North80

The spray foam industry should be shut down. It is going to cause a lot of problems in the coming years. Many people who think they have had it done properly will suddenly find that their roof is rotten. Too many people mess around with their their roofs by putting spray foam and shoddy solar panel installs.

There is a lot of ignorance regarding the dangers of wood smoke. There was a similar ignorance towards the dangers of asbestos until recently. Even today a lot of older tradesmen downplay the risks of asbestos. The Chilean government are trying to move people away from using wood burners and onto cleaner alternatives like gas. They have done a lot of studies into the dangers of wood burners. The Scottish Government are going to cause more health problems with this new legislation, more people will get wood burners instead of gas which will cause a big decrease in air quality. https://www.ccacoalition.org/news/chile-takes-action-air-pollution

Does anyone know if LPG central heating will be banned under this legislation, specifically systems that use tanks and bottles? The legislation mentions mains gas, but I'm a bit confused about whether bottled gas will be included. This legislation seems completely pointless. Solid fuel fires are the worst form of heating in terms of PM2.5 particles that are harmful to health. Burning oil and gas is significantly less detrimental than using solid fuel fires. Even under the best circumstances, wood burners are problematic, even when people burn sufficiently dry, non-chemically treated wood. However, many people don't use them correctly—they burn wet wood and chemically treated wood. By banning oil and gas heating, this legislation could have the reverse effect, prompting people to install wood burners instead. This would lead to even worse air quality and higher emissions, counteracting the intended environmental benefits. It seems completely illogical to ban oil and gas but not wood burners. Wood burners should be banned first, not oil and gas. As has been mentioned, new homes should be built to be compatible with generators if power cuts are a concern. Occasionally using a petrol or diesel generator during a power cut is far less harmful than allowing people to burn wood all the time.

Very bodged install. As you say that garage is a death trap, someone could get carbon monoxide positioning. Also the power cables are on the surface, someone could easily cut into them when gardening. People are highlighting these issues in the comments but he doesn't seem to care. I was just interested in seeing how he wired it in. I'm not an electrician so can't comment on the actual electrical bit.

A video of an electrician wiring in a back-up generator.

On lots of roofing youtube videos I always see comments from non-British people commenting that they can't believe so many British roofers don't use counter battens. It seems like almost everywhere else counter battens are standard practice, but not in the UK for some reason. Why is it that so many British roofers don't counter batten? They're in NHBC standards: https://nhbc-standards.co.uk/7-roofs/7-2-pitched-roofs/7-2-17-battens/

I believe the concern over power cuts is exaggerated; they usually last only a few hours here and there. Some of my family members live in rural areas and, several years ago, experienced a power cut that lasted over a week. However, they managed just fine with a cheap diesel generator. They have an open fire in the house but haven't used it for at least 15 years without any problems—the generator sufficed. If people are that worried about power cuts, they should consider designing their home's power system to be compatible with a diesel generator. Some houses have a master switch that allows them to switch from mains power to a diesel generator backup. If I were building a new house in a rural area, that's what I would do instead of installing a wood burner. My family doesn't have the generator wired into their house electrics; they simply had it out in the garden with an extension cable running inside the house. One thing that irks me about this wood burner debate is that Kate Forbes is very outspoken against the wood burner ban. Her husband is the owner of a chimney sweeping firm, so her family has financial skin in the game, so to speak. If this were a Tory politician speaking out against a matter that directly affected the finances of their spouse's business interests, the media would be all over it as a conflict of interest.

My Aunty has an open fire in her house but has suffered from breathing problems her entire life. She doesn't seem to be able to put two and two together and realise it might be her fire that is causing her problems. With the increasing air tightness of homes solid fuel fires will be causing health problems. When people open the fire to put more wood on it will release lots of harmful dust and gasses into the house. A lot of modern houses don't have proper ventilation systems despite the airtightness. Even things like gas hobs in a house are harmful as noted in the video below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzq0RbkHV78

Many people in rural areas rely on gas cylinders for heating rather than mains gas. As far as I can tell, these will be banned under the new regulations. The way these new rules are being framed, the primary heat sources people can use are heat pumps or wood burners. It seems illogical to ban oil and gas but not wood burners, considering that wood burners are far worse than oil or gas boilers in terms of emissions and air quality. I have family who live in rural areas; they have an oil boiler and, during power cuts, they use a diesel generator to power an electric heater. There's no need for a wood burner in a rural area. Power cuts are infrequent, and if people are concerned about them, they could use a diesel generator as a backup. Many people I know who have wood burners don't use them properly. They burn chemically treated wood like pallets and wet wood. Non-kiln-dried wood is meant to be left for about two years out of the rain to dry properly, but many people don't do that. They get wood delivered to their homes and leave it out in the rain, then burn it when it's still not properly dry. Even dry wood creates a lot of harmful emissions; wet wood produces even more. I find it concerning that people are allowed to use solid fuel fires in built-up towns and villages. The smoke created by them is very harmful to health and is anti-social. People shouldn't be allowed to pollute neighbouring properties with smoke from a solid fuel fire; they should have to live far from other properties if they want to use one. One person I worked with—who was not a very nice person, to put it politely—lives in a big town in a densely populated area. He recently had a wood burner fitted and burns all kinds of chemically treated wood in it. I feel sorry for his neighbours; he's exposing them to harmful chemicals but doesn't care.

edit

I believe allowing wood burners while banning gas heating as a primary sourse doesn't make sense. Wood burners are among the most polluting heating methods, releasing harmful pollutants that harm both the environment and public health. Gas heating is cleaner, so permitting wood burners but restricting gas undermines efforts to reduce emissions. Many people misuse wood burners by burning wet or chemically treated wood, which releases even more pollutants. This not only affects the environment but also poses health risks to nearby residents. In built-up areas, wood smoke is a nuisance and should be banned to protect public health. Relaxing regulations to allow wood burners but restricting gas may encourage more people to install them, which is counterproductive. If they're necessary in rural areas, strict regulations should minimize their impact on others.

What are your thoughts on the new Renters Reform Bill? I'm particularly concerned about the section that gives tenants more rights to keep pets. Recently, I've been trying to find a place to live, and one of the biggest challenges is finding a property where pets haven't lived. I have severe allergies to cats and dogs, and this change could make it even harder for people like me to find suitable housing. I recently viewed a property where a tenant had a dog, and the smell was overpowering. I had to cut the tour short because my eyes started watering and my chest began to tighten. I don't think dogs should be allowed in apartment buildings. In many flats I've visited, the stairwells are covered in dog hair, which isn't right. Allowing dogs will also be a nightmare for landlords. It's almost impossible to get the smell of dog out of carpets; they might have to re-carpet the entire property after each tenant to eliminate the odour. Even wood flooring can retain the smell. Additionally, dogs can spread fleas and bed bugs in their fur, creating further headaches for landlords. In apartment buildings, infestations in common areas like stairwells could easily spread to other flats. What do others think about this aspect of the bill?