Green cabinet member Stephen Scoffham’s clean-air blind spot in Folkestone & Hythe: no PM2.5/PM10 monitoring, no Smoke Control Areas

A familiar winter scene in Folkestone & Hythe is the smell of smoke hanging in the still air — sometimes cosy, sometimes cloying, sometimes downright intrusive. Nationally, the argument over wood-burning stoves has moved from the pub-chat stage to the policy stage. On 1 December, The Guardian reported that wood-burning stoves are “likely to face tighter restrictions in England” under Labour’s updated Environmental Improvement Plan, with a consultation expected on measures to cut PM2.5 pollution, including from stoves and fireplaces. 

Locally, the question is no longer whether this debate matters here, but how ready our district is for what comes next — and whether a Green-led administration is prepared to treat air pollution with the urgency its own public-health evidence implies. Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s latest Air Quality Annual Status Report_2025 (ASR) records 129 smoke complaints in 2024, no Smoke Control Areas, and no Formal Notices served in that year.

First, what are PM2.5 and PM10 — and why do they matter?

The Chief Medical Officer’s Annual Report on air pollution puts it plainly:

“Air pollution affects us all. It is associated with impacts on lung development in children, heart disease, stroke, cancer, exacerbation of asthma and increased mortality …”.

Particulate matter (PM) is the tiny soot-and-dust component that gets deep into the body. The report explains how PM is grouped by size:

“PM particles are generally less than 10 microns (µm) in diameter” and includes “coarse particles, PM10 …” and “fine particles, PM2.5 …”. Why size matters is not academic. Bigger particles tend to get trapped earlier in the airway: “Particles larger than 10 µm are mainly deposited in the nose or throat …”.

Smaller particles penetrate further: “… particles smaller than 10 µm pose the greatest risk because they can be drawn deeper into the lung.” And it is PM2.5 that dominates the health evidence base and policy focus. The Chief Medical Officer’s report notes: “Much of the research … has investigated the effects of PM2.5.”

The wood-burner controversy in one sentence: solid fuel is “the most polluting” home heating

If you only read one line from the Chief Medical Officer on this, make it this one:

“Solid fuels are by far the most polluting method of domestic heating …”.

That sentence is doing a lot of work. It doesn’t mean every home with a modern stove is a public-health menace. It does mean that as a category, solid-fuel burning is the dirtiest way to heat a home, and it carries a pollution burden that spills beyond the living room.

The report also warns against assuming the impact is confined to countryside chimneys: “In urban areas, burning wood has the potential to worsen local air quality significantly.”

That matters in a district where winter inversions, sheltered valleys, and closely spaced housing can trap smoke at breathing height — precisely where children, older people, and those with respiratory disease live.

“But my stove is Defra-approved…” — why “better” does not mean “clean”

One reason this issue keeps reigniting is that the rules are complicated, and marketing is confident. The Chief Medical Officer’s report describes a wide spread in real-world emissions and points out that awareness and enforceability are weak in practice. It also stresses a crucial reality for householders who want to do the right thing:

“Air pollution emissions can be reduced, but not fully eliminated, by using modern, less polluting stoves and burning wood that is dry.”

In other words: upgrade and “burn better” helps — it doesn’t magically make smoke harmless.

The national trend: wood burning has grown, and PM2.5 from it has risen sharply

The Chief Medical Officer’s report documents how domestic wood burning has become a bigger slice of the PM2.5 picture over time:

“From 2010 to 2020, the relative proportion of national PM2.5 emissions from domestic wood burning increased by 35%.”

It also gives a concrete estimate for what that means in emissions terms (in kilotonnes).

There is also a PM10 angle that gets less airtime: the same section notes that Defra estimates domestic combustion from indoor appliances contributed 15% of all primary PM10 emissions (nationally, for 2020).

Health impacts: the short-term spikes matter, not just long-term averages

One of the most frustrating features of wood-smoke disputes is that the harm can be episodic: a still night, a neighbour’s stove running hot, smoke drifting straight into a bedroom.

The Chief Medical Officer’s report summarises the medical literature bluntly:

“Short-term exposure to PM2.5 is associated with cardiovascular, respiratory, and cerebrovascular mortality.”

On respiratory illness specifically, it cites conclusions that short-term exposures are linked to “exacerbations of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) …”.

That is why the debate is not just taste or lifestyle; it is about protecting people who are medically vulnerable — including children whose lungs are still developing.

Folkestone & Hythe’s own public-health signal: 4.7% of deaths linked to particulate air pollution

The Council’s ASR points readers to the Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF) indicator for particulate pollution. For Folkestone & Hythe, the PHOF estimate says the “fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution” is 4.7% (2023).

To put that into tangible local numbers, Folkestone & Hythe recorded 1,446 deaths in 2023. Applying the 4.7% figure gives about 68 deaths (1,446 × 0.047 ≈ 68). Put across the last decade, the district recorded 13,673 deaths between 2014 and 2023; applying the same 4.7% factor gives an indicative ~643 deaths statistically attributable to long-term exposure to particulate air pollution over that period.

A note of caution is needed about what these figures do — and do not — mean. They are population-level statistical estimates of deaths linked to long-term exposure to fine particle pollution (PM2.5, not PM10), not a roll-call of named individuals, and not a suggestion that only those people were “affected” by dirty air.

But the plain-English takeaway is unavoidable: particulate pollution is not a theoretical risk discussed in abstract reports. It is part of the district’s health burden right now — and that burden ultimately lands on local families, local services, and the NHS.

Complaints, enforcement, and the uncomfortable national picture

Folkestone & Hythe recorded 129 smoke complaints in 2024 and no Formal Notices served. That, on its own, can be read two ways: either the problem is minor, or the threshold for action is high.

Nationally, the enforcement picture looks bleak. The Guardian reported that there were 15,195 wood-burning complaints across England in the year to August 2025 and no prosecutions, with 24 fines issued, based on FOI responses obtained by Mums for Lungs.

Mums for Lungs itself has been blunt about what that means for ordinary people trying to breathe in their own homes:

“This is a public health failure hiding in plain sight and it is making us sick: people are being left to choke in silence.”

The rules (explained like you’re not a lawyer)

There are two big legal “buckets” people muddle together:

1) Smoke Control rules (Clean Air Act framework)

In Smoke Control Areas, households can generally only burn authorised fuels unless using an exempt appliance; the Chief Medical Officer’s report summarises that “only authorised fuel can be burned unless an ‘exempt appliance’ is used.”

Folkestone & Hythe’s ASR is clear: there are currently no Smoke Control Areas in the district.

2) Building Regulations compliance (installation and sign-off)

Separate from “what you may burn” is “how you install it safely and legally”.

Approved Document J (Building Regulations guidance on combustion appliances) explains that certain work can be self-certified if it is carried out by a person registered with a relevant competent person scheme (i.e., the work is notified and certified through that route).

For solid-fuel appliances, HETAS is a major scheme in this space. HETAS explains what a Certificate of Compliance is and how notifications are sent to local authorities. 

The practical takeaway for residents is simple: if you don’t use a registered competent person route, you generally need Building Control involvement so there is a lawful sign-off trail.

The missing number: how many stove certificates has the council issued?

Transparency matters, because it is hard to have an honest local debate without the basic numbers. Folkestone & Hythe does not publish a simple annual count of Building Control applications or completion certificates for wood-burning or other solid-fuel installations. The council’s public register search for “wood burner” returns four Building Control entries, but that is almost certainly not the whole story — it is only what appears under that exact phrase on that register view.

Even if you accept the “four” at face value, it likely captures only a slice of what is happening. Many installations are recorded under different descriptions (for example “multi-fuel stove”, “solid fuel appliance”, “chimney liner” or “flue”), and many are notified through competent person schemes rather than appearing as plain-English “wood burner” entries on the council’s portal.

A Green-led council — and a telling silence on smoke and particles

Councillor Stephen Scoffham (pictured) is the Green Party Cabinet Member responsible for the climate/environment portfolio.

This is where the politics bites. A Green-led administration (in leadership and cabinet composition) is not judged only by what it says about biodiversity and net zero toolkits, but also by what it does about the pollution people inhale at street level.

When the Council’s own ASR records no local PM2.5 monitoring, no Smoke Control Areas, and no Formal Notices alongside 129 smoke complaints, a reasonable reader is entitled to ask whether “green” is being treated as branding rather than enforcement-backed public health.

Section 34: the power Scoffham can use now — before Westminster forces the pace

Section 34 of the Clean Air Act 1993 is built for the part of air-quality policy that councils often neglect: research, collaboration and public information. In practice, it gives Folkestone & Hythe a lawful, practical route to stop arguing in the abstract and start doing the unglamorous work that actually changes outcomes: publishing clear local guidance, building an evidence base, and making sure residents understand both the health stakes and the rules.

That starts with clarity. The Chief Medical Officer’s annual report flags a basic but damning problem in smoke-control enforcement: “there is low awareness of this legislation, and it can be difficult to enforce.”  A Section 34 “know the rules” push would therefore not be window dressing: it would be the groundwork for any credible policy, especially if tighter national restrictions are being discussed. Done properly, it would explain in plain English what applies where, what “authorised fuel” and “exempt appliance” mean, and what residents can expect if smoke becomes a nuisance.

Next comes honest “burn better” guidance that goes beyond marketing labels. The CMO report is clear that cleaner choices help, but are not magic:

“Air pollution emissions can be reduced, but not fully eliminated, by using modern, less polluting stoves and burning wood that is dry.”

Translating that into a district standard means repeating the basics relentlessly each winter — fuel moisture, correct operation, chimney sweeping, and the limits of what even a modern appliance can achieve — alongside the evidence that real-world emissions can vary widely in people’s homes.

Then the council needs to stop flying blind. You cannot manage what you do not measure. A Section 34 programme should therefore be paired with targeted local monitoring and transparent publication of results, so the debate is rooted in observed conditions rather than assumptions. That data is also what would make any future Smoke Control Area consultation fair: not a culture war against stoves, but targeted protection where housing density, geography and vulnerability make wood-smoke most harmful.

Finally, Scoffham should make the system legible. Residents deserve a visible escalation path — advice first, then mediation, then formal action where necessary — because, as the CMO report notes, enforcement is difficult when awareness is low. And if the public register is hard to interpret, the council can still publish aggregate counts and trends (Building Control route alongside competent-person notifications) so the public and councillors can see what is happening, year by year, without exposing personal data.

The unavoidable conclusion

The science is no longer in doubt. The Chief Medical Officer’s report is explicit about the health harms of air pollution and the role domestic burning can play — what is missing in Folkestone & Hythe is not knowledge, but local measurement and visible leadership, by the Green led council. A district can hardly claim to be tackling particulate pollution when it does not monitor PM2.5 or PM10 across its own communities, cannot easily show residents the scale of installations, and has no clear public plan for how smoke complaints translate into action.

Wood-burners will not disappear overnight — not least because, as the Chief Medical Officer notes, around 1.1 million households are not connected to the gas grid.  But the direction of travel is unmistakable: national policy is tightening, the evidence base is hardening, and public patience for “it’s too difficult” enforcement is wearing thin. That leaves Folkestone & Hythe with a stark choice. It can continue to drift—talking green while leaving residents to breathe unmeasured pollution—or it can finally act like a Green-led council that understands clean air is not a branding exercise but a public health duty.

If you have a story we should be telling, contact us at TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me – Always Discreet, Always Confidential.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices Of Voxatiousness