Kirklees refusal to allow arisings to be burned on site

[Stubby]

Do the job to the spec and leave the arisings there on site .

[Joe Newton]

They don't get to stipulate what happens to the arisings.

 

The only issue would be if you burn it yourself it's classed as burning industrial waste, which you would need a permit for.

 

The homeowner however is allowed to burn green waste that originated on the property, providing there are no local regulations against it. 

[jfc]

Ash dieback isn't a reason to burn on site. It is so widespread that advice is out of date.
I very rarely burn on site, last time I did environmental health turned up and got quite shirty about it. The fire was well alight by then so agreed to let it burn out but put no more on. They were not very sympathetic to burning (site access was a nightmare) and could see them being a total pita if we hadn't complied.

[jonrob]

15 hours ago, Pete Mctree said:

Did you request to burn the arisings? If so why?

I lived in Kirklees for years and had many fires with zero issues from the TO. Local residents were sometimes less than appreciative and the fire brigade was called a couple of times by them.

Haha, maybe its your fault then - only joking.

 

We've got different TO's now. We didn't request fires, but the council still put it in as a condition that we can't have one.

[jonrob]

11 hours ago, Joe Newton said:

They don't get to stipulate what happens to the arisings.

They've included it as a condition as part of a TPO decision note. I'm not sure happens if you disobey these conditions, what could the council do about it I wonder?

[jonrob]

3 hours ago, jfc said:

Ash dieback isn't a reason to burn on site. It is so widespread that advice is out of date.

I kind of agree, but it's still the advice given by Forest Research, so maybe there's some reason for it?

[Joe Newton]

2 hours ago, jonrob said:

They've included it as a condition as part of a TPO decision note. I'm not sure happens if you disobey these conditions, what could the council do about it I wonder?

Personally I'd ignore the condition because I don't believe it's valid. What could they prosecute you for?

 

I once had a condition attached to a tpo app saying "we request the tree officer be present to oversee the works". I took it as read and denied their request. Cracked on and did it.

 

 

[Western Star]

LAs can only condition a few things-works to BS3998, to be completed within a given timeframe and possibly one other which escapes me, but certainly isn't not being able to burn on site.

 

 

[jonrob]

18 minutes ago, Joe Newton said:

Personally I'd ignore the condition because I don't believe it's valid. What could they prosecute you for?

 

I once had a condition attached to a tpo app saying "we request the tree officer be present to oversee the works". I took it as read and denied their request. Cracked on and did it.

 

 

Joe, yeah, I think you're right - the more I think about it the more I think that this condition is unenforceable.  I can't think of anything that the TO could do to us or the tree owner if we did burn on site - especially if we are burning diseased material.

[jfc]

There are no restrictions on the movement of ash timber, branches or leaves. Arb association 2019.

 

No mention in the guidance of burning on site being recommended.

 

If it is an urban site Environmental Health staff may be more of an issue than a TO.