From 1 July, Auckland Council will be closing 13 “kauri protection zones” in Waitakere Ranges Regional Park to protect kauri from kauri dieback disease. This will involve closing 27km of tracks in the ranges. Areas protected are those where tracks run through kauri stands that appear to be unaffected by kauri dieback.
“We are adopting a precautionary approach to protect this iconic species, which defines the Auckland region,” says Councillor Sandra Coney, chair of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum. “The aim is to stop spread but also to protect unaffected areas for the future recovery of kauri in the ranges. We are also responding to widespread community concern that efforts so far have not halted the spread of kauri dieback. We have tried to ensure there is still plenty of scope for visitors to the Waitakere Ranges to be able to walk and tramp. There are over 250km of tracks in the ranges, so there are alternative routes and it does not affect the Hillary Trail. We are also awaiting a report on the Hunua Ranges Regional Park that will allow us to consider a similar approach in the south, in an area that appears to be unaffected by the disease altogether. All of the local boards have shown a tremendous amount of support for protection measures in their local parks as well,” she says.
Waitakere Ranges kauri protection zones are in the Cascade Kauri, Anawhata, Waiatarua, Piha, Karekare, Huia and Parau areas. These zones will be closed from 1 July 2012 and this management approach will be reviewed in 12 months to assess its effectiveness.
“There are many unknowns with this disease,” says Councillor Coney. “While our researchers and scientists work to understand more about how it is spread and whether a vaccine or cure can be found, we have an obligation to look after vulnerable areas. I urge all visitors to our region’s parks to help us by staying out of quarantined zones, and on open tracks to be scrupulous in cleaning their footwear and to use the cleaning stations provided on the parks.”
The Auckland Council is part of a joint agency programme to Keep Kauri Standing, which includes iwi, DOC, regional councils and MAF Biosecurity NZ.
The following tracks (or sections of these tracks) will be closed from 1 July 2012:
•    Cascade Kauri: Robinsons Ridge Track
•    Anawhata: Chateau Mosquito, RGB Track
•    Waiatarua: Walker Kauri Track, Dreamlands Track, Taumata Track
•    Piha: Lucy Cranwell Track
•    Karekare: La Trobe Track
•    Huia: Nuggets Track, Bob Gordon Track (Mt Donald McLean)
•    Parau: Crusher Pipeline Track, Nihotupu Ridge Track, Summit Track (between Nihotupu Ridge and Hamiltons Farley Track), Farley Track, Manchester Unity Block (between Victory Road and Big Muddy Creek).

The Tree Council website at www.thetreecouncil.org.nz has had a major facelift, so check out the new look next time you’re online. Many thanks to Dale Richie at Web Folio and Jill Segedin for the design and hosting. We have transferred all the information across from the old site and reorganized it so you should be able to find what you’re looking for more easily. We’d love to hear your views and you can now comment on the articles online, so please let us know what you think!

We’re always looking for new photos of trees to add to the website, so if you have any you’d like to share with us please email them to mels@subliminal.co.nz – thanks!

Sigrid Shayer, 12 December 1955 to 11 March 2012

Sigrid Shayer, the former Chair of the Auckland Tree Council, passed away in March this year at the age of fifty-six.  She had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer early in 2011.  Many of those in the arboricultural scene in Auckland will be aware of her tireless work as an advocate for trees and a promoter of their benefits, and her death is a sad loss to our community.

Sigrid first became involved in the Tree Council when she agreed to edit and produce their 2003/2004 Guide and Directory to Tree Services in the Auckland Region and it was not long before her abilities and commitment saw her joining the Board. She was the voice of experience, especially when dealing with Auckland Council as she had worked there previously and had made excellent contacts.  Her experience as a researcher was also invaluable to the Tree Council when they undertook to compare the basic tree protection rules that each Local Authority throughout the country had within their District Plans.  Sigrid took over the role of Chair of The Tree Council in 2008 and became heavily involved in advocacy for trees and tree protection on development sites, proving herself willing to take the fight all the way to the Environment Court if necessary to achieve greater consideration for trees.

Sigrid was a positive, encouraging and hard working Chair.  As well as producing their newsletter and managing their website, she also steered the Tree Council Board through many difficult issues over the past few years.  One of the most challenging was tackling the consequences of firstly the Auckland City Council’s desire to remove tree protection from their District Plans and then the Government’s 2009 changes to the Resource Management Act, which included an intention to set aside the tree protection rules that The Tree Council had so successfully advocated for some 15 years earlier.  Sigrid took on this daunting task and guided the Tree Council through the whole process with professionalism and determination.  She was also the instigator and driving force behind the Tree Protection Working Group – an alliance of several organisations, including NZ Arbor, that continues to work together to influence the future direction of Auckland’s tree protection provisions.

Sigrid continued actively supporting and working with the Tree Council for as long as she could after becoming ill, even declaring, upon resigning from her job “Good, now I can spend even more time protecting our urban trees”.

Sigrid is much missed by members of the Tree Council and the wider arboricultural community, but continues to provide an example of dedication and selflessness.   She passed away peacefully on March 11th, with her brother at her side.

As of mid July the situation regarding the Oak and Pohutukawa trees in Rosebank Road, Avondale is that The Tree Council, Connell Place Ltd (CPL) and Auckland Council (AC) have had two meetings to discuss the two different plans that CPL want to put forward as resource consent applications.  From those two meetings some agreement was reached as to the limitation of infrastructure (parking and roading mostly) affecting the root systems of the trees and methods to avoid damage to those root systems.  CPL have now lodged with AC their two separate development plans for resource consents and we wait to see if AC accept both plans, only one, or none, as a complying application.  AC will then decide whether the applications need to be notified as a limited notification, as a fully notified application, or not notified at all.  Those Council decisions are totally out of our hands.

We may get the information on the AC’s decisions within the month, then again it may take longer.

The Tree Council has at this stage done as much as it is legally able to do to get the best outcome for these two magnificent trees but we will need to wait and see what our next step will or may be.  Scheduling of these two trees will depend on CPL being able to develop their site to make an adequate return on their investment.

This truly is a “Saga of Immense Proportions”.

Earlier this year the Property Council of New Zealand sought to have the Environment Court case decision of May 2011 reconsidered.

The Environment Court decision handed down last year, in answer to the request by North Shore City Council, Waitakere District Council and the Auckland Regional Council  for a “Declaration of Meaning” on some of the wording within the changes to the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining Act) 2009, its interpretation and meaning of the words “groups of trees”.

From this determination Auckland Council formed its policy of keeping general tree protection in place within certain zones across the whole amalgamated city.  It is the earlier Environment Court declaration and therefore the subsequent Council interpretation that the Property Council of New Zealand is questioning.

The Tree Council, and all the other parties that took part in the first Environment Court case, are registered as s274 parties.

Progress to this point is slow with the latest update we have had being that the Counsel for Auckland Council and the Property Council have had discussions to narrow down the issues for legal argument to the Court.

So we have to wait and see what happens.

In April, The Tree Council received a phonecall from a woman who was quite distraught about Council wanting to remove a tree on her property. It took several calls to get the full picture, as she became quite emotional each time the subject was raised with her. Eventually it all became clear and the question of protection for the tree became technically interesting.

The property is located on Montrose Terrace, Mairangi Bay, where North Shore Council had been purchasing houses for several years in order to expand the Beach Reserve. This house was the last, and had been forcibly acquired, with the owner given the right to occupy for a further 5 years. Technically the Council is now owner of the property and the resident’s rights are quite limited.

The tree is a large pohutukawa and had been planted by this woman’s grandfather in 1928. She had grown up with this tree and was understandably extremely upset when Council told her they had received a complaint from a neighbour who claimed the tree was blocking light and sea views and wanted it removed! The neighbour lived in a recently built apartment block and had obviously purchased his flat with full knowledge of the tree in his view.

The woman’s son-in-law also took an interest in the tree and discussed the matter with Council officers. An agreement was reached that only deadwood would be removed from the tree and we were informed of the date and time the tree contractors would be working.

On the day The Tree Council and the son-in-law, together with the woman and another neighbour, were all waiting for the contractor. There was no sign of the complainant neighbour, nor any Council officer! In the event the contractor was very accommodating and spent about 3 hours in the tree removing deadwood only. The difference in the general aspect of the tree is negligible. A happy ending and gratitude expressed for the support of The Tree Council.

Policies from the legacy Council applying to road and reserve trees in this area are as follows:

2.8.9 Management of Trees on Parks and Reserves: (Parks Policy)
Maintenance

Trees will be maintained in as natural form as possible and the philosophies and techniques of Alex L Shigo regarding tree maintenance and tree surgery practices have been adopted by the Parks Department. Only qualified arborists that follow Shigo’s methods will be contracted for tree work. Topping is not considered to be an accepted arboricultural practice and trees will not be pruned solely to preserve views.

Management Policies

2.5    The Council will consider requests for pruning or thinning where a tree is seriously affecting access to direct sunlight to a building, but will not consider the pruning, thinning or removal of trees and shrubs on road reserves for the purpose of improving views from residential properties.

Supplementary to the above, the Property Act 1952 address legislates for issues relating to views in Part 9 Section 129C.

CHECK BEFORE YOU CHOP on 09 301 0101.

They say that a camel is a horse that was designed by committee.  Well, the Parliamentary select committee, the Minister for the Environment, Members of Parliament, The Environment Court, Council Officers, Local Board members, Council’s Regional Development Committee, their lawyers and various professional and interest groups, including NZ Arbor, have all had their say on how the ban on ‘blanket tree protection’ should be implemented in Auckland. As a result Auckland’s new tree protection rules are definitely more camel than horse, although given the way the process has unfolded and the need to adhere to various existing documents and rulings, this was probably inevitable.  Council’s officers have done their best to come up with rules that protect the city’s high value trees and treed areas until such time as the new ‘unitary’ District Plan for all of Auckland is implemented.  However it is not known how long this will take and as it will encompass all the planning rules for the entire city we can hope and expect that the process won’t be rushed.  

So for now Council’s main message to the public is to ‘CHECK BEFORE YOU CHOP’ either by visiting www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz or by calling their hotline for advice on 09 301 0101.  However, those working in the arboricultural industry will need to develop a good understanding of the rules and will no doubt be expected by their clients to provide accurate advice that ensures they (and you) avoid any infringement action.  So here goes:

January 1st saw the end of ‘blanket’ protection as we knew it.  However, there are six situations where some form of tree protection will STILL APPLY, capturing a considerable number of trees and sites throughout the city.  If the tree you are considering falls in to any one of those six categories then it is BUSINESS AS USUAL and the previously existing rules applicable to that tree / site, if any, will remain in force.  Remember that more than one of these exceptions may apply, in which event you need to adhere to the higher level of protection (as has always been the case).  They are as follows:

1. Scheduled / notable / heritage trees or groups of trees that are identified and listed in the various District Plans.

2. Trees in areas where there is an additional level of protection relating to trees, such as ‘cliffline tree amenity areas’ significant ecological areas, riparian margins and so on.

3. Trees that are protected by a condition of a previously granted resource consent (e.g. replacement trees that were required as a condition of a consent).

4. Trees that are protected by a consent notice or covenant on the property title.

5. Trees that are growing outside the ‘urban environment’¹.

6. Trees in specific planning zones² where the old rules will be retained because they support the objectives of the zone.

There is no change to how you would treat a scheduled tree (1) or a tree on a site with additional tree rules (2).  This information is in the relevant district plans, planning maps and appendices.  Be aware that, Auckland wide, approximately 1800 additional trees are being considered for addition to the schedules.  The property owner should be aware if this is the case so it would be prudent to ask them.

It is strongly recommended that you take all reasonable steps to investigate whether (3) or (4) applies to a site you are planning to work on.  To do this you are likely to need to contact Council (09 301 0101) although your client may have access to some information, either on their copy of the property title or copies of consents they have previously been granted.  Your level of liability for any mistakes may depend on the efforts you have made to get this information.

1 The ‘Urban Environment’

The changes to general tree protection only apply to ‘urban’ sites.  For our purposes, an ‘urban’ site is not necessarily one located in a built-up area but is one that meets ALL the following criteria, regardless of its location:

• The site is less than 4000 m2 in size and

• It is connected to both a town water supply and a town sewer and

• It contains a residential house or a commercial / industrial building.

Therefore many sites do not qualify as ‘urban’ and so the relevant existing tree rules will still apply.  This exception captures many schools and hospitals, golf courses, the road reserve, parks, areas of bush, vacant lots, larger residential lots and lots supplied by roof water or with a septic tank.

2 Specific planning zones

Council’s lawyers have been through all nine existing District Plans that are operative within the Supercity.  In six of them, they identified specific planning zones that need to retain their existing levels of ‘general’ tree protection to achieve the desired outcomes of the zone.  (This requirement is in accordance with an Environment Court decision provided earlier in the year).  This is applicable to the following zones, where ‘general’ protection will be retained, whether the site is classified as urban or not:

• Auckland Isthmus    Residential Zones 1 to 4

• Manukau                 Residential Zone 4

• North Shore            Residential Zones 1 to 6

• Papakura                Residential Zone 4

• Rodney                   All residential zones except the ‘Residential High Intensity Zone’

• Waitakere               Managed Natural Area Zone and the ‘Bush Living’ Human Environment Zone

For these districts, in any zone not listed above ‘general’ protection is lifted, provided the site qualifies as ‘urban’ (though a lot of sites won’t).  In the remaining three districts of the city no specific planning zones were identified where the rules would be retained, however existing levels of protection will remain unchanged throughout those districts in any case, for the reason provided:

• Auckland Central Area    General protection only applies to the road reserve, which is not classified as urban and therefore is not affected by the changes.

• Franklin                        There is no general protection in Franklin, only a schedule of notable trees (which is unaffected by the changes).

• Hauraki Gulf Islands      There is no land classified as ‘urban’ within the islands due to the lack of a reticulated water or sewer network, so all existing tree rules remain in place.

Believe it or not, these new rules will allow much greater scope for carrying out tree works without the need for a resource consent, at least in certain parts of the city, as large chunks of the urban area will have their protection lifted.  However it will by no means be open slather, despite the common public perception to the contrary.  We can all play a part in dispelling this impression and helping to protect Auckland’s urban forest by implementing the new rules and providing accurate advice on them when asked.