Wood-burning stoves to be allowed in new homes
Wood-burning stoves will be allowed in new homes in England.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government has written to the Stove Industry Association (SIA) confirming that they can be used as a secondary heating source.
The Government is currently working on a 'future homes standard' to ensure that new homes can become zero carbon, and it was feared wood-burning stoves would be outlawed in the guidance.
Log burners have attracted the ire of environmentalists who claim they are dangerous to health and contribute to carbon emissions.
A report by Prof Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, found that even modern wood-burning stoves produced 450 times more toxic air pollution than gas central heating.
But the Government said it acknowledged that it was possible to significantly reduce smoke by using the 'right fuels, appliances and practices'.
Andy Hill, chairman of the SIA, said: 'We are delighted that it has been officially confirmed that under the proposed future homes standard, the installation of a wood-burning stove will be permitted, and we are also particularly heartened to see that the Government acknowledges the impact of domestic burning best practices.
'Responsible use of modern wood-burning appliances is something the SIA and its members have advocated for over many years.
'The SIA welcomes the Government's positive response and looks forward to continued engagement as policies are developed and implemented.
'We believe that modern wood-burning stoves can play a crucial role in achieving cleaner air, supporting local economies, and providing consumers with sustainable and flexible heating choices.'
Secondary heating source
The Government's decision comes after more than 1,500 businesses and woodland owners wrote to ministers in February arguing that modern wood-burning stoves are far cleaner and could help reduce reliance on electricity, gas, and liquid fuels.
They argued that unlike open fires and older burners, modern systems emitted significantly lower levels of harmful PM2.5 emissions.
In a letter to the SIA, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government said: 'A full technical consultation on the Future Homes Standard was launched in December 2023 and closed in March 2024.
'Under the standards proposed in the consultation, a wood-burning stove would be permitted as a secondary heating source in new homes.
'The Government acknowledges that it is possible to significantly reduce the level of smoke emitted through domestic burning if the right fuels, appliances and practices are used.'
In November, the Scottish Government also scrapped its controversial ban on installing wood-burning stoves in new homes following a huge backlash in rural Scotland.
A government spokesperson said: 'The Future Homes and Buildings Standard, to be published later this year, will ensure all new homes are energy efficient and use low-carbon heating systems.
'As set out in the Future Homes Standard consultation, the use of a wood fuel appliance as a primary heating system would not achieve the standards proposed, however, their installation would still be permitted as a secondary heating source.'
However, anti-pollution groups said they were disappointed and surprised by the latest decision.
Research carried out by Imperial College London suggests that log burners in homes are creating new 'pollution hotspots' away from main roads in residential streets.
Jemima Hartshorn, the co-founder of the Mums for Lungs campaign group, told the Guardian: 'Due to the high amount of greenhouse gases emitted when burning wood and solid fuels, the Climate Change Committee strongly advises that it needs to be phased out as it is not carbon neutral and has no place in how homes should be heated in the 21st century.'
'We know that wood burning is one of the major sources of toxic air pollution that is killing tens of thousands of people every year and is linked to a range of serious and life-changing diseases.
'This is a very disappointing and surprising decision by government.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Too low, now too high': Rachel Reeves' winter fuel U-turn reignites fairness debate
As the government hikes the winter fuel payment threshold to £35,000, many Independent readers say the means test was too low last year – and is now far too high. The sudden shift has sparked frustration, confusion and claims of political opportunism. Many readers criticised the move as politically motivated, coming just days before a crucial spending review and following electoral losses and pressure from Reform UK. Several argued the new threshold is too high, with one pointing out that a £35k salary should not warrant government support, especially when many working-age families and the unemployed receive far less help. Others echoed the IFS and Resolution Foundation's concerns that the policy is poorly targeted and administratively messy, potentially creating unfair outcomes for households just above the income line. Some welcomed the return of payments for lower-income pensioners but questioned why the government scrapped them in the first place without a clear plan. Pensioners themselves weighed in too – some said they managed perfectly without the payments and felt younger families in poverty needed the support more. One commented: 'We are mortgage-free and have enough – give it to those who really need it.' The overall feeling from our community was that the government had acted too late and without transparency. The move was described as a 'headless chicken' reaction, lacking clarity on implementation, repayment, and future policy direction. Here's what you had to say: I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Not a U-turn, just a high threshold It's not a U-turn. They brought in the concept of means testing the WFA and now they've raised the limit. A U-turn would be going back to universal WFA. Personally, I think they've set it far too high. I know plenty of families that would love to be earning £35k and getting guaranteed pay rises every year, plus money towards their fuel bill. KrakenUK Means test still not right Means test was too low before and is too high now – and should be based on household income. We're both pensioners with a joint income of close to £50k, no dependent kids, no mortgage. Added to this, we've got the protection of the triple lock. There is no way we need this money, whereas many young families do. WokeUp 4,000 lives at risk The enduring problem is that the government's own estimate said that 4,000 people would die of the cold if this policy was introduced. The excess deaths figures will not be published for another year and, in any case, are now very complicated. The question for me is: would I ever vote for people who were prepared to allow 4,000 old people to die because they don't understand economics? MrBishi We manage, give it to those who need it I've always said the same. We are mortgage-free, I'm on a state pension and get a small private pension. My wife, who is younger, still works part-time and gets around £600 per month. We manage perfectly. We know a lot of younger people who work and struggle with rents, children to keep, etc. Give it to them. Some pensioners out there are just plain greedy and want every penny piece they can grab. Ian Why should wealthy pensioners get it? I barely earn £35K as a 45-year-old professional in the NHS and certainly won't get that kind of money for a pension. Why should so many get a £300 handout when they've more than likely paid their mortgage and don't have to spend money on children, etc., any more? OnlyFishLeft Social care funding was the original point I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Help paying the gas bill on £35k? Thirty-five grand coming in a year and you get help paying your gas bill? Truly outrageous. This suggests a person needs £35k a year, minimum, to live. So how about getting disabled people and the unemployed up to that rate then? Because they are far, far below. BigDogSmallBrain A compromise, but poorly communicated This sounds a more sensible compromise rather than going back to the old universal payment, but the government should have made this announcement last year so people would have been prepared for it, and it wouldn't have looked so much as if they were frightened of Farage. ruthmayjellings What if one earns over the limit? I suppose we will have to wait for the detail, but what happens if a couple claim the WFA (one per household) through the non-earning spouse, while the other has income over £35,000? That's not very clear. SteveHill Why not last year? Last year there was no money so they cut WFA and they can blame it on the Tories. This year the economy is in an even worse mess and they reinstate it, against all logic, and then they put the level far too high. No details as to how it will be paid for, how it will be recouped, nor how they will ID those who can get it and those who will have to pay it back. And if they suddenly found a system, why did they not use it last year? And I do not suppose the shellacking they got in May has anything at all to do with it, has it? Headless chickens, the lot of them — especially Reeves and Starmer. ListenVeryCarefully
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Winter fuel U-turn should have come a long time ago, Reeves told
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said on Monday that nine million pensioners will be in receipt of the payment this year after a cut was announced in the first weeks of the Labour Government last summer. The initial decision was met with heavy backlash and forced the Scottish Government to delay the implementation of its own devolved benefit. John Swinney's administration later announced a similar payment for pensioners which would be tapered and see those on the highest incomes receiving £100, compared to £305.10 for those on the least. Monday's announcement will result in cash being sent to the devolved administration at Holyrood, and Scottish Labour has urged the Government to increase its payments. But Scotland's Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said the decision was 'a betrayal' of pensioners. 'I welcome any extension of eligibility by the UK Government, but this is a U-turn the Chancellor should have made a long time ago,' she said. 'But there is still no detail about how the Chancellor intends to go about that. Unfortunately, it still sounds as if many pensioners will miss out.' Ms Somerville added that the Scottish Government had not been consulted on the decision and urged UK ministers to 'ensure the Scottish Government is fully appraised of the proposed changes as soon as possible'. 'The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week to urge the UK Government to share its plans with us as quickly as possible, so that we can understand any implications for our own programmes and, crucially, our budget,' she said. Scottish Labour MSP Paul O'Kane said: 'The winter fuel payment is a devolved payment in Scotland and Scottish Labour has long been clear that we want to see it reinstated for the majority of pensioners up here – but despite their loud spin, the SNP voted against our attempts to do so. 'The SNP must not go ahead with plans that would rob poorer pensioners in order to fund payments for millionaires. 'The SNP must re-examine their own proposals in light of this game-changing announcement, ensure payments reach those most in need, and give a cast-iron guarantee that no struggling Scottish pensioners will be left out of pocket under their plans.' The Scottish Government's plans were initially to provide a universal payment to pensioners, but the proposals were scuppered by the Chancellor's announcement of the cut last summer, forcing ministers to create a different system for this winter.
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
SNP came ‘frustratingly close' to victory in Hamilton, says Swinney
Scottish Labour's Davy Russell won a surprise victory on Thursday, with the SNP coming second and Reform in third. The by-election had been sparked by the death of Scottish Government minister and SNP MSP, Christina McKelvie, who had held the seat since 2011, with the party hoping to keep it in the fold. Despite the First Minister's claim that the contest was a straight fight between the SNP and Nigel Farage's surging Reform UK, the Labour candidate won with 8,559 votes to the 7,957 of the SNP's Katy Loudon. Speaking to the PA news agency in Glasgow, the First Minister said the party had made 'modest progress' since its collapse at last year's general election – when it dropped from 48 MPs to just nine – but had further to go. 'We had a very strong campaign in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse,' he said. 'We had hundreds of members of the party that came to make their contribution to the by-election campaign – we've got to build on that. 'We've got to learn the lessons of the by-election. 'We came very close, it was frustratingly close.' Coming second in the vote, the First Minister said, is an 'indication that we are still able to perform strongly electorally'. The First Minister added that his party lost the overlapping seat at Westminster – Hamilton and Clyde Valley – by 9,000 votes last year and by just 600 on Thursday. 'So, we are quite clearly in a position where we can achieve electoral success, but we have got to build on that and make sure we're stronger for 2026,' he said. In the final weeks of the campaign, the First Minister predicted the contest would be between his party and Reform UK but, asked if such an assertion – which turned out to be wrong – cast doubt on the data used by the SNP, he appeared to suggest it was based on his own perception. 'I'm just making two points about the by-election, two observations,' he said. 'One was that Labour support was collapsing, and from last year to Thursday, Labour support collapsed by 20%, came down from 50% to 30%. 'And I observed, secondly, that Reform support was surging and it was, so my analysis of the by-election was absolutely correct. 'I simply said to people if you want to stop Reform, vote for the SNP.' Despite the by-election loss, the party continues to lead in the polls ahead of next year, with Mr Swinney saying the Government must 'deliver on the priorities of the people of Scotland'.
