Any advice on a neighbours lack of compliance with fire regulations?

S

Scaamp

New Member
Messages
6
I am looking for some advice on an issue related to my home.

I recently experienced some rather odd behaviour from my fireplace, basically intense back drafts and smoke coming into the room. I had my chimney swept, and when the cleaner was doing a smoke test, we could see the issue persist.

It appears that sudden backdraft of smoke may be due to the proximity of a new deveopment next door affecting the flue exit.

This would be implied in articles like this: https://www.rockfordchimneysupply.com/blog/too-short-chimney-causes-concern/

I have talked informally to several chimney specialists, and they all confirmed over the phone that this is the case.

As you can imagine, this situation is quite hazardous for CO poisoning if the draught reverses. As well as smoke damage in my home.

It appears this is covered in Building Regulations for Heat Producing Appliances. Part J. Diagram 2 on page 13 shows the distances required from open flues to adjoining buildings

I am shocked this was not addressed at the planning stage, an oversight that impinges on the enjoyment of my home.

I am looking for advice on the appropriate way to proceed on this front. What is my route to a solution on this? I can't fathom that this would be a cost that I would have to shoulder myself, given the failure with compliance is on the developer side, the chimney was pre-existing and should have been taken into account.

The development is not yet finished.
 
Have you been in touch to query this problem with the Council Planners who granted planning permission on the structure next door and to emphasise the CO poisoning aspect?
 
If your chimney is too short, the other building is irrelevant. Fix your chimney.

I'm not intending to be blunt. But isn't that really the issue.
 
AlbacoreA said:
If your chimney is too short, the other building is irrelevant. Fix your chimney.

I'm not intending to be blunt. But isn't that really the issue.
Click to expand...


An utterly bizzare response. The chimney has been there since the 1920s. I don't think I'm the one at fault here to be fair.
 
Scaamp said:
....

It appears that sudden backdraft of smoke may be due to the proximity of a new deveopment next door affecting the flue exit.

....
Click to expand...

I assume the new development beside it has changed the airflow on the ops roof very likely because the chimney is no longer the tallest structure in immediate vicinity of the chimney.

The development must be at a significant height.

They often extend and cowl a chimney with such problems. Well at least until they ban you using them.
 
Scaamp said:
I can't fathom that this would be a cost that I would have to shoulder myself, given the failure with compliance is on the developer side, the chimney was pre-existing and should have been taken into account.
Click to expand...
The issue here is that the developer of this site only has to ensure that flues they are installing on their site meet the requirements you outline.

In an ideal world you would have reviewed their planning application in advance and submitted an observation regarding any element that might have been of concern. It's unlikely that the documents they submitted contained sufficiently detailed information about the location of your flue for the planners to assess. Assuming you didn't lodge an observation, you can't appeal that planning at this point.

It might be worthwhile speaking with a planning specialist who could review the planning they have been granted and assess the works carried out for compliance to see if there are any other avenues open at this point, but that won't be zero cost.
 
AlbacoreA said:
I assume the new development beside it has changed the airflow on the ops roof very likely because the chimney is no longer the tallest structure in immediate vicinity of the chimney.

The development must be at a significant height.

They often extend and cowl a chimney with such problems. Well at least until they ban you using them.
Click to expand...


Yeah, its double the height of anything else on the street.
Leo said:
The issue here is that the developer of this site only has to ensure that flues they are installing on their site meet the requirements you outline.

In an ideal world you would have reviewed their planning application in advance and submitted an observation regarding any element that might have been of concern. It's unlikely that the documents they submitted contained sufficiently detailed information about the location of your flue for the planners to assess. Assuming you didn't lodge an observation, you can't appeal that planning at this point.

It might be worthwhile speaking with a planning specialist who could review the planning they have been granted and assess the works carried out for compliance to see if there are any other avenues open at this point, but that won't be zero cost.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the response. The other way to look at it this, their building won't be made compliant until it's sorted.

As far as I've been informed, bizarrely and news to me but planning and building regulations are two separate systems. So they might have got planning but this oversight is a major issue for them to resolve now.

Regards objecting or making an observation, would you be surprised to hear that I entirely missed that crappy a4 notice they stick up for six weeks and don't make a habit of reading the ad rags. The notification system here is a joke. In the UK neighbors must be informed directly.
 
Scaamp said:
The other way to look at it this, their building won't be made compliant until it's sorted.
Click to expand...
That's not true. Based on your description here, it is your property that no longer complies with the regs. It is the position of their flue(s) and not yours that will be of concern when it comes to getting compliance sign-off.

Scaamp said:
As far as I've been informed, bizarrely and news to me but planning and building regulations are two separate systems. So they might have got planning but this oversight is a major issue for them to resolve now.
Click to expand...
That's not uncommon, the UK works exactly the same way. Planning permission does not mean you can build something that does not comply with the regs.
 
Leo said:
It's unlikely that the documents they submitted contained sufficiently detailed information about the location of your flue for the planners to assess.
Click to expand...

Should the planners have made a site visit and observed the flue themselves?
 
Leo said:
That's not true. Based on your description here, it is your property that no longer complies with the regs. It is the position of their flue(s) and not yours that will be of concern when it comes to getting compliance sign-off.


That's not uncommon, the UK works exactly the same way. Planning permission does not mean you can build something that does not comply with the regs.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert here, so even figuring out where to get the drawings etc is a new experience and troublesome for me - but from what I can see, the chimney was left out in at least one of the submitted drawings.

As you say Leo, planning permission does not mean you can build something that doesn't comply with regulations. So the fact that they built in what is considered the "prohibited zone" around a pre-existing chimney (despite some claims here that the onus/fault is on my "building") is surely going to be a far graver matter for them, especially when you consider the risk of CO poisoning and liability if something happens.

I have seen the illogical nature of planning at hand in other arenas in the UK, where a local council is putting noise abatement orders on a pre-existing music venue for instance when developers fire up residential units that reap the reward of an areas cultural legacy but don't bother with sound proofing and then expect the reality around them to bend to their will - so while the "agent of change" principle deals with noise alone, it might be an interesting way to frame whats going on here in terms of an order of responsibility.

I can not see how someone who, say theoretically might have emigrated for a year or spent several months in hospital, can be told "oh you didn't put in on observation" on planning is suddenly at fault here.

We have regulations and laws to uphold the standards of a society as a collective. It's not down to an non-expert individual (like me) to oversee what's legit.
 
Last edited:
llgon said:
Should the planners have made a site visit and observed the flue themselves?
Click to expand...
All sites aren't inspected and even if they did inspect this one, details like that can be missed. That's why it's so important to review any planning applications that might impinge on your enjoyment of your own property, no one else is going to be as focused on you.
 
Scaamp said:
As you say Leo, planning permission does not mean you can build something that doesn't comply with regulations. So the fact that they built in what is considered the "prohibited zone" around a pre-existing chimney (despite some claims here that the onus/fault is on my "building") is surely going to be a far graver matter for them, especially when you consider the risk of CO poisoning and liability if something happens.
Click to expand...
I think you're still misunderstanding the regs. The prohibited zone refers to the area within which the applicant cannot place a new flue, it does not refer to the placement of structures near existing flues.

Scaamp said:
We have regulations and laws to uphold the standards of a society as a collective. It's not down to an non-expert individual (like me) to oversee what's legit.
Click to expand...
Very true, and that's why people are advised to consult experts and submit observations as required to ensure that their rights are protected.
 
Just a few observations.

Not on all fours with OP's scenario.
We had the experience of an adjacent property being given planning permission for an extension.
The nature of the extension caused ingress to our property of some fumes from their new chimney.
The planning department could not have cared less as long as the submitted plan was in compliance with building regulations.
Any problems outside of this fell in to that well defined category known as "nothing to do with us - sort it out yourself".

My point is that if the OP's problem is being caused by a structure that complies with both building regulations and the planning permission granted the local authority will not do anything.

Does OP have a potential remedy ? Possibly, but with potentially large expense.
Specifically, I would be thinking along the lines of the tort of private nuisance.
The actions of the developers have caused the OP and family to suffer a significant diminution in their basic ability to use and enjoy their property and to do so safely.

What would I do?

I see that OP has contacted several chimney specialists. Firstly, I would engage the most reputable of them to carry out a photographic survey of the inside of the chimney as well as the general structure of it to ensure that it is perfectly sound. This eliminates the predictable argument that there must be something wrong with OP's chimney !

You might also have to retain an architect if the matter cannot be settled satisfactorily.

Next step, I would instruct a solicitor to deal with the developers to complain about both the nuisance and serious safety issues and ask for their proposals to rectify the situation. That should be accompanied by an initially polite threat that proceedings may have to issue and the relief(s) sought might include an order requiring the nuisance to be abated by removal of the offending structure erected by the developers.

There might be significant initial costs involved but what price health and life brought under threat by someone else's actions ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top