Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It sounds like cecyfly07 wants to get rid of some branches, not to find some!


If you can get them into a car or van, the Southwark recycling centre just off the Old Kent Road will take them.


Alternatively, see if you can talk to the wardens at your local park (Peckham Rye and Dulwich Park both have park wardens) and ask them if they can take them - most parks have some way of shredding or mulching tree branches.

cecyfly07 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi does anyone know where we can take some large

> tree branches? we are based in se15 ( Peckham)

> thank you!


Good idea Robert Poste's Child


If they are able to be burned in the green like Ash wood then perhaps donate them to Dog kennel Hill adventure playground. They put on a very good bonfire party.

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you know anyone with a wood burning stove or

> open fire I'm sure they'd be grateful for

> them.>>>>>

> Burning them in an open fire, inside or out, is

> not legal and is harmful to health, so don't do

> it!


Not sure where you get that idea - bonfires are perfectly legal as indeed is burning wood in outdoor appliances like pizza ovens or chimineas. Smoke control regulations do not apply to wood burned outside, the smoke has to emerge from a building chimmney to come under their auspices. The council can step in and issue an abatement order - for example if someone's having bonfires every day - and you can be fined if, for example, the smoke from your bonfire causes a hazard to traffic, but they're certainly not illegal per se.

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you know anyone with a wood burning stove or

> open fire I'm sure they'd be grateful for

> them.>>>>>

> Burning them in an open fire, inside or out, is

> not legal and is harmful to health, so don't do

> it!



Not true Nigello, as has been discussed here before. Burning wood is only illegal in a device with a chimney and otherwise only to the extent that it qualifies as a legal nuisance. I realise you consider any burning to be a personal nuisance, but that is not the same thing.

https://www.gov.uk/smoke-control-area-rules - these are UK Gov rules


http://beta.southwark.gov.uk/air-quality/pollution-offences - Southwark's guidance, which says it is an offence to produce dark or black smoke from a chimney or open fire


Wood on an open fire would likely produce dark, harmful smoke but much less likely to do so in an approved stove.

Wood does not produce the type of smoke referred to re the Clean Air Act 1993. Even green wood doesn't do this.


The first link you posted even states you can burn on an open fire unless causing a nuisance. As I've indicated above, the legal definition of a nuisance is not the same as the colloquial one.


I know you don't like ANY type of smoke, but the law does not agree with you.

What actually defines a nuisance, though? If someone has emphysema or another lung condition which deteriorates after having inhaled smoke from a chimney fire, is that enough?

I think it's basic good manners - in a crowded place like London, especially - to not burn materials that could cause health problems or make them worse when there are other fuels that are readily available.

In short, no, that isn't sufficient. Nuisance is a complex area of the law of tort and not easy to summarise here. As the link you posted shows, you are very unlikely to get the council to interfere on your behalf unless there is a sustained course of conduct.


Whilst I agree that people should show good manners, people also have a right to reasonable enjoyment of their property. I have health problems that are impacted by living in such close proximity to my neighbours in London too, but if I really don't like it and my neighbours are not acting illegally, I really have to either take whatever actions I can to mitigate the effect, or move to somewhere less crowded and polluted.

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

    • I see a gap in the market and a stall in North Cross Road...
    • The lack of affordable housing is down to Thatcher's promoting sale of council properties. When I was working, I had to deal with many families/older folk/ disabled folk in inferior housing. The worst ones were ex council properties purchased by their tenants  with a very high discount who then sold on for a profit. The new owners frequently rented out at exorbitant prices and failed to maintain the properties. I remember a gentleman who needed to be visited by a district nurse daily becoming very upset as he rented a room in an ex council flat and shared kitchen and bathroom with 6 other people  (it was a 3 bed flat) the landlord did not allow visitors to the flat and this gut was frightened he would be evicted if the nurse visited daily. Unfortunately, the guy was re admitted to hospital and ended up in a care home as he could not receive medical help at home.   Private developers  are not keen on providing a larger percentage of 'social housing' as it dents their profits. Also a social rent is still around £200 plus a week
    • Hello, I was wondering if others have had experience of roof repairs and guarantees. A while back, we had a water leak come through in our top floor room.  A roofer came and went out on the roof to take a look - they said it was to do with a leak near the chimney.   They did some rendering around the chimney and this cost £1800 plus £750 for scaffolding (so £2,550 total).  They said the work came with a 10 year guarantee. About a year later, there was another leak on the same wall, which looked exactly the same size and colour as the previous leak. But it was about 2 metres away from it, on the other side of a window.  I contacted the roofer about this new leak, thinking it would be covered by the guarantee. However, he said the new leak was due to a different and unrelated problem, and so was not covered by the guarantee. This new leak, he said, was due to holes in the felt underneath the tiles. He said there are holes in the felt all over the roof (so if this was the cause, I expect the first leak may have been caused by that too - but he didn't mention the holes in the felt for the first repair). It feels like the 10-year guarantee doesn't mean much at all.  I realise that the guarantee couldn't cover all future problems with the roof, but where do you draw the line with what's reasonable?  Is it that a leak is only covered if an identical leak happens in exactly the same place?  There were no terms and conditions with the guarantee, which I didn't question at the time.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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