Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Couple of doors down students are in the garden all night burning (seemingly) whatever they can find. Last week it was an old bed, which they broke up and used for firewood. Obviously we all live in a smoke control area, but can anything be done about burning dangerous materials? Does the council have any enforcement powers? The smell was acrid and flooded into our house. I don't want to be a killjoy and understand a drink around a fire but this seems to be taking the piss.

If they are tenants, contact the landlord?


You could also try reporting it as antisocial behaviour? http://www.southwark.gov.uk/noise-and-antisocial-behaviour


It does seem to be illegal and could incur a fine... http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200075/pollution/254/penalties_for_polluting


I think similar to other types of antisocial behaviour, the general advice is to keep a diary of all the activity as this will support your complaint. Good luck. xx

If you told them that their actions can cause some people with breathing/lung problems to get very ill they may get the message. You shouldn't have to tell them that - they should be alert to their general anti-socialness but if you need extra persuasion, it could work.

From Southwark Council's website page 'The main causes of air pollution': http://www.southwark.gov.uk/air-quality/the-main-causes-of-air-pollution


'Bonfires


Bonfires and any burning in the open generate smoke and odour. The plume will affect neighbouring properties making health issues worse, spoiling washing, preventing the enjoyment of gardens and outside spaces, making people close their windows, etc.


Do not dispose of waste by burning. The whole borough is a designated Smoke Control Zone. Instead, re-cycle as much of your waste as possible.' (last updated 29 August 2017)

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Thanks for that IlonaM.

>

> If you read the text more carefully it does not

> say bonfires are banned.

>


That was my understanding as well. It's not the bonfire itself that is illegal.


It would the burning of "toxic" materials (or materials that release toxins) that is illegal, or if the fires were considered to be a "statutory nuisance".

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Thanks for that IlonaM.

>

> If you read the text more carefully it does not

> say bonfires are banned.

>

> Mr Barber will probably not the e4xisting

> restrictions and exemptions for bonfires.


I did not assert that bonfires are banned edhistory. I posted what was on the website for your information.


Somewhere on the Southwark website it used to talk about frequency etc. in terms of nuisance, but I cannot find it at the moment. Perhaps you can?

Bonfires are not banned, but burning items that produce acrid toxic fumes is. If this happens call Southwark Environmental services and they will come and inspect. Yes do they do have powers to stop such instances and will do so when they are made aware of them.

Renata

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

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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