Latest news with #Reely
Daily Mirror
16-07-2025
- General
- Daily Mirror
Council's washing line balcony ban sparks outrage among flat residents
Gravesham Borough Council has said it took action after concerns were raised about "combustible" materials on the outside of some of the properties Residents living in council-owned flats are not happy about new rules that limit what they can put on their balconies, including a ban on washing lines. Gravesham Borough Council (GBC) says it made these changes after receiving complaints about "flammable" items on the exteriors of some properties in Northfleet, Kent. Locals argue that the council is going too far and point out that having a balcony is pointless if they can't use it freely. Tracy, who prefers to keep her last name private, has been in her flat for 20 years and mentions that this is the first time she's been told what she can or cannot have on her balcony, reports Kent Live. The 45-year-old said: "They talk about fire safety, but all of the doors are made of wood. Yet, they're saying we can't have anything on our balconies: we have to take everything off. There are people with three kids over the road who have to dry their clothes, but they now have to take their washing lines down. It's just unreasonable. Even our fire exit is made of wood. "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. "They haven't asked me to move my chair and table, but, apparently, it is coming. We've been here 20 years, and this is the first time anyone has said anything. Apparently, everyone in Gravesend is being told the same. They are not telling us what we can have, just what we can't have. They only say we can have Grade A galvanised steel or aluminium. I'm paying for a balcony I can't use." Her neighbour, Steve Reely, aged 61, also expressed his disapproval of the council's new regulations ."It's been going on for the last few months," Mr Reely, who runs a security company, said. "The housing officer came and told us that, for some reason, we have to take everything off our balconies. "[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: 15 years we have lived here and this is the first time we've been told this." GBC stated that "more emphasis is being placed on the risk of external fire spread" in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy of 2017. However, Mr Reely retorted: "How long ago was Grenfell? What's the point in having a balcony if you can't even use it?" Another neighbour voiced his frustration after being informed that he must remove his son's water and sand pits from the balcony, a space where he prefers his child to play rather than at the local park frequented by drinkers. Some residents have reportedly been sent a council letter, which labels items like "screening around metal fencing, belongings made of wood, plastic, textiles and any other materials" as a "fire risk" and directs tenants to "please remove them immediately." An elderly couple is challenging the fairness of the situation, pondering whether those with plastic furniture on the ground level outside the block will be permitted to retain their possessions. The woman expressed her discontent, saying: "We find it unfair," while her husband is concerned about having to part with his plants, saying: "I won't be happy if I have to remove my plants." "It seems a bit naff to me. Where are people going to dry their washing? There's no point in having a balcony - you might as well just shut it off. What's the harm in a few chairs and a washing line?" Mother-of-one Lidia Barc revealed she was unaware of the new regulations until neighbours mentioned them, despite not receiving any correspondence from the council. The 56 year old expressed her desire to enjoy the summer with some chairs on her balcony, insisting: "It's summer, so I would like to have some chairs to take in the sun," the 56-year-old said. "I have nothing dangerous on my balcony, no fuel or anything. I don't understand why you can't have a few plants." Another resident, Karen Noakes, expressed her frustration over new rules that may prevent her from drying her washing on her balcony, where her grandchildren often play. The 57 year old grandmother is so aggrieved by the changes that she's contemplating launching a petition against them. "All I've got on my balcony is a kid's bike and scooter and two washing lines," the grandmother-of-four said. What's the problem with that? They're not a fire hazard. If the council are going to pay for me to use my dryer, then by all means. But why should I use it when it's nice in the summer? I've been here nine years and have never had this sort of trouble." According to the updates made to the Fire Safety Act 2021, assessments are now required to cover balconies and the outer walls of buildings, and the local authority is obligated to address any concerns that come up. The Act clarifies that where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, the Fire Safety Order applies to: the building's structure and external walls (including windows, balconies, cladding, insulation and fixings) and any common parts. What does Gravesham Borough Council say? A spokesperson for GBC said: "Our first and major responsibility to our tenants is to ensure they live in safe homes. Our tenants and leaseholders have recently been contacted by us regarding fire safety issues, particularly around balconies. "This coincided with Building Safety Week, during which we were giving advice to residents on fire and general building safety. Under updates to the Fire Safety Act 2021, fire risk assessments must now include balconies and the external walls of buildings. "Following recent fire risk assessments carried out by independent accredited fire risk assessors, we are obliged to resolve any issues raised in relation to fire safety. 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. This is because a fire on the outside of the building has an unlimited supply of oxygen and can be spread upwards by air currents created by the heat, sideways by wind or downwards by burning material falling onto balconies below. "The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) strongly advises against using barbecues, fire pits, patio heaters, or chimineas 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. "In May, there was a major fire in a housing association property in Gravesham, caused by someone smoking on their balcony and not extinguishing a cigarette properly. Despite seven fire appliances attending the scene, the damage was so extensive that 12 families had to be re-housed. "We do not want our tenants to go through a similar, devastating experience and our requests to them to keep their balconies clear of flammable material and clutter is solely to minimise the risk of that happening."
Yahoo
26-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Farmers, homeowners could be charged to pump water from Paso Robles basin. How much?
From farmers irrigating their crops to families washing their dishes — everyone pumping directly from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin may soon need to pay for their water. The Paso Basin Cooperative Committee got a first look at potential water rates for groundwater users at its meeting on Wednesday. If approved, these fees will be the first time ever that farmers are directly charged to pump water from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. The Cuyama Valley Basin is the only other basin in the county where farmers are charged directly for groundwater, according to county groundwater sustainability director Blaine Reely. The fees applies to those who pump water from their own wells. Residents served by municipal water systems will not be charged the fee. The Paso Robles Groundwater Basin is considered 'critically overdrafted,' which means that continuing the existing water management practices would have negative environmental, economic or social impacts on the basin and its users, according to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. On average, people pump 13,700 acre-feet of water more than is returned to the basin — an amount that fluctuates yearly, Reely said. An acre-foot is enough water to cover a football field in a foot of water. The fees will fund programs designed to balance the basin along with administrative tasks like monitoring wells in the basin and writing annual reports. While the fees would provide valuable funding to restore water levels in the basin, a handful of people who spoke at public comment warned that excessive fees could put small farms out of business. 'Our industry is under a tremendous amount of pressure, and some of these numbers are a little scary,' Still Waters Vineyards owner Paul Hoover said. Farmers and residential pumpers would be charged different rates based on their water consumption, SCI Consulting Group project analyst Ryan Aston said at the meeting. He presented four different rate options corresponding to four operating budgets that ranged from $3.2 million to $12 million. The $12 million budget would fund administrative tasks and two expensive programs: a connection to the State Water project and a blended water program, which would supply a blend of water from Lake Nacimiento and treated wastewater from Paso Robles to irrigators to offset their groundwater use. The committee recommended against selecting the $12 million budget option, as the programs are too expensive. The smaller budgets remove those two programs, and focus the funding on administrative tasks and less expensive water management programs. One such program is the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Multibenefit Irrigated Land Repurposing Program, or the MILR Program, which will support irrigators who want to pivot to farming practices that use less water. Domestic users would pay about $34 to $37 per acre-foot of water under all budget options. A typical residential user consumes about 0.46 acre-feet of water per year, which means they would pay about $16.14 annually in water fees under the proposed rates, Aston said. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act prohibits agencies from imposing certain regulations on 'de minimis users,' which are people who pump two acre-feet of water or less annually for domestic purposes. But according to Proposition 218, if an agency charges some customers for a service like water, all customers must pay a fee proportional to the benefit that they receive from the service, Aston said. Because domestic users would benefit from management of the basin funded by fees, they will likely be required by Proposition 218 to pay fees too, he said. Meanwhile, agricultural users would pay between $64 and $246 per acre-foot of water depending on the chosen rate structure. Water systems would pay about $36 to $46 per acre-foot of water consumed. The basin management agency would need to renew the rate structure every five years. Aston recommended that the rates increase slightly each year to ensure that the basin has enough revenue to operate even if there is a reduction in water use. Aston will return to the committee in March with potential changes to the rate options. If all goes according to plan, the rate structure will be approved by August — just in time for it to appear on 2025-26 property tax bills, Aston said. Farmers who spoke during public comment weren't satisfied with the presented fees. Jon Cagliero's family has grown a rotation of grain hay, grapes, alfalfa and pistachios on his farm on North River Road for five generations. He said the fees are too high for small family farms to afford. 'This is going to destroy the next two generations (of farmers),' he said. 'I don't have the answer, but it's certainly not this,' Cagliero said. Still Waters Vineyards owner Paul Hoover said he would prefer to see a sliding scale of fees — so farmers who use more water are charged higher rates. 'I do believe we have the potential as an industry to be more efficient, but yet, I question where the efficiency comes from unless it's some sort of sliding scale,' he said. 'I have no idea where this 20% reduction (in water use) is going to come from, unless you come up with some sort of incentive to try to be more efficient.' Farmers would not be charged for the amount of water they pump. Instead, fees would be levied based on water consumption, which is the amount of water used by crops on the property, Land IQ consultant Joel Kimmelshue told The Tribune in December. Land IQ staff take a series of steps to evaluate the amount of water consumed by a property. First, they make a map of every field over the basin, he said. Next, they measure the amount of water that evaporates from plants, the soil and other surfaces on certain fields based on temperature, humidity, soil moisture and wind speed data collected at climactic stations scattered around the basin. Finally, they use a government satellite to collect thermal data from other fields, and calibrate that data to the climactic stations to find out the amount of water that evaporates from those properties, too. Land IQ can then determine a field's water consumption based on the crop type and the amount of water that evaporates from the property. Farmers would then pay a fee based on that water consumption. The consulting group only studied the water consumption of farms, not residences, Kimmelshue said. If all goes according to plan, the rates will be selected by a Joint Powers Authority that would replace the Paso Basin Cooperative Committee. The existing committee is strictly an advisory body to the five Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, so it can't sign contracts or make policy decisions, Reely said. The Joint Powers Authority, however, would have the power to create and collect groundwater use fees. The five Groundwater Sustainability Agencies will vote on whether or not to establish a Joint Powers Authority at their respective meetings in January and February. The Shandon-San Juan Water District already voted to create the Joint Powers Authority at its meeting on Wednesday morning. The Joint Powers Authority must be created by May in order to add the fee to the August tax roll, Reely said. If the Joint Powers Authority isn't created in time, the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies would either levy their own fees, agree on a rate structure for the entire basin or wait until the JPA Is created to set fees, he said. The Paso Basin Cooperative Committee will dissolve if the Joint Powers Authority is created.
