Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
You have the evidence Haringey Council - now will you enforce? Restaurant pollution Green Lanes
For years residents have been told that the council have no ability to sanction the grill restaurants on Green Lanes for the pollution they pump into our homes, and unfortunately our lungs and those of our children.
So here you go, clear evidence of 'dark smoke' coming out of the chimney of one of our grill restaurants near Pemberton and Mattison Road. Unfortunately blowing towards Kimberley Gardens who must be coughing this evening.
The law is clear - Clean Air Act 1993 'Dark smoke shall not be emitted from a chimney of any building, and if, on any day, dark smoke is so emitted, the occupier of the building shall be guilty of an offence.'
It is an offence. And it is not the first time the council have received such a photo.
So, the actions are clear. Monday morning, send them a notice of prosecution. Require them to clean up their business. Install proper filters. And issue a fine.
The law exists. Prosecute. Enforce. Protect residents.
People, not profits. We need to breathe.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
THIS is a health issue. Haringey Council's Director of Public Health needs to lead on this, one of the Borough's more acute instances of air pollution.
#PublicHealth
#AirPollution
#Environment
-
Permalink Reply by Alice B on
-
Thanks Clive. Although I think in this case enforcement is needed - dark smoke is illegal. All of the restaurants have been issued with the public health guidance on emissions and nothing has changed. We need to have a healthy Green Lanes - and quickly for our and our children's health.
-
-
What is your desired outcome?
That the council shut every ocakbasi restaurant along Green Lanes?
-
-
I think that’s taking the argument much further than anyone is actually suggesting.
Nobody is calling for restaurants on Green Lanes to be shut down. The sensible solution is better filtration and properly maintained extraction systems, allowing businesses to continue operating while protecting the people who live around them.
What concerns me is the health impact on residents, particularly children. This isn’t simply about an unpleasant smell or a minor inconvenience. Children’s lungs are still developing, and they can be more vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Repeated exposure to smoke and fine particulate pollution can affect respiratory health and, over the longer term, potentially contribute to serious health problems and reduced quality of life.
For a family, having cooking smoke and pollution regularly entering the home is not something that should simply be accepted as the price of living near a restaurant. Parents shouldn’t have to wonder whether their children are being exposed to avoidable pollution in their own bedrooms or whether they need to keep windows closed to prevent it.
And that is precisely why the “shut every restaurant” argument feels unnecessary. Better filtration is the obvious, proportionate solution. It allows restaurants to continue trading and contributing to the local community, while reducing an avoidable source of pollution for their neighbours.
Surely we can support local businesses while also expecting them to take reasonable steps to protect the health and quality of life of the people living around them.
-
-
It's a false choice
No one has sought that as the outcome.
Public Health is not the extremist position implied.
-
Permalink Reply by Ruth
-
This has been going on for so long, I see dark clouds of pollution coming from the part of Green Lanes where I live, it's so obvious, especially on summer evenings. I dread to think what it's been doing to our lungs all these years.
-
-
The harm is a general risk to residents, but the damage is more so for youngersters where the lungs are not fully formed but are still growing.
Alice has made this point several times.
I had hoped that in the on-line meeting of many weeks ago, the council's Director of Public Health would have expanded on this aspect. I think he described the emissions as "a problem". A blocked drain is also merely a "problem".
Part of the long-term background to the lack of action, is the many years of cosiness between New Labour and Green Lane Traders, one of whom they elected as Borough Mayor.
Public Health was not one of local-New Labour's priorities.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton
-
Pamish, whether or not the Greens are shiny and/or new and/or eager, would not legal enforcement action require solid evidence of specific Harm-X linked clearly and provably to Causation-Y ?
-
-
I think the harms of PM2.5 are well known and there are quite a few other threads on here showing that the peaks are correlated to the times that they fire up their grills. Plus this is dark smoke - the law is very clear on this. Clean Air Act 1993 'Dark smoke shall not be emitted from a chimney of any building, and if, on any day, dark smoke is so emitted, the occupier of the building shall be guilty of an offence.'
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Albert Watson
-
The smoke issues raised had me thinking that other factors regarding the environment in general come into play as far as pollution is concerned. I was born 7.1.1940 and brought up in London. This was a time of war. Pea soup fogs. Coal smoke belching from every chimney. no emission control on vehicles. Coal fired Steam trains etc. On top of that the Germans were bombing us. Happy days. When at school later if there was one kid iin the class or a couple in the whole school who suffered from chest problems that was it. More common was rickets. IMHO It is the unseen pollutants in the atmosphere and the diet of processed foods which are a contributing factor to the issue raised regarding chest health.
-
-
THOSE unseen pollutants include micro-plastics and PFAS.
There was a time when lobbyists for the tobacco industry resisted enforcement measures, asserting there was no proof of a causal link between smoking and cancer.
Former Labour Minister of Health (Dr. John Reid, now Lord Reid) worked to limit Labour's proposed smoking ban. Dr. Reid argued that smoking was one of the few pleasures that working class people had – Let the poor smoke, says health secretary.
His remarks were welcomed by Forest, one of the smokers' rights groups. Little surprise that most Forest money comes from UK tobacco companies.
Every possible excuse was offered up on behalf of this addictive, hazardous and hugely profitable product. Lobbying held back progress for many years.
40 years ago, The Smoke Screen episode of Yes Prime Minister captured the tension between a fictitious Minister of Health wanting to increase taxes and "Sir Humphrey Appleby" civil servant, effectively defending the tobacco industry. Fortunately we've moved beyond that now.
Wherever there is huge money to be made in harmful commodities, there will be apologists and defenders. Oil company lobbying has taken over from tobacco.
———
Charcoal-based products combustion: Emission profiles, health expos...
.
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
