mayor of London and the electorate get to choose between a prick with a red tie or with a blue one .

Edited by chubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Am I reading the link wrong, it seems from my reading that the Clean Air Act 1993 (which repealed the Clean Air Act 1956) according to the author of the document does apply to boats. There may be some confusion with policing and enforcement by Local Authorities but it would seem that it does apply.

3. Summery. 3.1 The Clean Air Act 1993 does apply to boats on CRT waters but only under the provisions made in Part VI Section 44 as boats on CRT waters fall within the definition of “Vessels” given in the Clean Air Act 1993 Part VII Section 64.   The content of Smoke Control Orders have no effect on vessels covered by Part VI section 44.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chubby said:

churning out diesel fumes

The idea is that eventually there will be no engines at all in London - it will be all-electric. The pollution will still occur but somewhere else - much like aircraft which pollute the whole atmosphere, not just in London, it's someone else's problem.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just another politician putting on whatever hat required to curry favour with whoever they want support/influence from.

as has been said, its all about those carbon offsets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

3. Summery. 3.1 The Clean Air Act 1993 does apply to boats on CRT waters but only under the provisions made in Part VI Section 44 as boats on CRT waters fall within the definition of “Vessels” given in the Clean Air Act 1993 Part VII Section 64.   The content of Smoke Control Orders have no effect on vessels covered by Part VI section 44.

 

To give the full version rather than the selectively edited version:-

"3. Summery(sic)
3.1 The Clean Air Act 1993 does apply to boats on CRT waters but only under the
provisions made in Part VI Section 44 as boats on CRT waters fall within the definition
of “Vessels” given in the Clean Air Act 1993 Part VII Section 64. The content of Smoke
Control Orders have no effect on vessels covered by Part VI section 44.
Overall it
seems, that the consistent enforcement of the provisions in the Clean Air Act 1993 is
seen as difficult by local authorities as far as any boats are concerned, which may
explain how the present muddled situation has arisen since the commencement of the
first Clean Air Act in 1956."

 

Which is pretty much what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does apply, but as with any legislation containing exclusions/special cases, the exclusion/special cases also apply.

Boats are excluded from the Smoke Control Orders due to the definition of vessel

 

 5.2 What legal status do boats have under the Clean Air Act 1993, if any?

5.2.1 The Clean Air Act Part VI Special Cases Section 44 makes a provision that applies to vessels.

So does this apply to our case?


 5.2.1.1 In Part VII General Section 64 the Act states : "vessel" has the same meaning as “ship” in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995


 5.2.1.2 So what does the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 define as a ship?


 5.2.1.3 Merchant Shipping Act 1995 Section313 Definitions states: " ship " includes every description of vessel used in navigation.


 5.2.1.4 So it would be safe to say, under the Clean Air Act 1993 any description of vessel that is used for navigation falls under this definition. So this would include narrowboats, barges, or any other description of vessel that has an engine or other means allowing it to move, or navigate from one place to another. Thus the provisions made by Part VI Special Cases section 44 “Vessels” applies.

 

The relevant section :

44.—

( 1) Section 1 (prohibition of emissions of dark smoke) shall apply in relation to vessels in waters to which this section applies as it applies in relation to buildings.

(2) In the application of section 1 to a vessel— (a) for the reference in subsection (1) of that section to the occupier of the building there shall be substituted a reference to the owner of, and to the master or other officer or person iii charge of, the vessel; (b) references to a furnace shall be read as including references to an engine of the vessel; and(c) subsection (5) of that section shall be omitted; and a person guilty of an offence under that section in relation to a vessel shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(3 For the purposes of this Act a vessel in any waters to which this section applies which are not within the district of any local authority shall be deemed to be within the district of the local authority whose district includes that point on land which is nearest to the spot where the vessel is.

(IV) The waters to which this section applies are— (a) all waters not navigable by sea-going ships; and(b) all waters navigable by sea-going ships which are within the seaward limits of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and are contained within any port, harbour, river, estuary, haven, dock, canal or other place so long as a person or body of persons is empowered by or under any Act to make charges in respect of vessels entering it or using facilities in it.

(VI) Except as provided in this section, nothing in Parts I to III (of the Act) applies to smoke, grit or dust from any vessel

(Maybe there are some boats within London that would not comply with the 'special cases' as to do so, they must 'navigate' and there would appear to be a number who do not).
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

The idea is that eventually there will be no engines at all in London - it will be all-electric. The pollution will still occur but somewhere else - much like aircraft which pollute the whole atmosphere, not just in London, it's someone else's problem.

Quite right, have a greenie  (as they don't do smokies :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

To give the full version rather than the selectively edited version:-

"3. Summery(sic)
3.1 The Clean Air Act 1993 does apply to boats on CRT waters but only under the
provisions made in Part VI Section 44 as boats on CRT waters fall within the definition
of “Vessels” given in the Clean Air Act 1993 Part VII Section 64. The content of Smoke
Control Orders have no effect on vessels covered by Part VI section 44.
Overall it
seems, that the consistent enforcement of the provisions in the Clean Air Act 1993 is
seen as difficult by local authorities as far as any boats are concerned, which may
explain how the present muddled situation has arisen since the commencement of the
first Clean Air Act in 1956."

 

Which is pretty much what I said.

I  too was totally confused by the document. My take was that vessels were covered by Part VI section 44 so have to comply with that part - but are outside the Smoke control orders. So what do they have to comply with? My take is I think it says that they should not emit 'dark smoke' but anything other than 'dark smoke' is ok. Why cant people write in English?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

 Why cant people write in English?

A cynic might say that the lawyers drafting it want to make sure there is plenty of work for lawyers to argue about what it means later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

I  too was totally confused by the document. My take was that vessels were covered by Part VI section 44 so have to comply with that part - but are outside the Smoke control orders. So what do they have to comply with? My take is I think it says that they should not emit 'dark smoke' but anything other than 'dark smoke' is ok. Why cant people write in English?

Part VI says that Parts 1-3 of the act are not applicable to vessels :

Parts 1-3 cover

Introductory Text

Collapse -

Part I Dark Smoke

  1. 1. Prohibition of dark smoke from chimneys.
  2. 2. Prohibition of dark smoke from industrial or trade premises.
  3. 3. Meaning of dark smoke.

Collapse -

Part II Smoke, grit, dust and fumes

  1. Installation of furnaces
    1. 4. Requirement that new furnaces shall be so far as practicable smokeless.
  2. Limits on rate of emission of grit and dust
    1. 5. Emission of grit and dust from furnaces.
  3. Arrestment plant for furnaces
    1. 6. Arrestment plant for new non-domestic furnaces.
    2. 7. Exemptions from section 6.
    3. 8. Requirement to fit arrestment plant for burning solid fuel in other cases.
    4. 9. Appeal to Secretary of State against refusal of approval.
  4. Measurement of grit, dust and fumes
    1. 10. Measurement of grit, dust and fumes by occupiers.
    2. 11. Measurement of grit, dust and fumes by local authorities.
    3. 12. Information about furnaces and fuel consumed.
  5. Outdoor furnaces
    1. 13. Grit and dust from outdoor furnaces, etc.
  6. Height of chimneys
    1. 14. Height of chimneys for furnaces.
    2. 15. Applications for approval of height of chimneys of furnaces.
    3. 16. Height of other chimneys.
  7. Smoke nuisances in Scotland
    1. 17. Abatement of smoke nuisances in Scotland.

Collapse -

Part III Smoke control areas

  1. Creation of smoke control areas
    1. 18. Declaration of smoke control area by local authority.
    2. 19. Power of Secretary of State to require creation of smoke control areas.
  2. Prohibition on emission of smoke in smoke control area
    1. 20. Prohibition on emission of smoke in smoke control area.
    2. 21. Power by order to exempt certain fireplaces.
    3. 22. Exemptions relating to particular areas.
  3. Dealings with unauthorised fuel
    1. 23. Acquisition and sale of unauthorised fuel in a smoke control area.
  4. Adaptation of fireplaces
    1. 24. Power of local authority to require adaptation of fireplaces in private dwellings.
    2. 25. Expenditure incurred in relation to adaptations in private dwellings.
    3. 26. Power of local authority to make grants towards adaptations to fireplaces in churches, chapels, buildings used by charities etc.
  5. Supplementary provisions
    1. 27. References to adaptations for avoiding contraventions of section 20.
    2. 28. Cases where expenditure is taken to be incurred on execution of works.
    3. 29. Interpretation of Part III.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to post this when I saw it last night.

I'm torn, on one level it sounds draconian and unenforceable, but on the flipside there is a surge in people fitting stoves and other fires to houses, many of which are cheap and poorly designed and I would not be at all surprised if they make a very real impact on localised air quality.

 

Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly the LA must pay a minimum of 7/10ths of the cost of compliance of 'old private dwellings' and CAN pay up to 10/10ths if they decide to.

Grants for expenditure incurred in adaptation of fireplaces

1(1)This paragraph applies if, after the making of a smoke control order by a local authority, the owner or occupier of, or any person interested in, an old private dwelling which is or will be within a smoke control area as a result of the order incurs relevant expenditure.

(2)For the purposes of this paragraph “relevant expenditure” is expenditure on adaptations in or in connection with an old private dwelling to avoid contraventions of section 20 (prohibition of smoke emissions in smoke control area) which—

(a)is incurred before the coming into operation of the order and with the approval of the local authority given for the purposes of this paragraph; or

(b)is reasonably incurred in carrying out adaptations required by a notice given under section 24(1) (power of local authority to require certain adaptations).

(3)If the adaptations in question are carried out to the satisfaction of the local authority, the local authority—

(a)shall repay to him seven-tenths of the relevant expenditure; and

(b)may, if they think fit, also repay to him the whole or any part of the remainder of that expenditure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Señor Chris said:

The idea is that eventually there will be no engines at all in London - it will be all-electric. The pollution will still occur but somewhere else - much like aircraft which pollute the whole atmosphere, not just in London, it's someone else's problem.

Yes i appreciate that but - & its a big but .... Its complete bollocks isn t it ? 

If the idea is to electrify every road vehicle " eventually " ( when exactly is your " eventually " ... 50 yrs , 75 yrs ? ) then the air will much cleaner . The few old fashioned folk still burning wood and coal for warmth in the latter decades of 21st century are hardly likely have any noticeable affect on that airs quality are they ? We re not talking about Victorian London of 9 M people and a woodburning stove in every building are we ?

If i m incorrect about this then fair enough ban woodburning stoves ...... once everything else has been done . Once all the Lorries , fire engines , ambulances ,  taxis , motorcycles and ice cream vans have gone electric because woodburning stoves are so far down the list of air pollution culprits theyre hardly worth bothering with . Its just local politicians and thier hangers on just trying to create work themselves to justify thier position and salary . 

So these politicians might just aswell crack on with thier plans to piss about endlessly tinkering and thier misplaced grand visions of a London with Europes purest air quality and leave the humble woodburning stove alone because a few folk burning wood and smokeless coal isn t the problem is it ? 

A total waste of time , energy , effort & money . All of which could be doing some good somewhere . 

But since when politicians give a monkeys about such things ? 

Edited by chubby
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't quite get when referring to houses is that I thought burning wood is not allowed anyway in a smokeless zone, as wood is not classed as a smokeless fuel.

Maybe he wants to stop smokeless fuel being burnt, and that is used on open fires as well as stoves.

I also wonder how much Londoners pay for their logs.  I seem to recall that the recent trend for woodburning stoves was prompted by a big rise in the price of gas and people rushed out to get their trendy woodburner installed without considering where they were going to get their wood from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×