Mr Chairman and members of the City Development Committee.

My name is Hueline Massey, Field Officer for The Tree Council and with me this morning is our Chair, Sigrid Shayer.  We are here to comment on the proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that involve the removal of blanket tree protection, before the Council makes its submission to the Bill.

The relevant clauses are:  Clause 52 (page 36 of the Bill) and Clause 151 (page 105).  These clauses prohibit local authorities from having any rules that protect trees in an urban area unless the trees are Scheduled, are in a Reserve, or part of a Conservation Management Plan.

Scheduling of trees:-
Individual scheduling is not as simple as most might think.  The majority of trees are sited on private property.  This means the promoter of a tree for scheduling requires the approval of the property owner, who may not have the resources or interest to maintain such a tree.

It is safe to say any schedule purporting to be comprehensive would always be incomplete and inaccurate, and therefore inadequate.  Last year the Council invited each Community Board to put forward 25 (maximum) additions to the Schedule.  Eight city Community Boards x 25 trees = 200 extra trees.  The total of scheduled trees/sites would then rise to just 980 entries!!!  That would be the total protection afforded to the thousands of trees in Auckland City.

The cost, to the Council, of adding to and maintaining the schedule as an accurate and up-to-date register of the precise position, species, health and legitimacy for retention of all requested scheduled trees would be prohibitive.  Auckland City Heritage officers recently budgeted $500 per scheduled tree.

General Tree Protection:-
Scheduling will imply to tree owners that unless a tree is on the list the Council is not very interested in it.  General tree protection on the other hand sends a clear message that all trees, within the criteria for protection, are of value to the community, but that discretion can be used.  General tree protection was judged by the Environment Court in 1992 to be necessary to carry out the provisions of the RMA.  

The Tree Council agrees, however, that amending the criteria for protection, and the assessment process, should be reviewed.

Under the proposed RMA amendments, how does ACC contemplate protecting the natural Pohutukawa fringe of the lengthy coastline of it’s two harbours, dozens of islands and hundreds of bays and inlets?

Have you seen the appalling destruction, by poisoning, of protected trees, (including a huge Pohutukawa belonging to the public of Auckland), on the Resolution Point Reserve in Parnell and the adjacent building site, in the search for private views?   What will happen to similar trees when they have NO protection?  There will be no ability to prosecute for wanton destruction then.  The proposed development on Orakei Point will raise this issue again as that land is also ringed with coastal Pohutukawa.  Do you want that future for Auckland?  We would hope not.

Are Councillors aware that the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Act requires that protection MUST be given to all catchments that feed the Gulf?  Surely that can only be done by protecting the riparian vegetation already in place.

Not all city parks are designated reserves, so it is very possible that the trees in some parks will have no protection at all.  

General tree protection does not set out to protect all trees meeting the criteria for protection.  But it does require a pause to be taken, while thought is given to the consequences of cutting or felling.  Whilst most people are responsible and value their trees, general tree protection guards against thoughtless, casual or wanton destruction of valuable trees or areas of vegetation, many of which are an asset to the whole community rather than solely a benefit for the person whose name appears on the title deed for the time being.

The Tree Council reminds this Council that in August 2008 ACC successfully prosecuted a Waiheke Island contractor for carrying out works within the drip-line of protected trees.  The City Development Committee chair at that time, Councillor Sam Lotu-Iiga, said among other things, “Protecting our natural environment is integral to the future of our city and we will prosecute those who do not follow the law.  We take breeches of the RMA seriously”.  In its submission to the court the Council reiterated the importance of trees to the ecology, environment and to the community as well as their contribution to providing visual amenity.  Has the Council changed its mind about the benefits of protecting trees in the few months since then?

We say that Councillors should object to changes to the RMA that effectively remove most of this Council’s ability to protect our urban trees.