Air / Hau takiwā

Issue

Localised discharges of contaminants to air and low ambient air quality have the potential to cause health and nuisance effects on social, cultural and amenity values.

Causes

Air pollution comes from multiple sources. The contaminant that is the primary target of current statutory planning controls in Canterbury is PM₁₀ - tiny particles that are so small (10 micrometres or about one-fifth the diameter of a human hair) that they are suspended in the air.

The principal source of PM₁₀ air pollution in our urban areas is the combustion of solid fuel, such as wood and coal for home heating, but may include other sources such as dust, pollen, or sea spray. Emissions from industrial and commercial sources also contribute to the concentrations of PM₁₀ .

A localised adverse effect of discharges to air relates to activities and processes that discharge smoke, odour, dust, agrichemical sprays and other contaminants.

Current statutory planning controls

Currently, statutory planning controls in Waitaha/Canterbury seek to manage the discharge of PM₁₀ as required by the National Environmental Standards on Air Quality (NESAQ). There is evidence to suggest that PM_2.5 also needs to be managed. The Government is consulting on proposed amendments to some provisions of the NESAQ, particularly regarding PM_2.5.

Why it matters

If not appropriately managed, the discharge of contaminants to the air can:

• Result in detrimental effects to human health and well-being.
• Result in significant nuisance effects on people’s enjoyment of their living and working environment.

Transport, industry and home heating also produce greenhouse gas emissions, meaning there are opportunities to improve air quality and take climate action at the same time.

Our current goals

Our Regional Policy Statement includes some direction that must be implemented and other direction that should be implemented. We have included these in two categories below:

1. Things we must do

This is a very strong policy direction that is required to be implemented:

• Maintain and improve ambient air quality by setting standards for contaminants that cause adverse health and nuisance effects.
• Manage the discharge of contaminants into air from home heating sources that use solid fuel.
• Control the discharge of contaminants into air from commercial, industrial and institutional activities, including the use of large-scale fuel burning devices.
• Avoid, remedy or mitigate localised adverse effects on air quality, including the proximity of discharges to sensitive land-uses.
• Avoid adverse effects from the drift of agrichemical sprays.

2. Things we should do

This policy direction is strongly encouraged:

• Encourage and enable the transfer to cleaner energy sources.
• Encourage forms of urban development that reduce dependence on motor vehicles as a source of emissions.
• Promote the transfer to cleaner technology and fuel sources.

Should we change our goals?

When we consider changing goals, we need to keep in mind that other on-the-ground changes will be required to meet them. We also need to keep in mind that some of our must-do policy direction was necessary to meet the national legislation requirements of the time. Some new must-dos will be needed to meet more recent legislation.

Potential impacts of changing our policy direction

We have outlined some of the potential consequences that could result from changing our policy direction. These are high-level examples, just to illustrate that each change will have flow-on effects.

For example: managing the effects of discharges into air requires management at the source, either the content of the discharge or its location.

If we propose more controls on the discharge of contaminants to air, this could mean controls on a wider range of contaminants or different requirements around locations such as zonings and setback distances.

We are using feedback we received in July and August to draft more detailed policy options, including detail about the consequences of change. You will get another opportunity to tell us what you think about those options in October this year.

Issue

The production, distribution and use of energy in Waitaha/Canterbury is categorised by four main issues: balancing the effects and benefits of renewable electricity generation; inefficient energy consumption; adverse effects of the production, distribution and use of energy; and maintaining and increasing the security of energy supply.

Causes

Renewable electricity projects tend to be located close to natural electricity sources such as large rivers used for producing hydroelectricity, which can create conflicts with a wide range of environmental and community-held values that raise issues of scale and location.

Inefficient energy consumption is essentially wasted energy. Examples of this include running electronics when not necessary, poor insulation, and old equipment.

Electricity generation may result in land being flooded for hydro lakes. The upgrade, maintenance and refurbishment of existing infrastructure can impact terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. The distribution of energy through transmission line networks, or extraction of mineral fuels such as coal or oil, can have adverse effects on landscapes. The use of carbon-based fuels in the transport sector or for residential heating (wood or coal fires) can create localised problems such as degradation of local air quality.

When energy supply is disrupted, people are unable to continue living in a normal way. Climate change is expected to increase risks to energy supply as we experience more extreme weather events and drought.

Why it matters

Energy is relied upon in every aspect of daily life and is a basic requirement to life, providing transport, shelter, warmth and sustenance.

Electricity generation can affect the relationship that Ngāi Tahu has with resources, including wāhi tapu, wāhi taonga and ancestral lands and water. In particular, the damming of rivers affects the mauri and the mahinga kai resources associated with those rivers and, ultimately, the ability for Ngāi Tahu as mana whenua to act effectively as kaitiaki.

To respond to climate change, we will also need to produce a huge amount of new renewable energy, while reducing the high risk to energy production and transmission due to drought, flooding, and extreme weather.

Our current targets and goals

Our Regional Policy Statement includes some direction that must be implemented and other direction that should be implemented. We have included these in two categories below:

Things we must do – this is a very strong policy direction that is required to be implemented:

• To provide for efficient, reliable and resilient electricity generation within Waitaha/Canterbury.
• To provide for the development, operation, maintenance, and upgrading of new and existing renewable electricity generation activities using solar, biomass, tidal, wave and ocean current energy resources, hydroelectricity, wind energy and geothermal resources.

Things we should do – this policy direction is strongly encouraged:

• To promote the efficient end-use of energy.
• Encourage and provide for the operation maintenance and development of small and community-scale distributed renewable electricity generation.
• To promote more initiatives to protect and enhance Canterbury’s indigenous biodiversity.
• To recognise and provide for the local, regional and national benefits when considering proposed or existing renewable energy generation facilities.
• To encourage a reliable and resilient national electricity transmission network within Canterbury.

Should we change or our targets and goals?

When we consider changing goals, we need to keep in mind that other on-the-ground changes will be required to meet them. We also need to keep in mind that some of our must-do policy direction was necessary to meet the national legislation requirements of the time. Some new must-dos will be needed to meet more recent legislation.

Potential impacts of changing our policy direction

We have outlined some of the potential consequences that could result from changing our policy direction. These are high-level examples, just to illustrate that each change will have flow-on effects.

For example, providing pathways for renewable energy generation is a critical component of our response to climate change. However, the benefits of renewable energy generation still need to be balanced with any adverse effects. The infrastructure required to extract renewable energy most often needs to be located at the source (e.g., hydroelectricity dams). Where these locations are in sensitive environments it can be difficult to manage adverse effects.

We are using feedback we received in July and August to draft more detailed policy options, including detail about the consequences of change. You will get another opportunity to tell us what you think about those options in October this year.