Links below to Relevant Pages:

Commentary on Tree Protection Clause - page 30

Text of new Clause  - pages 116 and 267

Green Party minority view - pg 57

Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill
Commentary (link to pdf file)

Tree protection rules
Clause 52 would amend section 76 of the principal Act by prohibiting local authorities from making blanket tree protection rules that would apply in an urban environment unless the tree or group of trees was specifically noted in a schedule to the district plan, or located within a reserve or area subject to a conservation management plan or strategy.

Clause 52 could remove the need to process more than 4,000 resource consent applications per year for pruning or removing trees in urban areas subject to blanket protection rules. Ample lead-in is provided by way of transitional provisions in clause 151, which would revoke existing general tree protection rules on 1 January 2012, and local authorities to amend their plans during the transitional period.  Clause 52 refers only to trees or groups of trees “specifically identified in a schedule to the plan”. We are aware that most territorial authorities use schedules in conjunction with maps and symbols to identify a tree or group, and that although maps are useful aids for identification they are generally not included as a schedule but in the plan itself. We therefore recommend that clauses 52 and 151 be amended to refer to a plan, which would include any schedule in which trees were listed.

We consider that the scope of rules for the “protection” of trees could be regarded as unclear. We recommend that the clause be amended so that a district rule could not prohibit or restrict the felling, trimming, damaging, or removal of any tree or group of trees in an urban environment unless they were identified in the plan.  We recommend defining “urban environment” to relate to urban and suburban areas but not to rural or semi-rural areas, and consider that the definition should require such an environment to include all of the following elements:
• an allotment of 4,000 square metres or less
• containing a dwelling house or a building used for industrial or commercial purposes; and
• connected to a reticulated water supply system and a reticulated sewerage system.

pg 31
We received many submissions on clause 52. Many submitters feared that clause 52 would lead to the wholesale destruction of trees or a reduction in the number of trees in urban environments. Some were concerned about the cost of preparing schedules, which would involve assessing individual trees. They were also concerned that the scheduling process would be slow to react to changes in the environment, as schedules can be updated only by way of a plan change.  We take the view that the intent of the proposed provisions is to reduce the time and cost of applying for and processing resource consents for relatively minor matters. Blanket protection rules could still apply to trees in an urban area that were located in a reserve or conservation area. For trees in other urban areas the bill would continue to allow individual trees and groups of trees to be protected by listing in a district plan. We also observe that the principal Act is not the only means of promoting tree coverage in urban areas and that the bill does not prevent councils from offering incentives for planting, maintenance, or voluntary protection by way of covenants.

We note that local authorities may need to review their current practices for listing trees and groups of trees, as the tree or group will have to be identified specifically in the plan if it is to be protected. To list a group of trees, considerable detail might be required, including the species, the number of trees, and their precise location. We also note that local authorities may need to update their plans for some groups of trees to make references to some protected groups of trees more specific.

On balance most of us supported prohibiting blanket tree protection rules in planning documents. A number of us, however, regard clause 52, as amended, as unsatisfactory and would have preferred a more comprehensive solution for protecting urban trees.

Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill  (pages 116 and 267)
Text of Revised Clauses (link to pdf file)

52 District rules
(1) Section 76 is amended by inserting the following subsections after subsection (4):
“(4A) However, a rule must not prohibit or restrict the felling, trimming, damaging, or removal of any tree or group of trees in an urban environment unless the tree or group of trees is—
“(a) specifically identified in 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.
“(4B) In subsection (4A), urban environment means an allotment no greater than 4000 m2—
“(a) that is connected to a reticulated water supply system and a reticulated sewerage system; and
“(b) on which is a building used for industrial or commercial purposes, or a dwellinghouse.”
(2) Section 76(5) is amended by omitting “If paragraph (b) of the definition of contaminated land applies, a” and substituting “A”.


page 267

151 Existing rules providing for protection of trees
(1) On 1 January 2012, an existing rule or part of a rule in a district plan or proposed district plan that prohibits or restricts the felling, trimming, damaging, or removal of any tree, or group of trees, in an urban environment is revoked without further authority than this section.
(2) Subsection (1) applies unless the rule relates to a tree, or group of trees,—
(a) specifically identified in the plan or proposed 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.
(3) Each local authority must, before 1 January 2012,
(a) amend any rule in its plan or proposed plan to which subsection (1) applies; and
(b) use the Schedule 1 procedure in the principal Act to make the amendment.
(4) In this section, urban environment has the meaning given in
section 76(4B) of the principal Act.

Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill (page 57)
Commentary - Green Party Minority View (link to pdf file)

Tree protection rules
The Green Party shares the desire to reduce the cost and time delays of 4,000 consent applications for tree work, but believes the blanket protection provision could be streamlined to allow trimming as a permitted activity, except for trees specifically scheduled. Applications for tree removal, other than for specifically scheduled trees, could be made on site by delegated authority.  

We are concerned that it is those urban areas undergoing the most rapid densification where trees are most valued by the community and are most at risk from new development.

This legislation replaces the cost and complexity of many resource consent applications with the cost and complexity of individually identifying and scheduling all important trees. There is no doubt, in our view, that valued urban trees will be lost under this amendment.