‘It’s Monty Python’: Air Quality Rules Prevent Cleaner Fireplace

Wednesday, 26 June 2024, 7:42 pm
Article: Max Frethey - Local Democracy Reporter

The plan that aims to keep Nelson’s air clean appears to be stopping a Stoke resident from installing a cleaner fireplace.

Paul Lacy has been trying to replace his aged pellet burner with an ultra-low emission burner (ULEB) for a year.

“The pellet fire is a dud,” he said.

“It's costly to run, it's noisy, it doesn't produce enough heat.”

Lacy looks after his wife who had a major brain haemorrhage several years ago and so is on a supported living allowance.

It currently costs him around $50 a week to buy pellets for the fire but he could secure firewood for next-to-nothing.

Because of his limited income and the cost-of-living crisis, he’s eager to keep that money.

“Fifty bucks a week is huge, that's almost like winning Lotto.”

A ULEB “ticks all the boxes” for Lacy, like reducing his reliance on electricity and expensive pellets.

“It throws out more heat, it’s cheaper to run… but it also is better for the environment.”

But there’s one hurdle standing in his way: the Nelson Air Quality Plan.

One rule – AQr.26 – prohibits replacing pellet burners with anything other than pellet burners.

But the plan’s subsequent rule – AQr.26A – appears to allow replacing existing fireplaces authorised by the plan, which would include Lacy's pellet burner, with ULEBs.

Lacy said he also knows of other cases where pellet burners have been replaced by ULEBs.

However, his correspondence with Nelson City Council planners reveals that is only allowed when the council has records of a previously-approved fireplace that was before the pellet burner.

Lacy's home has only ever had a pellet burner and so he can’t make use of the same route to install his ULEB.

“It's sort of like ‘this dwelling will only ever have a pellet fire, and that's it; you have no other options’, where the people next door have different options. Where is that fair?”

He said he hasn’t looked into obtaining a resource consent, which he suspects will be too costly.

“Why the hell should I go for a resource consent for something [like this]? The whole situation is stupid, it's Monty Python,” Lacy said.

“I just feel that the council's just not interested.”

Mandy Bishop, the council’s group manager environmental management, said that she can’t comment on individual applications.

However, she said that ULEBs were not as efficient as pellet burners when the Nelson Air Quality Plan (NAQP) was written, unlike today when they now have similar emissions.

“Rules within the NAQP were put in place so that gradual improvements to emission levels over time aren’t compromised by people installing replacement burners.

“We agree that the plan needs to be updated and will consider making the rules for pellet burners and ULEBs consistent where appropriate.”

The plan will be reviewed over the next year, with a particular focus on reviewing complexities within the document so it’s easier for the community to understand.

Bishop added that resource consent costs vary depending on the circumstances of an application and the time taken to process it.

Local Democracy Reporting is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air

© Scoop Media

Local Democracy Reporting

Content from the Local Democracy Reporting (LDR) service is published by Scoop as a registered New Zealand Media Outlet LDR Partner.