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 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 was 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 was eager to keep that money.
"Fifty bucks a week is huge, that's almost like winning Lotto."
An ultra-low emission burner "ticks all the boxes" for Lacy, such as 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 – prohibited replacing pellet burners with anything other than pellet burners.
But the plan’s subsequent rule – AQr.26A – appeared to allow replacing existing fireplaces authorised by the plan, which would include Lacy's pellet burner, with ultra-low emission burners.
Lacy said he also knew of other cases where pellet burners have been replaced by ultra-low emission burners.
However, his correspondence with Nelson City Council planners revealed that was only allowed when the council had 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 ultra-low emission burner.
“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 suspected would 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 couldn’t comment on individual applications.
However, she said ultra-low emission burners were not as efficient as pellet burners when the Nelson Air Quality Plan was written, unlike today when they now had similar emissions.
"Rules within the Nelson Air Quality Plan 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 ultra-low emission burners consistent where appropriate."
The plan would be reviewed over the next year, with a particular focus on reviewing complexities within the document so it was easier for the community to understand.
Bishop added that resource consent costs varied, 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
SHARE ME