Plans, policies and reports

YOU ARE IN: Your council > Plans, policies and reports

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

Summary report on submissions to the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

Topic:	Part 7 – Heritage (Trees)
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Sarah Smith, assistant planner
Date:	29 August 2008
Group file:	314/274010-007

1.0 Introduction

For ease of use and understanding, the heritage submissions and further submissions have been divided into the seven themes which relate to different heritage disciplines:

archaeological sites
buildings, objects, properties and places of special value
conservation areas
ecological sites
geological items
Maori heritage
trees.

Each heritage theme has been addressed in a separate hearing report. Each hearing report addresses all matters within the Plan that relate to that discipline. For example, this report addresses submissions relating to trees in:

part 7 – Heritage
appendix 1g – Schedule of trees – inner islands
appendix 2g – Schedule of trees – outer islands
appendix 4 – Criteria for scheduling heritage items.

There are submissions that relate to more than one discipline; these have been addressed in the general heritage hearing report.

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to trees of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions and summary of decisions requested were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on trees. This report discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

The recommendations contained in this report are not decisions of the council. The council will issue its decisions following consideration of the submissions, further submissions, any supporting evidence presented at the hearing, and this report. The council's decisions will be released after all the hearings to the Plan have been completed.

2.0 Statutory framework

This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within which the council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the submissions and, in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions, have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W 047/05 where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:

The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
1. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and
2. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
3. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1).
The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
1. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and
2. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
3. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
4. (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).

The purpose of the RMA is "to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources", and "sustainable management" is defined in section 5(2) as meaning:

"... managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while—

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

Along with section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when considering submissions.

The Plan must assist the council to carry out its functions under section 31 of the RMA. These functions are:

"(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:

(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of—

(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and

(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and

(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land:

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes."

In addition to the matters listed above from the Eldamos decision:

The Plan must "give effect to" any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)).
The Plan must "give effect to" the regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)).
The Plan must be "not inconsistent with" any regional plan (s75(4)).
The council must ensure that that the Plan does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ("the HGMPA"). Section 10 of the HGMPA requires that sections 7 and 8 of that Act be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement under the RMA.

3.0 Background

This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with trees that are scheduled in the Plan. It does not deal with trees that are generally protected because of their height and girth, or those trees which are protected because they are located within sites of ecological significance or sensitive areas.

Trees are an important element of the islands' resources. They contribute positively to the amenity values experienced by visitors and residents alike, and their retention helps enable the people and communities of the islands to provide for their social and cultural wellbeing.

Individual trees and groups of trees can have significant arboricultural, community, amenity and historic values which make them worthy of a high level of protection in the Plan. The Plan sets out to identify and protect these trees and groups of trees by scheduling them.

Appendix 4 sets out the criteria to determine whether tree(s) are eligible for scheduling. During evaluation the heritage specialist scores the tree(s) and if it reaches or exceeds the threshold score then it is scheduled in the Plan.

Appendices 1g and 2g list the scheduled trees in the inner islands and outer islands respectively. The scheduled items are illustrated on map 2 as additional limitations on the planning maps.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about trees and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject headings. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2.0 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about Part 7 - Heritage – Trees together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the summary of the decisions requested by the submissions considered in this report. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section of the report and are further detailed in appendix 3.

The list of submissions contained in appendix 1 may include some submissions and further submissions which were received 'late', ie they were received after the closing date for lodging submissions (11 December 2006) or further submissions (28 May 2007). All late submissions were considered by the hearing panel at the start of the hearing process and the panel has already waived the failure to comply with the time limit for any late submissions or further submissions listed in appendix 1. This has been done in accordance with sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.

4.2 Submissions about text in general

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1208/1, 1208/2, 1208/3

4.2.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1208/1 seeks for the Plan to state precisely the crucial value of all trees in removing greenhouse gas from our atmosphere and protecting us and future generations from serious climate change.

Submission 1208/2 seeks for council to create a "conservative" plan for all trees (not just 'scheduled trees') which sets out in detail what is significant in the way every tree protects us from future climate change and "what policies are appropriate to guide" us, firstly, to kill as few trees of any and all species as possible (except toxic weed varieties) and secondly, to plant as many trees as possible to remedy emissions.

Submission 1208/3 seeks for council to extend clause 7.14 to recognise the value of all trees and groups of trees, at this time in history, as community assets which take greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.2.2.1 Value of trees

Submissions 1208/1 and 1208/3 both seek for the Plan to recognise the important role of trees in removing greenhouse gases.

Only a limited number of trees are scheduled in the Plan. They are scheduled due to their significant arboricultural, community, amenity and/or historic values. Therefore, it is considered that commenting on the importance of scheduled trees only in relation to greenhouse gases is not necessary in this section of the Plan.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.2.2.2 Conservation plan

A conservation plan as defined in clause 7.15 of the Plan means:

"a document which sets out in detail what is significant in a place, what level of community value applies to the parts and the whole of the place, and what policies are appropriate to guide any future changes and to enable that significance and value to be retained."

The submitter seeks for council to create a conservation plan for all trees and not just scheduled trees. Conservation plans provide direction to guide the conservation, use and development of scheduled building(s), not trees. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that trees throughout the gulf islands are protected through a suite of techniques which recognise their various values.

It is considered that the use and purpose of conservation plans has been misunderstood by the submitter as they are not formed for a wide range of sites/objects such as all trees on the islands. This would also be inappropriate as the conservation, use and development of sites with trees on them (i.e. all of the islands) is not the same and it is not appropriate to form specific conservation plans for every area of land on the islands.

This would be a misuse of conservation plans. It is therefore recommended that submission 1208/2 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking general changes

That submissions 1208/1, 1208/2 and 1208/3 be rejected.

4.3 Submissions about clause 7.14.2

Submissions dealt with in this section: 337/5, 338/5, 1208/4, 1208/5, 1208/6, 1208/7, 1208/8, 2641/60

4.3.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 337/5 and 338/5 seek to retain clause 7.14.2(2) and submission 2641/60 seeks to retain clause 7.14.2.

Submission 1208/4 seeks that the objective in clause 7.14.2 be amended to read:

Recognising first that all trees significantly contribute to the islands' and the earth's future well-being through these trees' absorption of carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases and consequently that they mitigate the causes of future climate change. Secondly, the Plan recognises and 'schedules' specific trees and groups of trees which significantly contribute to the islands' and arboricultural, community, amenity and historic values.

Submission 1208/5 seeks for the heading "Policies" in clause 7.14.2 to be expanded to read:

7.14.2 Policies for the conservation, retention and replanting of all trees as well as for the "scheduled" protection of specific trees and groups of trees.

Submissions 1208/6, 1208/7 and 1208/8 seek for the following new policies to be added to clause 7.14.2:

By requiring that for every tree removed for any reason by public or private owners, five new trees would be planted elsewhere and maintained by said owners.

By requiring that all vehicles operated by ACC and its contractors have their entire annual emissions of carbon dioxide calculated, with this carbon "debt" offset annually by council's planting and maintaining of the number of trees required to neutralise that carbon debt.

By ensuring that live Christmas trees (either native, fruit or exotic species) be available to the public at the lowest available price and encouraging all Aucklanders to buy these live trees, which would be picked up by council trucks after Christmas and planted/maintained by council staff or contractors or local service organisations.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.3.2.1 Support

Submissions 337/5, 338/5 and 2641/60 support clause 7.14.2. It is recommended that these submissions be accepted.

4.3.2.2 Objective

The first part of the proposed objective is a statement that trees contribute to the earth's wellbeing by absorbing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases and consequently mitigate climate change. As discussed above, it is considered inappropriate to comment on the importance of scheduled trees only in relation to greenhouse gases as they are scheduled for their high arboricultural, community, amenity and historic values.

Furthermore, the objectives in the Plan state the environmental outcome that the council wants to see from resolution of the issue in relation to the Resource Management Act (RMA). Therefore it is not appropriate to place this statement in the objective as it is not an outcome; it discusses the roles of trees.

The second part of the proposed objective in effect rewords the existing objective in the Plan as notified, and therefore adds no value to the objective as notified in the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.3.2.3 Policy heading

Policies are directly related to the objective and are broad action steps that address aspects of the objective. There is no need for a title to infer what the policies state. The title in effect rewords the policies. This is considered inappropriate and unnecessary and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.3.2.4 New policies

Section 7.14 of the Plan addresses trees that have significant arboricultural, community, amenity and historic values and for which they have been scheduled. It does not address general controls relating to indigenous vegetation or exotic trees. Therefore it is considered that the policies recommended by the submitter are not appropriate in this section of the Plan.

The first policy sought by the submitter is:

By requiring that for every tree removed for any reason by public or private owners, five new trees would be planted elsewhere and maintained by said owners.

It is considered that while replanting is important this is currently successfully achieved through the resource consent process as a mitigation measure. The council has the ability to impose consent conditions such as the following which is specifically provided for in section 108 (2)(c) of the RMA:

"A condition requiring that services or works, including (but without limitation) the protection, planting, or replanting of any tree or other vegetation or the protection, restoration, or enhancement of any natural or physical resource"

However, this should be addressed on a case by case basis rather then as a blanket policy. Policies are broad action steps to achieve the objective. In this case, the objective is to protect existing trees or groups of trees that have significant heritage values. The removal of a scheduled tree is a discretionary activity in the Plan as notified. The council should not anticipate or encourage the removal of scheduled trees by including a policy based on replanting.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

The second policy sought by the submitter is:

The section of the Plan does not address climate change, emissions of carbon dioxide or the planting of trees. The objective of this section is to identify and protect trees of significant value, i.e. existing trees. It is therefore considered inappropriate to include such a policy and it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

The third policy sought by the submitter is:

By ensuring that live Christmas trees (either native, fruit or exotic species) be available to the public at the lowest available price and encouraging all Aucklanders to buy these live trees, which would be picked up council trucks after Christmas and planted/maintained by council staff or contractors or local service organisations.

Once again as discussed above this section of the Plan addresses trees that have been scheduled for having significant arboricultural, community, amenity and historic values. Christmas trees are not scheduled in the Plan and therefore it is not appropriate to address them in this section of the Plan. Furthermore, it is considered that this is outside the scope of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking changes to clause 7.14.2

That submissions 1208/4, 1208/5, 1208/6, 1208/7 and 1208/8 be rejected.

That submissions 337/5, 338/5 and 2641/60 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

4.4 Submissions about clause 7.14.3

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2091/18

4.4.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2091/18 seeks to amend this clause by adding the following wording at the end of the fourth paragraph:

The council uses a scoring system to rank trees against the evaluation criteria. Under this scoring system, trees which rank highly enough to warrant scheduling are given a category A or B status as follows:

Category A – 50 points and over
Category B – 40-49 points.

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Appendix 4 of the Plan sets out the criteria for scheduling heritage items including trees. The appendix does not state the method of evaluation nor explain the points system used. It is considered that this information is not necessary as an experienced heritage specialist is the only person to use this evaluation method.

Therefore to include the above paragraph as requested by the submitter would cause further confusion and is meaningless without reasoning of how points are allocated. Therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking changes to clause 7.14.3

That submission 2091/18 be rejected.

4.5 Submissions about clause 7.14.4

Submissions dealt with in this section: 337/6, 337/7, 337/8, 337/9, 338/6, 338/7, 338/8, 338/9

4.5.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 337/6 and 338/6 seek for clause 7.14.4.1 to be amended to

The minimal trimming or maintenance of any scheduled tree undertaken with hand-operated secateurs , or with advice and assistance from a council approved arborist.

Submissions 337/8 and 338/8 seek to include a fourth matter of discretion in clause 7.14.4.2 to state:

How the proposed works affect/prevent other activities on the site.

Submissions 337/9 and 338/9 state that as well as the necessity of carrying out works identified in clause 7.14.4.2, the practicalities of the trimming should be considered.

Submissions 337/7 and 338/7 seek for clause 7.14.4.3(1) and (2) to be restricted discretionary activities.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.5.2.1 Permitted activities

The use of hand operated secateurs limits the size of a branch that can be removed. This is to ensure that any pruning works to the tree are minimal with less damage likely to the tree's health. It is appropriate to require a consent for further works to ensure the values of the tree are maintained and that no irreversible damage is done.

It is considered inappropriate to amend clause 7.14.4.1 as it currently affords scheduled trees the appropriate protection based on their heritage values. Therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.5.2.2 Restricted discretionary activities

The intent of the structure of the rules is to enable some minimal trimming to scheduled trees, without the need to apply for resource consent. Further works can be undertaken as a restricted discretionary activity where they do not detract from the qualities for which the tree has been scheduled.

It is not appropriate for trimming on a larger scale or the destruction or removal of scheduled trees to become a restricted discretionary activity. They are a discretionary activity in the Plan as notified and this gives the council the ability to assess all matters relevant to ensure that any works proposed do not detract from or alter the valued heritage characteristics of the tree.

Given the significant arboricultural, community, amenity and historic values of scheduled trees and that the objectives and policies seek their retention it is considered appropriate to maintain the full discretionary activity status for particular works in relation to these trees. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.5.2.3 Practicalities of trimming

Clause 7.14.4.2 sets out the matters of discretion for restricted discretionary activities. The council has restricted its discretion to consider the following matters:

The necessity for carrying out the works.
The extent of the trimming or maintenance of the tree and the method to be employed.
The effects on the integrity of the tree's form, its health and its intrinsic and heritage values."

The degree to which a proposed trimming can be carried out is not considered to be a matter of concern for the council. It is considered that an applicant would not put forward a proposal which is not achievable. The extent to which the council considers the practicality of trimming is in considering the method to be employed. This is considered to be sufficient and it is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.5.2.4 Fourth matter of discretion

The submitter seeks for the following to be added as a matter of discretion for restricted discretionary activities:

How the proposed works affect/prevent other activities on the site.

It is assumed that the submitter is referring to the further restrictions a scheduled tree can have on proposed activities on a site. The intention of the rules to require a consent for more than minor trimming to enable the council to assess the effect of the trimming on the values for which the tree was scheduled.

It is considered inappropriate to assess a proposed trimming based on whether the works would affect other activities on the site. The assessment of the necessity for carrying out the works considers the reasoning for why the proposed work is necessary which may relate to other activities proposed on the site.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking changes to clause 7.14.4

That submissions 337/6, 337/7, 337/8, 337/9, 338/6, 338/7, 338/8 and 338/9 be rejected.

4.6 Submissions about removing heritage status

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1095/1, 1165/1, 2667/1, 2667/2

4.6.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1095/1 seeks for the phoenix palms on the property at 8 Le Roy Road, Onetangi are not classified as heritage items.

Submission 1165/1 seeks for council to delete the scheduled tree as a heritage item.

Submission 2667/1 seeks for the removal of heritage tree protection from 43 Victoria Road South.

Submission 2667/2 seeks for the three trees on 43 Victoria Road South to be protected under general tree protection controls as provided for under the operative plan.

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.6.2.1 Heritage item 11-11

The phoenix palms are scheduled in the operative plan. The assessment processes for scheduling trees is rigorous. Those trees that are included in the schedules are considered notable because they have been evaluated in relation to detailed assessment criteria. A mature phoenix palm can have positive community values and contributes hugely to landscape character. The loss of such a significant tree in the community would have adverse effects on the visual amenity and historic values. The trees were re-evaluated at the time of the review and are considered to have sufficient heritage value to warrant their continued protection. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.6.2.2 Heritage item 15-7

The tree on 31 Omiha Road, Waiheke was initially evaluated in 2002 and scheduled. On re-evaluation in 2007, after pruning of the tree between these times, the tree no longer reaches the threshold for scheduling. It is recommended that this submission be accepted and the heritage item be removed from appendix 1g and the planning maps.

4.6.2.3 Heritage Item 11-6

Part 6 of appendix 4 of the Plan outlines the criteria for determining whether a tree is worthy of protection. In considering whether tree(s) are worthy of protection as scheduled notable tree, any proposed tree or groups of trees are evaluated against a set of proven and standard heritage criteria. In order to be eligible for scheduling a threshold score must be met. These trees have been evaluated by the heritage team and are identified as having high heritage values and therefore have been scheduled in the Plan.

Scheduling these trees provides a mechanism whereby any substantial pruning work to a tree will require a higher level of validation by the applicant and will undergo stronger scrutiny by the council than what is applied to generally protected trees.

Given the trees must meet the threshold for scheduling outlined in the Plan it is recommended that submissions 2667/1 and 2667/2 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking removal of heritage statues

That submission 1165/1 be accepted and the Plan be amended accordingly to remove heritage item 15-7 from Sheet 15, Map 2 of Maps – Volume 1 Inner Islands and from Appendix 1g Schedule of trees –inner islands.

That submissions 1095/1, 2667/1 and 2667/2 be rejected.

4.7 Submissions about clarification

Submissions dealt with in this section: 54/1

4.7.1 Decisions requested

This submission does not seek amendments but requires clarification as to whether the scheduled trees (11-6) will limit any further extension or alteration to the house in the future.

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The property is 43 Victoria Road South which has three trees that have been scheduled as heritage item 11-6.

These trees are category B items. The maintenance or trimming of limbs greater than 75mm in diameter is a discretionary activity. Assuming the branch is greater than 75mm in diameter a discretionary activity resource consent will need to be granted to permit the branch to be cut off. In addition, works within the root zone of a scheduled tree requires a discretionary activity consent. Given the location of the tree to the house, it is likely that work to the house will fall within the root zone of this tree and will therefore require resource consent.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking clarification

That submission 54/1 be rejected.

4.8 Submissions about additions to appendix 1g

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2/1, 482/2, 482/3, 482/4, 1245/10, 1245/11, 3716/1

4.8.1 Decisions requested

Submission 482/2 seeks to have those trees that were on the Waiheke County Council significant tree register included as scheduled trees in appendix 1g.

Submission 482/3 seeks to have the kauri tree at 24 Hauraki Road, Palm Beach scheduled in appendix 1g.

Submission 482/4 seeks to have the stand of taraire on the seaside at the beginning of Cory Road scheduled in appendix 1g. Submission 2/1 seeks for the taraire stand at 6 Giles Road to continue to be protected as scheduled trees under the proposed plan as they were under the operative plan.

Submission 1245/10 seeks to add the puriri/pohutukawa tree at Kennedy Point Road to the tree register.

Submission 1245/11 seeks to add the Kauri Grove within the Onetangi Reserve to the tree register.

Submission 3716/1 seeks for the huge old (~80 years) "Chinese palm tree" on 74 Wharf Road to be protected.

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.8.2.1 Waiheke County Council tree register

The list of trees registered in the 1988 Waiheke County Council, District Planning Scheme, proposed review were carried over into both the 1991 Waiheke Operative District Scheme and the Hauraki Gulf islands Operative District Plan 1996. As part of the review of the operative plan the heritage team undertook a zero based review of the entire existing heritage schedules. All of the existing notable trees on Waiheke were re-evaluated (if they were able to be located) and scored against the criteria outlined in the Plan. Any tree that scored above the threshold were proposed for scheduling in the proposed plan.

It is noted that at the time this Plan was notified the full evaluation and identification of trees that are scheduled in the operative plan was not completed. Since then 32 trees at 44 Donald Bruce Road have been identified for scheduling. It is recommended that these trees be added to appendix 1g.

Therefore this submission is accepted in part.

4.8.2.2 24 Hauraki Road

This tree was evaluated and did not reach the threshold for scheduling and so it is not considered to have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling in the Plan.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.8.2.3 Cory Road and 6 Giles Road

At the time of evaluation, during the review of the Plan, the information regarding the taraire stands at these locations was incomplete and therefore they were not put forward for scheduling in the proposed plan. Since then the evaluations have been completed, however the trees do not reach the threshold for scheduling.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.8.2.4 Kennedy Point Road

The tree at Kennedy Point Road has been evaluated and did not score above the threshold and therefore is not considered to have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling in the Plan.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.8.2.5 Onetangi Reserve

The Onetangi Reserve is scheduled as a site of ecological significance within both the operative and proposed plans. These trees were not assessed as they are considered to have sufficient protection under the provisions for ecologically significant sites.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.8.2.6 74 Wharf Road

A full assessment of this tree has not yet been undertaken but will be completed for the decision version of the Plan. At this stage, it is not known whether this tree exceeds the threshold score to make it eligible for scheduling.

Therefore no recommendation is made at this time.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking additions to appendix 1g

That submissions 2/1, 482/3, 482/4, 1245/10 and 1245/11 be rejected.

That submission 482/2 be accepted in part and appendix 1g be amended to include 32 trees at 44 Donald Bruce Road.

No recommendation for submission 3716/1.

4.9 Submissions about removals to appendix 1g

Submissions dealt with in this section: 562/5, 657/5, 745/5, 863/5, 866/5, 930/5, 1025/5, 1164/5, 3616/5, 3649/5

4.9.1 Decisions requested

Submission 863/5 seeks to remove phoenix palms and norfolk pines from the list of scheduled trees.

Submissions 562/5, 657/5, 745/5, 866/5, 930/5, 1025/5, 1164/5, 3616/5, 3649/5 seek to remove phoenix palms from the list of scheduled trees.

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Trees, in general, are considered an important element of the islands' resources. They contribute positively to the amenity values experienced by visitors and residents alike, and their retention helps enable the people and communities of the islands to provide for their social and cultural wellbeing.

In considering whether tree(s) are worthy of protection as scheduled notable tree, any proposed tree or groups of trees are evaluated against a set of proven and standard heritage criteria. In order to be eligible for scheduling a threshold score must be met.

Therefore if a phoenix palm or norfolk pine exceeds the threshold score it is scheduled in the Plan.

Norfolk pines are not a listed pest in the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2002-2007 and therefore there is no reason to remove these trees if they have heritage values.

Phoenix palms are classed as a surveillance pest in the Proposed Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007-2012, which are species that have been identified as having significant impacts on the biosecurity values of the Auckland region. However if an item has sufficient heritage status due to its values then it should be scheduled. The loss of such significant trees in the community would have adverse effects on the landscape and visual amenity values of the islands. Therefore it is inappropriate to remove these trees from the list.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking removals

That submissions 562/5, 657/5, 745/5, 863/5, 866/5, 930/5, 1025/5, 1164/5, 3616/5 and 3649/5 be rejected.

4.10 Submissions about Cupressus macrocarpa

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1174/3, 1184/3, 1277/3, 2647/3, 3616/3

4.10.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek for the Plan to protect any macrocarpa ( Cupressus macrocarpa) worthy of protection by scheduling any individual macrocarpa considered worthy of protection (rather than by the general tree protection rules).

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

This submission has been made in the context of the general tree protection controls in Part 10c of the Plan. This matter will be addressed in the part 10c hearing report.

In relation to the issue of scheduled trees, the Plan schedules and thereby protects trees that exceed the threshold score when evaluated against the criteria set out in appendix 4. At this point, there have been no macrocarpa that have been identified and scheduled in the Plan. Should an evaluation be undertaken on a macrocarpa tree and it exceeds the threshold score then it will be scheduled.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted as the council currently schedules trees, no matter what there species, if they met the threshold score.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking protection of some macrocarpa by scheduling

That submissions 1174/3, 1184/3, 1277/3, 2647/3 and 3616/3 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

4.11 Submissions about trees on the outer islands

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2547/5

4.11.1 Decisions requested

This submission seeks for the Pohutukawa trees that line the northern bank of the Awana Stream to be designated as heritage trees.

4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

A full assessment of these trees has not yet been undertaken but will be completed for the decision version of the Plan. At this stage, it is not known whether these trees exceed the threshold score to make them eligible for scheduling.

Therefore no recommendation is made at this time.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking additions

No recommendation for submission 2547/5.

4.12 Submissions about removing tree protection

Submissions dealt with in this section: 545/1

4.12.1 Decisions requested

This submission seeks for the council to stop all tree protection nonsense as recommended by Bill Birch (with particular reference to the scheduled tree at 38 Tiri View Road).

4.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Trees are an important element of the island's resources. They contribute positively to the amenity values experienced by visitors and residents alike, and their retention helps enable the people and communities of the islands to provide for their social and cultural wellbeing.

It is important to schedule trees that have been identified as having high heritage values in order to retain these valued resources. By scheduling them they are preserved as part of the heritage of the islands for the benefit of present and future generations.

It is therefore not appropriate to remove tree protection rules and so it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking additions

That submission 545/1 be rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding trees of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2006.

The report recommends whether submissions should be accepted or rejected and how associated further submissions should be dealt with, and how the Plan should be modified as a result. These recommendations are made prior to the hearing of submissions and therefore without the benefit of evidence which may be presented at that time. At this stage before the hearing, it is recommended that this part of the Plan be approved, with amendments (as outlined in appendix 3), for the reasons outlined in this report.

	Name and title of signatories	Signature
Author	Sarah Smith, assistant planner
Reviewer	Nicola Short, Manager: Heritage
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested

Appendix 3

Recommended amendments to the Plan

Appendix 4

Specialist reports
Part A
Part B
Part C
Part D

Published September 2008

Home |
Terms of use