The Committee is to report back to parliament by 19th June (see Tree Council's submission and background information)

Pertinent Parts of the Bill relating to urban trees 

Part 1, Amendments to Principal Act
Clause 52 District rules (This will become law the day of the Royal assent - possibly August 2009)
Section 76 is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (4):
“(4A) However, a rule must not provide for the protection of any tree, or group of trees, in an urban environment unless the tree or group of trees is—
“(a) specifically identified in a schedule to the plan_ or
“(b) located within an area in the district that—
“(i) is a reserve (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Reserves Act 1977)_or
“(ii) is subject to a conservation management plan or conservation management strategy prepared in accordance with the Conservation Act 1987 or the Reserves Act 1977.”

Part 2 Transitional Provisions
Clause 151 Existing rules providing for protection of trees (This will become law 2 years after the date of the Royal assent - possibly August 2011)
(1) On the commencement of this section, an existing rule or part of a rule in a district plan or proposed district plan that provides for the protection of any tree, or group of trees, is revoked without further authority than this section.

Background to The Tree Council and Auckland’s Tree Protection Rules
When The Tree Council was first set up in 1985 there was no tree protection other than scheduling in any of the 7 councils that make up the Auckland region.  Our honourable founders had real concerns at the destruction of mature trees in the developing areas of the region and with intensification of urban land use.  It was through the hard work of The Tree Council’s founding members that general tree protection was promoted and adopted by 6 of the 7 councils.

We have worked hard over the intervening years to uphold those rules of protection, where appropriate, and to educate the wider public about the purpose and place of mature trees in our urban environment.  This has involved reviewing District Plans, taking cases to the Environment Court, setting up the Community Tree Adviser scheme and running, for 8 years, the educational Community Tree Care Short Course through Unitec.

The Tree Council now gets many calls from the print and radio media to speak on the topic of general tree protection and the implications of the removal of such a policy from Territorial Authority (TA) District Plans.  As we are the only organisation that speaks on behalf of exotic and native tree protection we are seen as the voice of those concerned.  When we talk with people at public displays and stalls about this issue there is general disbelief that councils would want to abandon this form of tree protection and rely entirely on tree scheduling as the only protection mechanism for our urban tree cover.

PLEASE MAKE A SUBMISSION TO THE BILL (See below for ideas for your submission, and suggested submission template)
We urge everyone concerned about the health and maintenance of mature trees in the urban environment to write a submission.  You can download the Bill here.  Larger public libraries should hold a hard copy, or buy one from Bennetts or selected bookshops (ph 04 568 0024 for nearest stockist).  You can contact The Tree Council for help with key points and suggestions.  Phone 09 828 3727 or 09 425 9246 or email thetreecouncil@ihug.co.nz

Guidance on submissions
Government guidelines on how to write submissions can be found here.  

Members of the Local Government And Environment Select Committee
• Chris Auchinvole (Chair) National Party (West Coast- Tasman)
• Steve Chadwick, Labour Party, List
• David Garrett, ACT NZ, List
• Shane Jones, Labour Party, List
• Rahui Katene, Maori Party, Te Tai Tonga
• Nikki Kaye, National Party, Central Auckland
• Sue Kedgley, Green Party, List (replaced by Russel Norman)
• Nanaia Mahuta, Labour Party, Hauraki-Waikato
• Louise Upston, National Party, Taupo
• Nicky Wagner, Deputy Chair, National Party, List
• Jonathan Young, National Party, New Plymouth
 
Please lobby these MPs.

Below are key issues put forward by The Tree Council for rejecting Clause 52 and Clause 151, to help with writing your submission.  A  brief submission template can be found here

Tree protection rules should be reviewed by the appropriate local territorial authorities.

• Clauses 52 and 151 represent central government dictating to local authorities.
• The RMA quite clearly lays out the role of local authorities to carry out the purpose and principals of the Act.
• It is up to local communities, through a review of the District Plan, to determine changes to the Tree Protection Rules, appropriate to their local situation, not a Ban through central government.

General Tree Protection rules, at least in the Auckland region, need amendments to the criteria for protection, and the assessment process should be reviewed, but these need to be debated and agreed at a local level, with a review of the District Plan.  For example:

• Modify assessment criteria – recognising individual wellbeing as well as environmental well being.
• Modify planning/notification process
• Look at height restrictions – possibly higher?
• Have experienced, effective decision makers – delegate decision making to a lower level
• Councils to support those with Scheduled trees eg rate reduction, free consultancy and help with arborist costs when necessary
• Look at only protecting certain species –eg. Manukau

Banning Tree Protection Rules is inconsistent with the Principles and Purposes of the RMA (Part 11) Sections, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 32 (see below)

RMA 1991 Part 11 Section 5: Purpose, states:
1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
2b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems
2c) Avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

RMA Section 6: Matters of national importance, states:
…all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of natural importance:
a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, lakes, rivers and their margins…….

RMA Section 7: Other matters, states:
…all persons exercising functions and powers under it, inn relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to:
c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values
d) Intrinsic values of ecosystems
e) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.

RMA Section 8:  need to make reference to the Treaty of Waitangi

RMA Section 32 (1):  Duties to consider alternatives, assess benefits and costs etc states: the need to carry out assessments as to whether any new rule is necessary, most appropriate and cost efficient in achieving the purposes of the Act.

ALSO:

• General Tree Protection rules have been tested by case law eg. 2001 Environment Court case taken by North Shore City Council ruled that general tree protection was necessary to carry out the provisions of the RMA.
• Healthy, mature trees are vital for health of society and ecosystems, particularly in an increasingly urban environment.  Trees are under particular pressure in the Auckland region, with increasingly dense urban development.
• This Bill would lead to a greater loss of tree cover.

Implications of Loss of General Tree Protection

• It is very important to ensure a healthy treed urban environment for its wider positive social, economic and environmental effects.
• Trees help to offset urban air pollution, provide individual and community amenity and aesthetic value, help with reducing soil erosion and water runoff, enable and increase biodiversity and ‘green corridors’.   
• It is important to see the value of tree protection, with trees viewed as a community asset, and a contribution to the greater good, not just an individual property right.
• General tree protection provides a safety net and guards against wanton destruction
• We would lose the ability to provide mitigation advice and education to applicants from council arborists
• Unscrupulous developers would clear fell a site instead of thinking how they could retain the best trees.  Other trees would be damaged.
• There would be no opportunity for planners to stipulate mitigation planting, ie replacement planting, especially for developers
• Planting new saplings do not equate to the stature and amenity value of a mature tree of 100 years standing

Limitations of solely relying on Scheduling of Trees (under the Bill scheduling is, in reality, the only means, within an urban area, of protecting trees)

• Not as simple and flexible as general tree protection
• This Bill would weaken the integrity of Scheduling, as the list would be expanded and get out of date as it would be more difficult to keep up with all the trees in the list.
• Scheduling is an expensive, and lengthy process and creates an elite class of tree, whilst ignoring the ability of other trees to become the 2nd generation of notable trees – does not allow for future grand specimens to be grown without danger of being cut down before their prime.
• Scheduling is usually only done with a District Plan review, currently every 10 years
• In Auckland City the cost is currently $500 per tree to bring it to the point of being included into the District Plan (under the 10 year Review process)
• If trees are requested for Scheduling between reviews, there has to be a Plan Change, and with Auckland City, for example, it would cost nearly $2,000, minimum, to the individual who wanted the tree scheduled, with a $4,480 deposit required, in case there were to be an appeal.  If the trees, or groups of trees, were regarded as having a significant effect, there could be another $10,000 requested for the regulatory process.  If there were appeals to any application who knows what the final cost might be!
• The same costs apply to the Council if they were to be the instigators of requesting trees to be Scheduled.  
• Many local authorities stipulate that land owners need to agree for a tree on their land to be scheduled, to avoid costly and lengthy planning hearings.
• Some local authorities will require trees to be scheduled (as allowed in law) without the owners permission, causing resentment and often extra costs to both parties.
• How many people would put forward trees for scheduling if that is the cost imposed to the private individual, and how many would the Council do if they had to stump up with the costs, especially after the 10 year Review process, which it would be from this point onwards!!
• Auckland CC only allowed for a total of 200 extra trees to be scheduled under the current District Plan review, and only 80 or so were added.
• Auckland City, for example, does not have the staffing capacity at the moment to deal with requests for scheduled trees.  They would need an extra one full time equivalent.
• There are more restrictions working around a Scheduled tree than with generally protected trees.

How would the following be protected under the Bill?

• Coastal trees – pohutukawa fringe
• Riparian margins
• Catchment areas
• City Park trees which are not Reserves (only 100 out of around 800 Auckland City Parks are Reserves) eg. Monte Cecilia Park in Hillsborough
• Trees within the urban area covered by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Act eg. parts of built up Titirangi.
• Special areas which are not conservation management areas; historical areas, eg Government House, all of which would lose any tree protection.

SUBMISSION TEMPLATE
For those who want to use or amend something already made up.  Send 2 copies to:

• General tree protection rules should be maintained, though there needs to be a review of the criteria for protection, and the application and assessment process.
• It is up to local communities, through a review of their District Plan, to determine changes to General Tree Protection rules, appropriate to their local situation, not through a nationwide ban.
• Banning tree protection rules is inconsistent with the principles and purposes of the RMA (Part II), sections 5, 6, 7, and 8.
• Tree protection reflects the view that trees are a community asset, and a contribution to the greater good, not just an individual property right.
• Healthy, mature trees are vital for the health of society and ecosystems, particularly in an increasingly densely populated urban environment. Trees are under particular pressure in the Auckland region, with increasing demands on land inside and outside the urban limit.
• General tree protection provides a safety net and guards against wanton destruction, especially by unscrupulous developers
• Without general tree protection, there would be no opportunity for planners and arborists to provide advice and stipulate mitigation planting, ie. replacement planting, especially on development sites.
• Scheduling trees, as the only realistic alternative to general tree protection in urban areas, as provided for in the Bill.  This alternative is not simple, is costly and is inadequate:
  • Scheduling trees is usually only done during the 10 yearly review of the District Plan, and costs (in Auckland City) about $500 a tree
  • Scheduling outside a review of the District Plan is particularly, and possibly prohibitively, costly, both for a private individual, and for a local authority, as a Plan Change is required for each tree (in Auckland City, a minimum of nearly $2,000, up to $12,000 for a group of trees, if there is no appeal)
  • Only 80 additional trees have been added to the Scheduled list as part of Auckland City’s current District Plan Review
  • Some local authorities require the landowner’s permission.
  • It creates an elite class of tree, whilst reducing the ability of 2nd generation notable trees to grow up
• How will coastal fringes, riparian margins, catchment areas, and special areas be protected eg. parts of Waitakere City, which come under the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Act?