Labour-run council orders tenants to remove balcony washing lines
Labour-controlled Gravesham borough council cited concerns about 'combustible' materials on the outside of properties in Northfleet as its reason for imposing the regulations.
But residents have complained that the order, which also covers balcony furniture, is 'unreasonable'.
Tracy, 45, who did not wish to give her surname, said the council told the residents to 'take everything off' their balconies because of 'fire safety'.
'More emphasis on fire risks'
She said one family over the road from her had been told to take their washing lines down, adding: 'At the end of the day, they are saying plastic chairs can combust... Have you ever seen a plastic chair combust?
'I have a chair and table on my balcony, and I've already had to take my wooden fence down because [the council] said they would take it down and charge me if I didn't. I'm paying for a balcony I can't use.'
The council said in a statement that 'more emphasis is being placed on the risk of external fire spread' following the Grenfell Tower tragedy of 2017.
But resident Steve Reely, 61, said the new rules were 'petty'.
He said: '[The council] leave lots of rubbish all over town but we have to keep our balconies clean. In some respects, it's petty. It's like someone is trying to justify their job.
'There are greater fire risks than our personal balconies. It's ridiculous.'
Residents said a letter from the council states that items such as 'screening around metal fencing, belongings made of wood, plastic, textiles and any other materials' are a 'fire risk', and they had been instructed to remove them immediately.
Karen Noakes, 57, said: 'All I've got on my balcony is a kid's bike and scooter and two washing lines. What's the problem with that? They're not a fire hazard.
She suggested she would remove her washing lines 'if the council are going to pay for me to use my dryer'.
A council spokesman said: 'Our tenants and leaseholders have recently been contacted by us regarding fire safety issues particularly around balconies.
'During fire risk assessments carried out at Shepherd Street, our assessors found numerous balconies with combustible screening fitted, which could allow flames to spread vertically up the building, and advised the screening should be removed.
'Since the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, much more emphasis is being placed on the risk of external fire spread.'
Advice from fire chiefs
The spokesman added that the National Fire Chiefs Council advises against 'barbecues, fire pits, patio heaters, or chimneys on balconies, and recommends keeping balconies free from clutter, combustible materials, and flammable items'.
'We have recently updated our building safety advice for tenants, which includes advice on balcony fire safety and a comprehensive but not exhaustive list of items that have the potential to cause or help the spread of fire, and which are therefore not permitted on balconies,' the spokesman said.
They added that requests to residents 'to keep their balconies clear of flammable material and clutter' is intended to 'minimise the risk' of serious incidents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Air India finds ‘no issues' with fuel switches on other Boeings after crash
Air India has said it found 'no issues' with the fuel switches on its other Boeing planes after the fatal crash that killed 260 people last month, as a US report suggested investigators have turned their attention to the actions of the plane's captain. A preliminary report into the incident, released last week, found that the switches that controlled fuel going into the engines had been turned off 'one after another' just after the plane took off from Ahmedabad airport. It meant the engines were starved of fuel, causing them to shut down. Moments afterwards, the London-bound plane lost altitude and crashed, killing 241 people on board and 19 people on the ground. The preliminary report, by India's aviation authority, made no recommendations for action against Boeing, which manufactures the 787 Dreamliner. However, after the report's release, Air India ordered that the locking mechanisms of all fuel control switches – designed to prevent them from being accidentally turned off in-flight – on its Boeing planes be examined as a precautionary measure. On Thursday, an official from Air India confirmed that 'inspections have been completed and no issues were found'. According to a report by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), an early assessment made by US officials has indicated that investigators are now focusing on the actions of the plane's captain, Sumeet Sabharwal, a veteran pilot, who it said is believed to have been the one who moved the fuel switches to cut-off. The black-box recording is reported to indicate that it was the plane's first officer, Clive Kunder, who was flying the aircraft during take-off and had questioned why the pilot had moved the fuel switches to cut off. Sabharwal had replied that he had not. The WSJ cited what it said were people familiar with US officials' early assessment of evidence uncovered in the crash investigation as saying that Kunder, the first officer, had panicked, while the captain had remained calm. The sources cited by the WSJ did not state if the action was believed to be deliberate or accidental. It was reported that US officials believed that criminal investigators should also be involved to look into the incident. The WSJ did not name the sources it interviewed and Indian authorities have not attributed any fault in their preliminary investigation. India's preliminary report had summarised the exchange between the pilot and the first officer but had not attributed the quotes. A direct transcript of the recorded discussion has not yet been published by officials. The fuel switches were moved back on seconds after, and one of the engines re-started, but it was not enough to reverse the plane's deceleration. A 'mayday, mayday, mayday' message was transmitted to air traffic control before the plane hit the ground, just 32 seconds after it had left the runway. The Federation of Indian Pilots strongly criticised the WSJ report as 'baseless', accusing it of attempting to pin the blame on the pilot. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion After the release of the report last week, India's civil aviation minister Kinjarapu Ram Mohan Naidu said that people should not 'jump to conclusions' after the report, citing the welfare and wellbeing of India's pilots. Two groups represented pilots also condemned the suggestion of a pilot error or action to be the cause of the crash as a 'reckless and unfounded insinuation'. A report in the Indian Express said that investigators were also examining previous technical glitches with the plane, to explore the possibility of an 'un-commanded transition' of the fuel control switches. Relatives of the 241 passengers who died on board the London Gatwick bound flight have expressed frustration at the preliminary report, which was accused of being 'vague and inexact'. In an email to staff after the report, Air India chief executive Campbell Wilson acknowledged the report had 'opened additional questions' but urged staff to 'avoid drawing premature conclusions as the investigation is far from over'.
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
West Berkshire Council leader Jeff Brooks' webchat for residents
A council leader will answer residents' questions as part of an event that will be streamed across YouTube, Facebook and Brooks, who leads West Berkshire Council, will go live online from 18:00 BST on 23 July and will chat for up to an can submit their questions by email and must submit them by 16:00 on 22 July."As leader it's important to me to be talking with local people - whether that be an impromptu conversation in the street, a formal question at council or by going online to answer your questions," Brooks said. "This is another way for you to ask something about your local council - whether it's about the services we provide, the decisions we make or what it's like to work at the council or be a councillor. "It should be a very good event and I hope many of you will be able to join me for it." You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
Council worker hacked back my hedge by MISTAKE – they said it ‘looked like a derelict building' but they were wrong
A COUNCIL has apologised after hacking back a man's hedge after mistaking it for a "derelict building." Andrew Wheatley, 60, was surprised when he received a message from his neighbour asking why he was getting rid of his ivy. 5 5 5 Andrew, of Brighton, went to check outside and found a council employee had finished hacking away and was sweeping it up. He was told the council had received complaints about the hedge making the house look run-down. The worker told him the authority had received complaints from neighbours about the foliage and it made his "house look derelict". Brighton and Hove City Council admits it was "wrongly" cut by the a council worker - after they received a request for "weed management in the area". Mr Wheatley said the council "cut the main stem" of the ivy and it has died everywhere now. He said: 'My neighbour sent me a text saying 'why are you getting rid of your ivy?' and I said I wasn't getting rid of it. 'I saw this council guy and he said 'we have received complaints from neighbours about it and it is making the place look derelict'. 'At this point he had chopped it all down and it was just sweeping up and clearing it into his bin." Andrew said the man doing the work was just following orders, but he was still baffled at why he hadn't been consulted. ''There was no point going at him because he was just being told what to do,"he added. ''I was really annoyed. There was no consultation. The council should have got in touch with me before they did anything. 'It just annoys me that they can go and do whatever they want - it is effectively criminal damage." As well as the aesthetic that the ivy adds to the garden, Andrew was frustrated about the impact on wildlife. He said: 'We used to get bees nesting in there and snails so they killed a lot of insects when they did it as well.' A Brighton and Hove Council spokesperson said: 'Unfortunately it seems a well-meaning member of our street cleaning team did indeed remove this ivy. 'We had received a request for regular weed management in this area and on this occasion one of our team visited the street to carry out necessary work and finding only the ivy, wrongly took it to be something which needed cutting back. 'This was an error done with the best intentions, but we appreciate the upset it has caused the owner and apologise for this mistake.' Mr Wheatley said that the ivy had been there since they moved over 10 years ago. He said: 'It grew down the side of my neighbours driveway. "He is really annoyed because now it has died off so he has had to clear it all up.' The Sun has reached out to Brighton and Hove City Council for a comment. What are your rights over a fence row? IT'S very important to know your rights if you are embroiled in a fence row with a neighbour. How do I know which side I own? A boundary feature can be a fence, wall, hedge, ditch, piece of wire, or sometimes even just the edge of a driveway. The only way to know for certain who owns what side and to avoid any neighbour disputes, is to refer to the title plan or Land Registry. In this, the T mark is used to indicate who the boundary belongs to and therefore who is responsible for its upkeep, say pros at Jacksons Fencing. Larger developments tend to have some indication provided by the builder, but there are no hard and fast rules People often think they are responsible for the left (or right) hand boundary wherever they live, but there isn't any legal basis for this. You can check with HM Land Registry to see which boundary feature you are responsible for. Often households can't get hold of the paperwork but experts say they shouldn't panic. Homeowners can guess who owns the fence by checking where the rails are. Pros say: "The fence is typically facing away from their property so that their neighbour gets the 'good' side. 'This is the most secure way of facing fencing so there are no rails for anyone to use to climb into your garden. 'This is then repeated with the neighbour on the other side to ensure that each home has both a 'good' and 'bad' fence side.' Walls and fences are often built on the land of the boundary's owner with the edge of the wall marking the limit. While professionals agree a glimpse at the fence can give you a hint, it's not foolproof - so you can't be certain. Fines and punishment It is recommended to always check legal documents before making changes to avoid hefty fines. There is no law that the neighbour has to get the good side of the fence, so it's completely up to whoever owns the fence. Fencing pros have suggested: 'It may be worth selecting a double-sided panel with no 'bad' side as both sides look the same and rails are concealed within the fence panel.' If one boundary backs onto a road or footpath you can install the panels with the rails on the inside But if it's installed on the outside, it can provide an 'easy ladder for burglars to enter your garden'. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the Property Litigation Association have created a mediation service to help neighbours resolve disputes over their property boundaries without resorting to court action. RICS also provides a list of surveyors who could assist in boundary disputes. If a dispute continues, it is ultimately a court that makes decisions, but they do not like such disputes being put before them. Changing a boundary If you want to change an existing boundary, such as replacing an old fence with a new one, we always recommend discussing with your neighbour first and making sure it is all agreed. The registered titles can help you to reach an agreement, but only if this information has been added. In terms of decorations on a fence legal advisers recommended asking around over who actually first installed it. But they also urged caution before getting to work on amending the fence without getting more certainty yourself - since there is a danger of actually being prosecuted for criminal damage. How high can a garden fence be? The height of the fence is measured from your ground level, this can have an impact when, due to slopes in the ground, your garden may be at a higher level than your neighbours '. A garden fence can be as high as 100m but you need to get planning permission if it's over than 2m. However, there are some complications to this. If you are thinking about front garden fences, restrictions state that fences alongside a driveway can be a maximum of 1m or 3ft. You would need to get planning permission for putting a trellis on a fence of 2m. But, if any plant that you grow on that trellis exceeds 2m, you do not need to obtain a permit for the growing plant. 5 5
