Draft Launceston Domestic Wood Smoke Plan

I completed this survey and found questions were quite bias and geared towards a preconceived answer to justify this direction

The incentives will need to be significant or won’t be effective. Incentives combined with the by-laws will have the greatest effect.

These figures seem inflated

Hi,

I have sent a previous email with a recommendation, the way forward is hydronic heating in homes and a government subsidy would be a great incentive however this would work as they are a renewable energy and would help to convert people’s systems over, this will combat the smoke issue and provide clean air for everyone with no more smoke haze.

Typo - discrete

I can’t seem to find what elevation air quality is tested at or at what time of day.

Additional data is required to support the conclusions of the plan. Pm2.5 data collected at Ti Tree Bend is not representative of the entire greater Launceston area and should not be relied upon for decision making for the outer suburbs. Particularly homes that sit outside of the theoretical thermal inversion layer.

Attempting to create bylaws that regulate what private homeowners can do with regard to heating is a gross overreach. Specifically attempting to create laws that demand woodheater are removed prior to sale of a home.

As a rate payer in Launceston I reject this use of my rates as an investment. It’s a disgusting abuse of funds. The small rebate amount offered is not enough to support a large community in changeover of heating in these difficult economic times.

Come on. Who are you to regulate what people can use to heat their home. I personally have 4 heat pumps in our house. And we still freeze in winter.

Not interested in this terrible idea one bit. I agree with the idea of smoke pollution control or (smoke police). But banning wood heaters can bugger off we purchased our house on the basis of the fact it has a wood heater and insulated it well since. Get your heater going nice and hot then cut it back and you won't get smoke or issues. Free country thought process has gone to the way side. Cheers idiots

The source of heating is just one issue to consider - houses need better insulation and double glazing. A heat pump in a weatherboard home with neither may not be sufficient for comfort and health.

How is the cost of $4232 calculated?

100% agree with this comment. People need to have a choice on how they wish to heat their homes. Choices should never be removed

We had a wood heater and changed to heat pump .when the power goes out we have no way of keeping warm and there are many a day I wish we still had our wood heater.with Electricity getting more expensive than a tonne of wood how will low income families afford to keep warm?
I am sure with all the technological advances with wood heaters they are a lot more efficient with less smoke than they once were

Like most people who live in the bush we have a woodheater, I live in a older style house and it is not suitable for Heat pumps, I certainly can't afford to renovate to have the house suitable for this type of heating as many people can't.

This entire thing is an overstep. Education and incentives if people want to change over are fine but the rest is a complete overstep! Patrols, restricting people heat source options. No no no

The plan has some excellent ideas & I support most of them, but wood heating should be a human right especially if already established in human homes. Being overly governed is already a problem, so any imposing or forcing closing of wood heating in our homes is not the role of local, state or federal governments.

Stop controlling people’s choices. You have only caused financial despair with your climate action shenanigans.
Remove Australia from the World Health Organisation. Bring back coal fire power.

Council would be far better to concentrate on issues that are more important such as improving the environment ,marking the white lines on roads and planting more trees etc.so many things far more important.Wood smoke is not an issue ,We have a modern home with insulation all around but the wood heater is far more efficient and cost effective than other forms of heating

Honestly how many people are really impacted in the winter by being outside, when its cold people are not outside.

The 7% would more likely be looking to replace not because of health reasons but because they are too lazy to look after a wood fire and also cannot afford the wood.

Surely 5 years is a long time to simply inform people about the smoke regulations? There’s a more urgent need for actual implementation of the regulations than that.

Reverse cycly airconditioners are innefficient.A wood heater will heat the house far better.we have both so know what is good what is not,The aircon is also bad for the eyes and we often have sore eyes when we use it

I think a lot of this about health costs etc is a load of nonsense.

Lots of hypotheses here. Few local facts.

This seems a little tepid in terms of goals & outcomes.

Shouldn’t the plan pertain to the whole of Launceston?

This figure is difficult to read & may need enlarging.

Some in-text referencing edits perhaps? I.e. (Huff, 2025; Sacks, 2011).

Does this figure infer that the council will simply educate but not proactively implement the regulation (i.e. monitor adherence to current regulations & act on breaches) in the first 5 years?

Good luck with any requirement to remove wood heaters upon sale of a property. Great idea, but I think it’s too onerous on the seller.

If, however, the purchaser was required to do it, let’s say within 6 months of moving in, and with some incentives, then it could work.

Another suggestion: carrot and stick. With incentives for switching to heat pumps as the carrot, tax fire wood to help pay for that - not too much, but just enough to make people realise that they might actually be financially better off by making the switch.

The financial incentives proposed don’t go nearly far enough. By your own modelling you have over $4,200 per year per wood heater available to spend (from medical costs associated with wood heaters). $500 or $1,000 or $1,500 is nothing, and wood heater users will spit in your face when offered so little.

If it helps, offer services rather than cash, then you can give high quality equipment and services cheaply because of bulk purchasing power. It’s not just the capital cost of buying a heat pump that needs to be covered, but insulation, draught proofing, installation, running costs, and some kind of guarantee that a power outage won’t leave the household shivering (eg add a generator input to the switchboard with a changeover switch and have thousands of well maintained portable generators in reserve for rapid deployment following area-wide power outages).

A second thing you need that is completely missing from this proposal: what do you do for all those who already run heat pumps but whose health is suffering while they wait for their neighbours to be similarly enlightened?

I suggest that for these vulnerable people immediate action is required: supply of free air purifiers, blocking the leaks in their homes that let the smoke in, and provision of HEPA filtered ventilation (yes, it’s expensive; yes it’s necessary)

Wood can be burnt quite cleanly if good dry wood is used and people manage the air intake properly. The heater should not be dampened right down. There should be tuition given to people and if the correct procedures are not followed, penalties should apply

My guess is you got a lot of submissions from the 'wood heater lobby'. A lot of people that use heat pumps know that the hard core wood heater mob will refuse to alter their pattern of use. This is why education and subsidies will only go so far and need to be backed up by policing and fining repeat offenders.

Please make sure council officers take the policing of this seriously. My experience (West Tamar Council) is that they don't. They just treated me as a nuisance. Result wqs two life threatening illnesses and I have to leave the state every winter.