Hello Nikki and happy new year!

Auckland City Council's City Development Committee agreed on November 12th NOT to invite new applications for trees to be considered for scheduling.  Instead, they agreed to assess previous applications, most of which had been sent in years ago, "in order to provide the new Auckland Council with quality information and advice" (taken from the minutes - agenda item 9), but NOT to add them to the existing schedule (therefore NOT in fact scheduled).  This they want to leave to the new Auckland Council, should that new entity ever get round to doing that before January 2012, when all trees will be at risk. The fact that there is the backlog of applications says a lot in itself about Auckland City's attitude generally.

They categorically refused to invite new applications from the public for trees to be considered for scheduling, as was put forward by officers as one of their options, and also in an amendment by minority councillors on the committee.

This is clearly contrary to what Nick Smith expects of Auckland's Councils, as stated by him specifically during the 2nd reading of the LGA amendment Bill, 9th September.  I refer to the following pages of Hansard of that debate:


Page 6170:
“There are powers that I have as Minister for the Environment around the issuing of directions to councils. I am reluctant to use them, unless councils will not do what I think is sensible and what this Parliament would expect.  My intention would be to write to each Auckland council and ask them to set out their programme of work for identifying the trees of significance and that should be specifically, by group or individually, listed in their district plans, and to require those councils every 6 months to report to me on the progress they make.”

“The message I have for Auckland councils in response to the concerns that have been raised by Nikki Kaye is that the resource processing all those tree-trimming consents should be redirected, so representatives of the councils can get out and talk with people in the neighbourhoods and communities about what sorts of trees should be protected.”

Page 6200:
“I simply ask that rather than those council staff members doing that meaningless task they do a worthwhile job—that is, get round their suburbs, their beautiful areas of Auckland, and whip around with a very simple device, a locator, and find out from the council plans where those significant trees are that we really should be protecting.  I have confidence that they will get on and do that.”

From page 6217:
“The second thing is that over the next 2 and a bit years, the council will be able to put the bureaucratic effort that is going into processing a whole lot of resource consents for tree trimming into identifying the really significant trees in Auckland that deserve protection.”

From page 6234:
“The process for councils to list specific trees for protection, over the next 2 years, is not onerous and will require a fraction of the bureaucracy needed to process all those tree-trimming consents.  I will be monitoring, though, the performance of councils as they go about the exercise of identifying those trees and if councils fail to progress this work, I will use my powers under the Resource Management Act to ensure that it will be done.”


Auckland City Council is clearly a Council that is not doing what Nick Smith expects them to do.   

As this was something that you sought his assurance on, please could you let us know what is he going to do about it?!

Thanks very much,

Regards, Sigrid Shayer

Chair, The Tree Council, PO Box 78088, Grey Lynn, Auckland City; 09 828 3727; www.thetreecouncil.org.nz