Wood burning smell in my home 24th Dec 2012

Hello everyone,

 It is Christmas eve and there is smoke smell in my home from wood burning at 6 The Strand Penshurst 2222.

Although not as strong a smell and volume as on the 22nd December 2012 when I updated council. There is still smoke smell in my bathroom, kitchen and lounge area on an intermittent basis. I have walled off my two bedrooms so I can live in a part of the house without smoke.

This form of pollution continues to be a nuisance and I am of the opinion it breaches the DA requirement's outlined in Section D below

Development Application 240/2011 Section D – Construction and operational conditions 
(6) Health and Public Nuisance 
(13) General Amenity

 

To get a copy of the DA

 There is a search page for development applications
http://www2.kogarah.nsw.gov.au/datrackingui/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=search

click the "I agree" button to continue

If you type in the application number first

• 240

and then type in the year

• 2011

Thanks everyone and have a great Christmas.

Best Regards
Mark

Wood burning restarted Dec 2012

Hello all,

Artichoke wood fired pizza 6 The Strand Penshurst NSW 2222 ceased operation a few months ago and residents in close proximity to the premises were blessed with the clean air we used to enjoy.

There is a new business that has started up making use of the open wood burning oven, again this is causing issues with our day to day amenity and enjoyment of our homes.

I contacted council on the 22nd Dec 2012 see below

Hello council staff,

I plan on updating you each time the smoke smell in my home is particularly offensive. This morning is one such time, it is about 9:50AM in the morning and the wood burning activity from 6 The Strand Penshurst is pushing smoke smell into all my living areas.

This is very unpleasant to live with, sometimes when the wind blows towards the station and away from the units it's ok but when smoke blows towards residential premises that are very close to the chimney it is really noticeable and unpleasant.

Please assist as this does breach the DA conditions of:

Development Application 240/2011 Section D – Construction and operational conditions

(6) Health and Public Nuisance

The use of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health nuisance to the adjoining or nearby premises and environment.

There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

(13) General Amenity

The implementation of this development shall not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood or interfere unreasonably with the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises by reason of the emission or discharge of noise, fumes, vapour, odour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or other harmful products.

Other possible issues:

- I also believe that the chimney flue is too low as it is below the roof line of adjacent units that are not 10 meters away.

- There appears to be no grease trap.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide.

Best Regards

Mark

I contacted council on the 20th Dec 2012 see below

Hello council staff,

Please help return our clean air. 

Smoke smell is everywhere in my unit this morning, direct result of resumption of wood burning activity at 6 The Strand penshurst.

Not a pleasant way to live.

Thank you

Best Regards

Mark

Protection of the environment operations act

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poteoa1997455/s135c.html

135C Contravention of smoke abatement notices

(1) A person to whom a smoke abatement notice has been given must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with the notice while the notice remains in force.

Maximum penalty: 30 penalty units.

(2) A smoke abatement notice does not prevent the emission of smoke that is not excessive smoke.

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, a document signed by the authorised officer of an appropriate regulatory authority who issued a smoke abatement notice certifying that the officer had, at a specified time and place:

(a) observed a plume of smoke being emitted from a chimney on or in premises specified in the certificate for a continuous period of not less than 10 minutes, and

(b) observed during that period a plume of smoke extending at least 10 metres from the point at which the smoke was emitted from the chimney for a period of not less than 30 seconds,

is evidence of the matters so certified, unless the contrary is proved.

Compounding effects of smoke exposure?

I was speaking with a resident and she mentioned that she could smell and feel smoke particles in her throat and chest as a result of wood burning activity at Artichoke woodfire pizza, 6 The Strand Penshurst.

This got me thinking where current TV ads run by the government re-enforce a message that every cigarette is doing you damage and combined with the information I found online that shows wood burning smoke discharge contains over 100 chemicals found in cigarette smoke.

http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/site/Publications/Strategies/PolicyReg/LivePolicyDocs%5C2088.pdf

I will quote again from this document.

Many of these compounds are common with those seen in tobacco smoke or car
exhausts. In fact, over 100 chemicals found in cigarette smoke have also been
identified in woodsmoke.

 This is quite disconcerting as when you tie in another thread of passive smoking. Which is one reason why many premises no longer allow smoking indoors.

So clearly what is alarming are the compounding negative health affects after years and years of being exposed to the discharge of smoke from six days of commercial wood burning activity. This is not just a one of infrequent event such as a once per month BBQ.

If this is activity and level of waste discharge is ongoing I believe we need to have records of how much wood is being burnt, we need to record the particulates being emitted, we need to understand if there is a safe limit of six days per week of passive wood fire smoke inhalation. And what is the responsibility of the emitter of pollutants to affected parties.

A cigarette tobacco weight is approx 1 gram. We are well aware that the smoke from this one gram of tobacco being burned can travel a significant distance. The hundreds of kilos of wood being burned six days per week is a daunting statistic to consider. Especially as I am in the position of being a home buyer and plan to be here for the long term. We have residents in my building who have lived here happily for over 20 years some in excess of 25 years.


Best Regards
Mark Koscak

Contacting Kogarah council

Hello everyone,

To contact Kogarah council (our clean air is worth fighting for)

email: mail@kogarah.nsw.gov.au

Ph: 02 9330 9400

Location: 84 Railway Parade, Kogarah. (just down the road from Kogarah station)

Best Regards
Mark Koscak

The great people at Kogarah council

Hello everyone,

I took a half day off work and have been down to council premises at 84 Railway Pde Kogarah. They are very helpful people who are interested in helping affected residents and the proprietor of Artichoke Pizza.

I have been told (verbally not in writing) that council has powers to ensure the activities of 6 The Strand Penshurst or Artichoke Pizza do not impact residents negatively. There are clauses in the Development Application that must be adhered to pertaining the impacts of business activity on external parties namely local residents in the smoke discharge zone.

We MUST voice our concerns to council on an ongoing basis especially when smoke events occur. I have spoken with many of you and there appears to be eight of us that are significantly impacted.

One suggestion has been to draft a template letter or a few different templates noting the various negative impacts of the effluent from wood burning activity  and when these events occur, we must write in to council to make them aware and they can follow up regards firstly compliance and secondly alternative arrangements that would bring long term relief to affected residents.

Thank you all.

Best Regards
Mark Koscak

Legal eagles and costs

Hello everyone,

I have spoken with a solicitor he says the best option is to work closely with council and ensure that the discharge from the flue is compliant and that the development meets council regulations.

The decision to take the owner to the Land of environment court is likely to cost 20-30K and if the case is lost paying the other parties court costs. Taking this route would mean that we would have to build an ironclad case otherwise it could be very expensive or $60,000 or more on the losing side the other extreme could be that we paid $0 in costs.

Best Regards
Mark Koscak