goldilocks

Its true that not dried out properly (or too dry) wood produces more particulate matter and therefore exacerbates the issue - as does burning things like floorboards / pallets etc, ie I agree its much worse. However, I think that the important thing to realise is that even kiln dried wood still produces levels of particulate matter that in aggregate (ie because of the sheer number of wood burners within an area) is dangerous. Burning wood produces matter that is carcinogenic and the wider effects of particulate matter are only just being understood. Even the most efficient burners still produce PM2.5 - yes its less than the older versions, but less rather than 'none'. In addition, efficiency diminishes over time. My rationale for starting this thread was to understand whether people were aware of this? - as I believe that (quite understandably) unless you look for this information, the marketing slant from the stove companies is much easier to find and widespread and that there is a perception that if people have a certified burner and burn seasoned logs that it isn't a problem. As I noted upthread - the issues with stove pollution is that it effects those closest to it the most - so would really like people to consider the effects on them and their children of burning wood in any format edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's the sort of wood that is the problem > though. People should only be using kiln dried > wood. > > evildrwallace Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'd have to agree with the OP Goldilocks on > this > > one. We actually installed a woodburner some > years > > ago as we have quite a bit of wood from > coppicing > > a large tree in our garden and pruning a couple > of > > others - this meant we rarely had to buy wood > at > > all. But this winter we have pretty much > decided > > not to use the stove any longer as it really > can't > > be justified given the pollution we now know it > > causes.

Think i'm going to assume you're drunk... I'd love for this to be something we could laugh off but its not just a problem that will go away - wood burners are literally killing us and our area seems to have more than average which means the effects are more severe. I started the thread as I was genuinely curious as to whether people were aware of how much pollution is given off by even the newest 'greenest' burners as I don't think this information is widely known and the stove sellers have been pushing the 'green source of fuel' agenda for year. Could be that people know and don't care - but i'm struggling to reconcile that with the effect on people's children. Incidentally, even the claims re carbon neutrality are maybe not as clear cut as it might seem as the carbon effect of burning wood is offset by planting more trees - but assumes that more are always planted and doesn't allow for the timing of the reabsorption of this carbon. cohen22 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > More hot air from you than a wood burner!! Come on > baby light my fire!!

I know that thread exists, but it got caught up in the open fire burning coal thing - and I wanted something that dealt only with woodburners. I live on a street where as soon as it gets colder many residents (understandably) fires up the woodburners and I wanted to find a way to get the message out that they are really detrimental to health as I don't think that its commonly known as there is a misconception that stoves / burners are somehow eco. As I noted above, we almost got one when we renovated - only the pain of storing the wood put us off but it certainly wasn't concern for the developing brains and lungs of my children!

Following on from the CPZ discussions about cleaner air and school streets I wanted to start a discussion on woodburners. A little like the governments previous position on diesel cars, I recall when we were renovating our house a few years ago that woodburners were considered to be a cheap and environmentally friendly way of heating your home using a carbon neutral source of heat. Again, like diesel engines, it turns out that isn?t the whole story at all. All woodburners / stoves, even the cleanest defra approved versions produce PM2.5 or particulate matter. Particulate matter is widely known to be detrimental to health. Studies are now seeing links between high levels of PM2.5 and not only respiratory disease, asthma and cancers, but also behavioural and developmental disorders in children, and dementia. The closer to the source you are, the more particulate matter you inhale ? therefore having a burner in your home and therefore by definition emitting particulate matter means that you and your immediate neighbours are being exposed to harmful particulate matter. This includes your children. Recent research from Kings College hospital research has shown that pollution is actually changing the way children?s lungs develop (spoiler alert, it?s not in a good way!). Burners have become a lifestyle option for many, cosy on a winter?s evening but not a primary means of heating our homes. Whilst I understand why they?re appealing from that perspective, I just feel that the future health cost of this lifestyle is too much for our population at large and specifically our children when gas fires / central heating does not produce the same intensity of PM2.5. This isn't intended to detract from any other initiative - woodburners are one element of a complex mix of pollution issues for our city and finding ways to reduce reliance on road traffic and removing harmful diesel engines is also key, but the amount of time that woodburners are used for and the concentration of them in this area makes it a particularly relevant issue for East Dulwich.

"I haven't seen a map' / consultation seems to be a common theme. Typing East Dulwich controlled parking consultation or similar into google tends to bring up results though. C:\Users\a77299\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe\TempState\Downloads\Preliminary design healthy streets places to stop and rest.pdf Based on these drawings, which are proposals only rather than plans, it looks like the green screen would be on the existing pedestrian guardrail, so won't create any additional problem for people crossing the road that don't exist today.

These school streets are not only about making the roads safer for kids to cross, but to reduce pollution around schools and to help encourage active modes of transport (not least for those who will find it less easy to drive as a result of the street closure!). If parents can't drop kids off near the school gates they are less likely to sit with engines idling and this would cut localised pollution around the schools. Suspect Bessemer has been chosen as a test as the area is easier to restrict than others just from a road layout perspective. I note that Passiflora states there 'have been effects in the local area' - assume this is in terms of pushing parking further out but would be interesting to understand. Based on my limited understanding of the ones I've seen discussion on, the residents would still be able to enter and leave the zone but anyone else could not. The hours of operation are fairly limited so you'd expect that the amount of residents needing to drive in and out of a defined area during the school street times would be fairly low. Driving kids to school in London is inappropriate - we have so many schools nearby and the distance by which places are offered is very small and all schools are served by local bus routes. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about kids / parents with mobility issues or other disabilities that could make travelling to school in other ways difficult, but the vast majority of pupils in any school.

It would be a concern for people north of the station - eg St Francis road and northwards, but only for the hours that any CPZ implemented would be in operation. I guess they could still use the pay and display bays if expecting to be laden down with shopping (noting that the first 30 mins are still proposed to be free!) Galileo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > eastdulwichhenry Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > goldilocks Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > No - it would be a separate zone. > > > > So that's a serious worry for people living in > St > > Francis Rd and areas near the station. It's not > as > > if buying a resident or visitor permit will > even > > be an option then. They'll no longer be able to > > drive to events in ED and park in the streets. > > Legitimate measures to combat outsiders filling > up > > our spaces should not have the effect of making > > life impossible for locals. > > We can?t drive to events in ED as it stands - > because we can?t then park anywhere near home > again.

I think that whilst its possible Peckham West and East Dulwich could, if implemented, have the same hours of operation, there hasn't been anything defined as yet, but I suspect the person answering your question was responding to whether a whole zone (eg ED OR Peckham W) would have the same hours of operation, rather than whether both zones would be the same. The Nappy Lady Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, I asked about different times zones on > different roads within the area and was told it > wasn't possible and if it comes in the entire zone > will have controlled parking across the same > times. BONKERS!!!!

No - it would be a separate zone. eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the East Dulwich CPZ comes into effect, will it > be part of the same zone as the Dog Kennel Hill? > i.e. will permits bought for one of the areas be > valid in the other?

Chazzle - I don't have the maps with me at the moment, but Melbourne Grove already has maximum stay bays at the moment at the end near the station, so the pay and display I think is similar - with the added option of paying after the first hour, which may actually be helpful to businesses such as Therapy / GM hairdressers etc where a 30 min maximum bay isn't so much use for customers.

There are however some bays which are pay and display only which I think is important to note too. For the roads around the station in particular these will be important as residents won?t be able to use them so they will be available for users of local businesses. For places like GM and therapy this is likely to be helpful as the maximum time has increased (though as today only the first 30 mins is free). For those going for a haircut or beauty treatment then 30 mins was always too short and the alternative was driving round trying to find an elusive space on the roads near the station!

For those asking how the two hour slot would prevent commuters paying remotely, you need to read the consultation to see what the proposal is on specific roads. There are different types of bays proposed. Some are mixed resident and pay and display and some resident only which means it?s not possible to pay and display on those roads (know it?s pay by phone but thought pay and display might be easier for people to understand)

Depends on the hours doesn?t it. If it was a 2 hour window maybe not, if 8-6 or similar, perhaps more so

Interesting point re emergency boiler repairs refusing to come - and not in line with my experience from a CPZ for 15 years. Sometimes people 'huff slightly' re parking restrictions, but generally they just add the cost of the parking to the job (and we're talking less than a tenner in general on a job that will cost significantly more than that!) The points around care workers etc are valid concerns and ones that where relevant should be flagged in the consultation response. I'd say that boiler repairs is more of a red herring as the vast swathes of London where CPZs already exist are not sitting shivering in unheated houses, unable to service or repair their central heating!

Angel Upholstery has moved from Melbourne grove I think to somewhere in Wandsworth - not sure if the phone no is the same though.

Thank you James A quick fix would be a communication to all schools in the borough that any active travel including cycling can be counted. The week starts tomorrow btw. I?m also not alone in finding this confusing initiative from the council, other families I know who cycle to school are equally as perplexed by the specific exclusion! Appreciate anything you can do to help - a) with this week and b) with any future initiatives jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Goldilocks > > I agree that cycling should be equally promoted as > a form of active travel. Let me look into this for > you and see what I can do. > > Best wishes > James

If you get any recommendations I?d be interested in finding out

I have a 5 year old. 5 year olds love to get involved in initiatives at school. They're conformists and don't want to be different. Schools are getting behind this and tracking the time they spend walking or scooting only each day to get to school. Yes, I can tell her we're not doing it - then every day whilst they're talking about this at school she has to not participate. Or - I can switch how we get to school, making the school run longer and more painful for all of us - especially on the way home when they're tired. I think that my main point is that there is no reason to exclude cycling, running, unicycle if you want.... just active travel is what should be promoted with the idea that travelling under your own power is good for us and our environment.

Hi James - wonder if you can provide insight to something for me please. I'm delighted to see that Southwark is having a week starting on Monday 21st January whereby they're promoting kids getting to school walking or scooting. What I'm less delighted about is that cycling is specifically excluded from this initiative. My kids school is doing this and my children will understandably want to take part. We cycle to school so are now faced with having to walk instead which will substantially increase our journey time. It seems particularly short sighted in that where kids do live further from school, the chance of them being driven or getting a bus is probably higher and cycling would get past the barrier of the distance. Surely the thing here is to promote 'active travel' rather than just walking or scooting? Could the initiative be extended via info to the schools that cycling time could be included?

Thanks for that - would seem its not a better solution. I don't have a woodburner, so won't be burning anything, but I do think that its a hard sell to stop people once they have one - the views on this thread have backed that up, in a 'its actually very environmentally friendly' kind of way. Its understandable given the marketing around these burners that people would be under the misapprehension that they were not 'polluting'. 2030 is a long long way off and the damage to ours and our childrens lungs is happening now. I was just trying to see if there was a 'better' interim step for people given the likely reluctance to stop using something that's 'allowed'!

I think that my point is more that the streets around the station are disproportionately affected by parking pressures as the commuter problem is a genuine issue but one that is unique to these streets because of their proximity to the station. If people are driving to work in the area, even if they are based at ED Charter or Goose green etc, its more feasible that you have to park slightly further away and walk than it is if you're travelling to commute. From the views posted on this forum (which are obviously only a small non representative sample) it seems as though there's a view that spreading out people who drive into the area for work wouldn't be a problem and therefore that could end up being one solution put forward. Again, as I have noted before, I think its a shame that there has been no official comment as to whether the CPZ could be implemented in a smaller section of the consultation area. The pack seems to indicate separate 'zones' within the area, so maybe that would be the boundaries of any segregation of decisions, but again it isn't clear.

I think that one of the things that's clear from these discussions is that having one large consultation throws up lots of different issues. The parking pressure on the roads around the station is clearly different in terms of severity and the types of parking to those on roads to the east of Lordship lane. To the extent that parking genuinely isn't a problem on these streets then responding accordingly is the right response. However, its not the case that just because there isn't a problem with parking that needs addressing in the streets off lordship lane, that the streets around the station shouldn't be a CPZ. In terms of the 'station parking', one of the normal concerns for a CPZ is the displacement effect. If the problem is genuinely commuters parking, then this displacement effect would not go far as it would quickly not be worth driving if you had more than a 3-4 min walk to the station once parked (I can't believe people are driving further than from the far side of East Dulwich to get the train). Whilst there may be a minimal number of residents who would seek to park outside the zone to avoid charges, I would imagine these would be very few in number in any event.

Also, if she's 3, turning 4 in December 2020 it would be September 2021 for admissions to reception class. For the 2020 year she'd need to find a school with a nursery provision

Thanks Nigello I had a quick look at the site, but does miscanthus produce lower levels of particulate matter when burned? or is it purely more eco from a growing perspective? Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll say it again -- try miscanthus. > https://www.terravesta.com (I have no connection > to this firm about from having bought its products > and liked them.)

Makes sense really - anyone shopping for a 'higher end' kitchen in the area is likely to go to Dulwich Design kitchens so having a shop nearby probably makes sense in terms of a ready market. Also those units are pretty small so not really big enough for a lot of businesses.