Clerk of the Committee
Local Government and Environment Select Committee
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
20th February 2013
Submission to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee on the Resource Management Reform Bill 2013 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.
This submission is presented by:The Tree Council (Auckland) Inc.
Contact address: Post Box 28272, Remuera, Auckland 1541
Contact telephone numbers: Chair: Roland O’Driscoll Ph 09 410 5456
Mob 021 256 3811
Field Officer: Hueline Massey Ph 09 425 9246
The Tree Council wishes to appear before the committee, preferably in Auckland, to speak to its submission. The two people listed above will appear, representing The Tree Council.
Introduction – The Tree Council (Auckland) Inc
- The Tree Council was established 27 years ago and is a voluntary, not-for-profit organisation. The objectives of The Tree Council are:-
- To promote and advocate for effective programmes for tree protection, management and planting of trees in the Auckland region so as to improve the quality of urban life and landscape.
- To promote and support the RMA, other legislation, regulations, ordinances, programmes and education, to protect trees and promote planting of trees.
- To collect, prepare, disseminate information, knowledge, understanding and appreciation of trees and their care.
- The Tree Council’s current membership list of over 171 live within the Auckland region. Our constitution states the requirement for an annually elected Board of Management of up to 10 members.
- The Tree Council has the backing of its membership to participate in the rejection of the proposed changes to the RMA Reform Bill affecting tree protection in urban environments. The Tree Council has kept it’s membership informed, through its newsletter ‘Arborea’, about all the changes to urban tree protection that have happened over the past 4 years. The Tree Council has also been contacted by many members of the public over that period asking for information on the complex changes that have taken place.
- As The Tree Council is the only organisation, in the Auckland area, that speaks on behalf of both native and exotic trees we are regularly contacted by journalists from the print and radio media to comment on tree topics.
Focus Of Submission
- The Tree Council’s submission relates to the following legislation:-
- Amendments to section 76 of the Resource Management Reform Bill - regarding the removal of the right of a local authority to make its own district plan rules regarding urban tree protection. By implication, the amendments effectively remove all tree protection rules in urban areas from district plans. This will then allow scheduling of specific tree(s) as the only mechanism for ongoing tree protection.
b.Amendments to section 32 of the Resource Management Reform Bill.
- Amendments to the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (“LGATPA”) which removes the ability of the Auckland Council to determine the best outcome of the Unitary Plan, for its residents, through its democratically elected members.
a. Amendments to section 76 of the Resource Management Reform Bill:-
The Tree Councilstrongly opposes the proposed restrictions on district plan rules relating to tree protection, namely:-
- (1) Replace section 76(4A)(a) with:
“(a) specifically identified in a schedule to the plan by street address or legal description of the land, or both regardless of whether the tree or group of trees is also identified on any map in the plan; or
(2) Replace section 76(4B) with:
(4B) In subsection (4A),
“group of trees means a cluster, grove, or line of trees that are located on the same or adjacent allotments”
(4C) To avoid doubt, each of the following descriptions of a group of trees does not satisfy the identification requirements of sub-section (4A)(a):
“(a)all trees of 1 or more named species in a defined area or zone of the plan (for example, all cabbage trees in coastal areas x, y, and z):
“(b)all trees in a class with defined characteristics in a defined area or zone of the plan (for example all exotic trees over 5 metres high or 800 millimetres in girth in residential zones x, y, and z):
“(c)all trees in a named ecosystem (whether natural or artificial), habitat or landscape unit, or ecotone (for example, all native trees located on the valley floor of the district).”
Summary of submission against section 76 amendments.
- The Tree Council opposes the amendments to section 76 of the RMA.
- We do so for the following reasons, amongst others:
8.1The ability for local authorities to decide their own urban tree protection rules, appropriate to their local situation, must be maintained.
8.2It is up to local communities, through a review of their district plan, to determine changes to urban tree protection rules. It is not appropriate to impose a nationwide restriction in the manner proposed.
[refer to para 34]
8.3Banning tree protection rules is inconsistent with the principles and purposes of the
RMA (Part II), sections 5, 6, 7, and 8.
[refer to para 9]
8.4Coastal fringes, riparian margins, catchment areas, and special areas eg, parts of Waitakere City, which come under the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Act, will not have the protection they need. How can any government, with a conscience, disregard these areas that so desperately need an enforceable form of protection? [refer to para 32.5]
8.5The Environment Court has ruled twice in favour of retaining some areas of tree protection. The judgements determined (a) that general tree protection rules were necessary for the Council to carry out its functions in achieving the purpose of the Act; and (b) it determined a declaration on the meaning of “group of trees”.
[See para 27]
8.6Tree protection reflects an informed community view that trees are a public asset, and contribute to the greater good, not solely an individual or private property right.
[refer to para 24.2]
8.7The functions trees perform and the values that trees provide are highly important in urban environments, particularly in cities and towns where intensification is occurring. Trees are an integral part of maintaining a ‘liveable city’.
[refer to para 24.1]
8.8Forms of tree protection provide a safety net that guards against wanton destruction.
[refer to para 24.5]
8.9Healthy, 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 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL).
[refer to para 24.7]
8.10Mature trees tell the story of Auckland’s settlement and subsequent development. Many trees in the urban environment are older than the buildings near them yet they get no protection under this Bill unless they are on a schedule. The removal of a single tree may have minimal effect, however it will result in an impoverished environment if other landowners follow suit.
8.11Without tree protection, there is no opportunity for planners and arborists to provide advice and stipulate mitigation planting (ie. replacement planting) especially on development sites.
[refer to para 24.6]
8.12Scheduling trees is the only available form of tree protection within a district plan provided for in this Bill. This system is complex, costly to implement and maintain.
[refer to para 31]
8.13If the Bill is passed in its present form councils will need to review many parts of their district plan to remove all mention of trees that currently have special protection for particular and usually very valid reasons. This would need to be done before district plans come up for the usual 10 year review.
8.14Where general tree protection rules were in existence, specifically in the Auckland region, The Tree Council had already agreed, in other hearings, that there needed to be a review of the criteria for protection and the application and assessment process.
[refer para 8.15]
8.15The Select Committee considering the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2009, made a request of the New Zealand Arborists Association at the hearings for a proposal on ways to make the resource consent process for tree removal “more workable and less costly or time consuming”. This requestelicited some excellent proposals but they were ignored by the Select Committee in their entirety. Instead the government changes to the Resource Management (Streamlining and Simplifying) Bill 2009 have resulted in very major costs falling on Auckland Council and its ratepayers in an effort to fairly implement a hugely expensive and bureaucratic system of placing scheduled trees on to the district plan.
8.16If the RMA Reform Bill is passed this expense to councils will escalate and be ongoing.
Statutory matters:
Proposed Changes Not Consistent With Principles And Purpose Of The Act
- The effective banning of tree protection rules, as proposed in this
RMA Reform Bill are inconsistent and contrary to the Principles and Purpose of the RMA 1991, as stated in Part II of the Act.
10. Part II Section 5: Purpose, states:
1)The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
2)That sustainable management will be carried out in such a way as to:
2b) Safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems
2c) Avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of activities on the environment.
- The proposed changes in the RMA Reform Bill prevents consideration of the impact
of trees and vegetation have on the sustainable management of the environment and has direct implications for 5(2)(b-c). Without consideration of the effects on, and of trees and vegetation, the principles of Section 5 cannot be fully achieved within an ‘urban environment’.
12.Part II, 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…….
- This Section becomes entirely redundant in the event that the ability to consider the effects on, or of trees within the wider environment is removed from within an ‘urban environment’. The retention of trees in urban environments is essential to recognise and provide for these matters. Areas such as designated ‘significant natural areas’ must be protected under section 6 (c).
14. Part II, Section 7: Other matters, states:
…all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in 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.
- Tree and vegetation ecology is a critical component when consideration is given to subsections (c-e). The proposed RMA Reform Bill will prevent a thorough analysis when addressing Section 7 matters, when making any decision within an ‘urban environment’.
- Part II, Section 8:
Local Authoritiesneed to make reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in carrying out functions and powers of the Act, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources. The proposed RMA Reform Bill prevents Tangata Whenua from participating in the decision-making process surrounding protection of vegetation.
Background matters:
Why We Value Trees
- The late J. T. Salmon, Professor Emeritus, Victoria University, wrote in 1979 in the introduction to his seminal work “The Native Trees of New Zealand” :
“Trees are the most important plants in our environment… Specimen trees, trees in parks, trees in forests all typify the ever-pervading association of living things; both a single tree and a forest form the focal points of communities of life for green plants, birds and animals, insects, fungi and micro-organisms that together make up the web of life.”
- The Tree Council asserts that healthy mature trees are vital for the health of society and ecosystems, particularly in an increasingly densely populated urban environment. They:
- reduce soil erosion and stormwater run-off
- offset the effects of air pollution
- shelter us from, and temper, strong winds
- provide shade from high temperatures within built up areas
- provide individual and community amenity and aesthetic values
- enable and increase bio-diversity through green wildlife habitat and corridors
- provide beauty and soul to the landscape
- In the Auckland region trees are under particular pressure from increasing development density and infrastructure demands on land inside and outside the Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL).
Why Were General Tree Protection Rules Introduced?
20. The Tree Council was first set-up when a group of ‘city fathers’ became concerned at the rapid loss of the mature tree cover that had existed in the Auckland region for such a long time. Councils at that time generally had a list of Scheduled trees in their town plans, but no other means to protect all other trees from indiscriminate removal. The rapid expansion and intensification of urban land use led The Tree Council to encourage the development of general tree protection rules being introduced by Councils in Auckland region, over the subsequent years.
- The Tree Council has worked hard over the intervening years to uphold those rules, where appropriate, and to educate the wider public about the purpose and place of mature trees in our urban environment. To achieve this we have reviewed District Plans to ensure trees are protected; have set up the Community Tree Adviser scheme; ran an educational Community Tree Care Short Course through Unitec for 8 years and lately the Trees in the Urban Environment course; and have successfully taken four cases to the Environment Court to uphold the principles of tree protection (North Shore City Council District Plan; ongoing protection of a seaside Pohutukawa in Devonport; protection of mature trees in a housing development in Waitakere city; the retention of two mature and healthy 80+ year old trees on an industrial site in Avondale).
- Six of the original seven Councils in the Auckland region had general tree protection rules within their District Plans. Many other local authorities throughout New Zealand also have general tree protection rules. Those rules varied, depending on their particular situation and decisions made at the time of their introduction into their district plans. Auckland Council now houses over 1/3rd of New Zealand’s population within it’s boundaries and they are the ones most greatly effected by the proposals in this Bill.
- Rodney District Council removed general tree protection from its Proposed District Plan 2000. However, popular support obtained through the submission process enabled general tree protection rules to be reintroduced into Rodney District Plan in 2007.
Reasons For Tree Protection
24Most people are responsible and value their trees. They do not need rules to make them do so. As is often the case rules are required to meet those situations when thoughtless actions can have a negative effect on the community. We outline some of the reasons promoted for tree protection:
24.1Tree protection rules signal that society recognises the contribution that trees make to the wellbeing of society and the environment.
24.2Tree protection reflects the view that trees are a community asset, and a contribution to the greater good, not just an individual property right.
24.3Rules provide the Local Authority with an opportunity to educate people about the importance of trees, about ways to manage their trees, and in particular, about planting the right tree in the right place.
24.4Trees can take decades to mature to their full potential and in the process provide great amenity value, bio-diversity, environmental and aesthetic benefits.
24.5Tree protection provides a safety net against wanton destruction especially by those for whom environmental values are seen as an impediment to maximising profitability. A recent BBC TV programme on mega cities around the world made the observation that areas of cities that had good tree cover were highly sought after by its citizens and areas without trees were considered to be itinerant or temporary living zones. The few trees that were growing in the latter zones were well cared for and revered.
24.6Without tree protection rules councils are unable to stipulate mitigation measures under consent conditions, to replace the loss of mature trees from a site.
24.7Without tree protection rules councils are unable to prevent developers and land owners from damaging trees by heavy works taking place near trees.
24.8Tree protection provides a process for consideration of reasons for, and implications of, the potential removal of a tree in a specific situation. This may identify alternative actions which could lead to the retention of the tree whilst satisfying the land owner.
24.9Sapling replacement for removed mature trees will take decades to approximate what can be lost so quickly and without warning.
24.10As home owners we are a mobile lot and are said to move on average every 7 years. So removal of a tree in the current situation denies the next owners a chance to enjoy that environment.