Amendments to Chch clean air zone rejected

Press, 30 March 1989, Page 7

Amendments to Chch clean air zone rejected

KAY FORRESTER

Amendments to the Christchurch City Council’s clean air zone — including a ban on open fires — have been rejected by the commissioner appointed by the Minister of Health to hear objections to the extension of the zone. Dr John de Lisle has told the Minister, Ms Clark, she should not approve the amendments sought by the council.

The several amendments, passed by the council in August, 1987, as part of a clean air by-law, include one that would effectively ban all open fires from January, 1992. In his report, Dr de Lisle said the amendments did not give the “best practicable means of reducing smoke emissions from domestic chimneys.” Ms Clark said last evening she would now consider the recommendation, together with other advice she would get, in search of the best means of reducing Christchurch’s air pollution. At least one Christchurch City councillor believes that if the Minister endorses her commissioner’s report, the clean air movement in Christchurch will be set back 10

years. Cr Charles Manning, a long-time advocate of clean air, says if the amendments are not approved, Christchurch cannot expect to significantly reduce its air pollution. “We can expect things to stay pretty much as they are. Open fires — and other solid fuel burners — contribute to air pollution. If nothing is done to limit that, air pollution in the city won’t change,” he said. Dr de Lisle gives seven reasons in his report for rejecting the amendments. They are: • The social and economic consequences of a ban on open fires would bear most heavily on the elderly. • Because inspectors have no right of entry to private dwellings, the amendments could not be properly enforced. • The fines and prosecutions procedures outlined were more suitable to industrial than domestic cases.

• Because solid fuel appliances once approved, but no longer considered satisfactory, could still be used, the effectiveness of the

amendment is reduced. • Local authorities outside the existing Christchurch City do not agree with the amendment. • The ailing coal industry would be further affected and the development of smokeless fuels jeopardised.

• Alternative strategies do not have the drawbacks of the amendments.

The president and honorary secretary of the Clean Air Society, Mrs Janet Holm and Mr Patrick Neary, disputed the impact of an open fire ban on the elderly. They argued last evening that most older people did not use an open fire. Both said the society had never supported a total ban on open fires. It wanted to see education and the proper use of solid-fuel burners. More than 1800 objections to the council’s extension of the clean air zone were received. The zone at present prohibits open fires being installed in new houses, but does not cover open fires in existing homes in place before the zone. Under the amendment, the zone would include all properties and effectively ban open fires from 1992.