This Government has taken an axe to so many things…metaphorically speaking: Kiwisaver, night classes, the R & D tax credit. Ahh, the list goes on.
But it is now taking an axe – more literally – to our urban forest with the banning of tree protection rules. The ban is found in cl 52 of the Resource Management Amendment Bill due for its second reading this week, and well covered on the front page of this morning’s Herald.
By prohibiting tree protection rules that say you cannot cut down any tree over a certain size without getting a consent, the only option will be for Councils to list individual trees they want to protect. As many submitters to the select committee pointed out, this would be so expensive as to be impractical. It’s not going to happen. Auckland’s leafy burbs will have more chainsaw noise than a Mooloo game. See David Shearer’s post for more on this.
For National this is a trophy in their crusade against red tape. But it is pure ideology. Environment Minister Nick Smith rejected Jeanette Fitzsimons’ compromise solution that would have made tree protection rules less onerous by allowing pruning without a consent and making consents easier and quicker to obtain.
Meanwhile the Lorax is stirring. Emails demanding cl 52 be dropped have been flooding the in-boxes of Auckland MPs. Conservation groups have mobilised. Two hundred people attended an angry public meeting in Grey Lynn last week and another one is planned out west.
Where are National’s Auckland MPs on this? Labour and Green MPs fronted the Grey Lynn meeting but no sign of Nikki Kaye or any other National MP.
While she wasn’t at the public meeting, Nikki Kaye has projected a lot of empathy on this issue over recent months around central Auckland where there is intense concern over the fate of our urban coastal forest. But on this issue, as with the cuts to night classes and the Government’s unpopular super city, Ms Kaye talks a good line in empathy and concern in the electorate but votes the other way in Wellington.
In the local Ponsonby News Ms Kaye had this to say:
I understand the value of trees in an urban environment. Unfortunately, like John Elliott I have some concerns about the potential impact of the tree provisions within the RMA. Over the next few weeks I will be working with the Party and people like John Elliott to see what I can do to allay those concerns either through legislation or policy.
I challenge Nikki Kaye to oppose cl 52 in the House this week. Most of her Auckland Central constituents don’t want our trees to be put at risk. Empathy is a fine thing but it is how you vote in the House that really counts. She should support the amendment Labour and the Greens will be putting up to delete cl 52, or explain to her constituents why she is not supporting it.
Yep, Ms Kaye has lots of empathy and not a lot of backbone when it comes to Wellington, Her constituents need to start putting her under pressure, courteously, of course.
Is Labour in support of the Metropolitan Urban Limits (MULs) and infill and intensification inside those MULs..?
If we are going to stay inside the MULs (and avoid anymore horrible sprawl), and have the land use we need for cheap housing (for traditional Labour voters), effective public transport and the health, environmental and economic benefits that will bring, we need infill and intensification and some large trees are going to have to go…
It is not simply enough for Labour to oppose this without a viable alternative that allows the developments Auckland must have to move from the large suburban town it is now to a city…
Who’s trees?
@ Jezza – Labour does support the MULs, and an intensification strategy for Auckland. Consenting tree removals can accommodate that. Banning effective tree protection rules is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
@ Gooner – These rules do cover trees on private property. However taken as a whole trees create an important public amenity for the city. If you want to apply private property rules to anything and everything, you can throw urban planning out the window, and it will be a pretty barren and miserable city we will have.
Have you ever applied for a consented tree removal..? My father is a property developer and will not buy a property with any tree issues due to the uncertainty of investment (it is often turned down) and the unbelievable hassle of a consent…
This is sad because it costs us the infill and intensification we need, costs us cheaper housing through lack of supply and hurts the economy through loss of employment…
Is Labour going to offer a clear and easy amendment or just critise..?
The issue is about the future of Auckland, how our city uses land going forward and our competitiveness with other Pacific Rim cities, is much bigger than trying to score political points over your potential opponent in 2011…
Jezza, we are going to criticise AND offer a clear and easy amendment.
So Jezza, if your dad wants to buy properties without trees, why not frame the offer that way?
Puts the onus on the seller to obtain the consent and remove the tree. There is virtually nothing that cannot be negotiated into a property contract. Heck, I once wrote in a clause about completion of interior painting.
I agree, lets throw current Urban Planning out the window. It isnt working and has to bear a lot of responsibilty for the housing bubble we have seen. Especially in Auckland.
On trees,by my obvservations, very very few are removed by stealth.
But over to you. Tell us how many cases you know of?
Are Aucklanders a bit different and secretly stockpiling chainsaws ready for scorched earth day.
I would guess a lot of Aucklanders take your stance on this matter as hugely insulting to them, as if they cant be trusted to protect their own natural heritage on their own properties. Shades of lightbulbs, shower heads etc. all over again.
@ David – I dont know about Aucklanders being a bit different. But Auckland faces more intense development pressures than most other places around NZ. I doubt Aucklanders on the whole do find our position insulting. Most of us care about the trees and in the past have seen the odd rogue developer bowl a section full of trees or cliff top pohutukawa in order to give a new house a clear view. Funny you should mention the shower head thing. I actually think banning councils from using local solutions, in this case to protect trees, is rather nanny statist by National-ACT…or should that be ninny state?
Seems a bit draconian to stop Aucklanders trimming their trees because some shoddy property developer did something stupid. They are always doing something stupid.
We face similar but not as extreme pressures in Christchurch due to the council daftly wanting everyone wanting to live in apartments. You dont see Merivale and Fendalton devoid of trees because people value them, we dont need, no doubt like aucklanders to be told what to do all the time.
@ David – The compromise proposal Nick Smith rejected would have allowed home owners to trim their trees without getting a consent.
@Jezza – people can live in newly developed tree appartments.
“Jeanette Fitzsimons’ compromise solution that would have made tree protection rules less onerous by allowing pruning without a consent and making consents easier and quicker to obtain.” – That would have been a great solution.
@Phil Lyth, that is something he could look at doing now that subdividable properties with many sections or sections with no issues are becoming more scarce but really up until now why should he bother when he can buy one without problems or time hassles (while the owner applies for consents and the like)… Also why would the owner go to the hassle of applying for consents when they could just spend a little time more (and much less time than getting a consent) finding a buyer who doesn’t care about the tree/isn’t interested in subdivision..?
I think it is a much better system if the Council has to apply to protect a tree on YOUR OWN land rather than the owner having to apply to the Council…
Unless the amendement the Labour or Greens offer is very simple or common sense I think the best idea is to lobby for the Councils to be given as much time as they realistically need to protect the trees and limit the right of owner to appeal a protection to a single appeal at the Environment Court located in our District Courts…
This is a classic resource management issue – how do we balance the public good that trees offer with the private hassle that they can be? To what extent is it worthwhile to “impinge” upon private property rights for the greater good? I mean answering that kind of question is effectively what the resource management act is all about.
Which is the worrying thing about this proposal. It effectively is bringing a sledgehammer (or a chainsaw) to solve an issue where what is actually needed is simply a bit of reworking. Have we looked at simplifying the current way to gain tree consents? A couple of years ago I gave evidence at a hearing on a tree consent on behalf of the applicant and there were three commissioners to make the decision – including a city councillor! All over the removal of a tree, talk about overkill.
But that doesn’t mean we have to throw the baby out with the bath-water. The entire point of planning and resource management is to find the best solution where there’s a potential conflict between private and public good. This proposal will completely slam that balance in favour of the “private good”, which of course means that in the end we all lose out (classic tragedy of the commons situation).
Putting aside the tree issue, it’s also a concern to see the government messing with what councils can do to such an extent. Prohibiting District Plans from containing a certain type of rule seems like a pretty extreme measure.
People cannot be trusted! Our proerty at Kawakawa Bay, South Auckland had 15 year old bush on it that I had planted, we were getting Weka, Tui, & Kaka, Riroriro, Greywarbler in our 1/4 acre section. I pruned accordingly to retain sea views.
New owners loved it! Thats why they bought they said, sea views through the bush.
I relaxed as I had thought of having it protected.
Three months later it was ALL CHAINSAWED bulldozed, & stumps removed then dumped. Kauri, Pohutukawa, Rimu etc. One magnificiant Cabbage tree remaims. A Tree Baron section remains with a dog on. BROKE OUR HEARTS & undoubtedly that of the bird life.
There must be general tree protection everywhere, as man is selfish & ruthless. Why do people buy a section that has trees on they do not want. Why don’t they buy a tree free one.
Stop the Chop NOW!
What National is proposing is overkill but the current system does desperately need changing and that old chestnut of Labour had 9 years to change it and didn’t applies here…
Jarbury a wise person once told me that land use is transport planning… Some old and large trees are in the way of much more effective land use… Some wise person also showed me information that Auckland’s transport emissions are well over half of London’s when they have 7.7 million people and us 1.4 million… PT use here is criminally low… House prices are ridiculous and getting worse and seem barely affected by the recession…
If we want lower house prices, some currently protected trees are going to have to go… Weird as it sounds if we want a better environment through lower emissions/car pollution via higher PT use, some currently protected trees are going to have to go for both to happen we need mixed use multi-story developments…
There could be some positive side effects, people are going to be more likely to spend a couple of grand and plant a few years old palm tree if they know they’ll be allowed to cut it down in 10 years if they change their mind…
I guess I’m not buying the story of the big bad National Party are coming to chop down your trees cause they’re evil and ideological and if only Labour and Phil Tywford were in Government and Auckland Central MP we’d have the trees protected, intensification and better PT use… The MUL’s were pushed out 8 times under Labour and until their last two years they barely spent a dime on Auckland’s PT infrastructure, we did however get lots more State Highways which of course the young, elderly, disabled and poor use in droves (yeah right)…
I will however read Phil’s ammendment when offered and if it makes sense write my local National Party MP…
Goodness me, Mr Twyford. I realise you want to try and draw Ms Kaye into any debate as you are clearly vying for her seat, but you’re clutching at straws on this one.
I think ratepayers are sick and tired of having to go to council and apply for a consent to trim their trees. Let’s not forget that Labour had nine years in government to fix this, and instead did nothing. I don’t think there will be a lot of sympathy for you on this.
Just as your campaign to “save” Auckland assets that aren’t for sale for being sold failed, I think this one will as well.
Yeah, I’m not sure “ninny state” is going to take, Phil. And isn’t a “ban on protection” like calling a tax cut a “ban on a tax increase”? Or like calling freedom a “ban on banning”? As far as co-opting the language of your opponents goes, a wee bit average.
Nowhere else in NZ has this stupid rule, and it seems to work just fine for them.
Having to apply to the council for permission to fell your own trees is simply ludicrous.
Yes there needs to be some protection to prevent against unscrupulous developers who don’t value trees, but a blanket ban on felling is too blunt an instrument.
Maybe if you fell a mature tree you have to replace it with 3 more in the same spot, and occupy the property for a significant period afterwards?
The problem in Auckland City is that the council has a stupid general tree protection rule. If you look at the Woolley Trust vs Auckland City Council environment court case from a couple of years ago the judge really tore into ACC’s rule. The problem with it was that applications could only be assessed against issues relating to the health of the tree, rather than the wider planning situation. The issue I got involved in related to a pohutukawa tree that was rupturing water-pipes, and council turned down consent to remove the tree (that decision was eventually overturned by the environment court btw).
If tree protection rules were made a bit less formal and they were able to be assessed against wider criteria, then I think 99% of the problem would be solved.
Jezza, of course one needs to balance things up against each other. Intensification is necessary and in some cases that will conflict with trees. However, generally intensification should be happening in town centre areas that are less likely to be full of trees in any case. Intensification through simple ‘infill’ (the type probably most disadvantaged by tree protection rules) is only likely to reduce the character of particular areas – and it’s less effective than focusing development in growth nodes.
Victoria’s planning authorities came up with a creative solution to this problem when they introduced its vegetation laws five or six years ago.
The Planning and Environment Act was amended to say that if you cleared any native vegetation that you had to replace it elsewhere with and equivalent amount and ecological value. It didn’t have to be in the same location but it did have to be as least as much (or more) and the replacement vegetation had to be equally as rare.
Of course it didn’t solve all disputes, but it has made developers think about the costs of what they were doing before subdividing.
I’m not sure i local government here would have sufficient expertise to enforce such a provision but it may be a way of preserving biodiversity at the same time as allowing appropriate development.
Jarbury and TopCat say some very sensible things.
As one of the correspondents point out, section 52 is imposing government regulation on local choice.
As Jarbury and TOpCat allude to, the real answer is to preserve the environment and urban trees play an important part in this on a local and a wider level. They also reduce dust and noise, preserve gulleys from erosion and filter the water flowing into our harbours.
Introducing carbon credits for urban trees would be too difficult. But TopCat’s solution has a lot of appeal – although it would require some council supervision and a register to designate and control the newly planted area. Essentially this is a form of carbon credit.
I would like to see section 52 removed – but would also like to see a move towards a simpler solution to managing trees on urban properties which required developers to take responsibility for the effect of their actions on the community.
Unfortunately Act and its libertarian sympathisers in National are trotting out a lot of half baked shibboleths about the rights of private property owners. However they are not talking about the needs for good neighbourhoods. Their claimed answers will not solve disputes between neighbours. They wont protect my house’s need for light and warmth in winter from my neighbour’s phoenix palm which is taking all our sun. They wont protect our local bush reserve from developers clear felling or from locals who foster privets, pampas, wattles, moth plant, morning glory and other pest plants that invade the bush reserve and their neighbours’ gardens.
The government is motivated by making life easier and more profitable for developers – not by any altruistic outcomes.
This will be very akin to “the tragedy of the commons”. If you dont know of this concept – google it and become informed. On Easter Island, someone eventually cut down the last tree, because they thought it was more use to them felled, than it was to the whole community if left standing.
in christchurch we dont have these stupid rules and we also have trees maybe cantabs are more evoled than their auckland relations
do you think that you could be honest and say that you are going to run aganist niki as that has a bering on your anti niki statement
@ graham lowe – Let’s talk about the issue. It is not a personal attack on Nikki. Read the post again and you will see that I am simply challenging her to vote in line with the concern she is expressing in the electorate.
The attached article is probably a timely example of what is going wrong. What a serious waste of time and money for all involved. The tyranny of the minority eh.
I think current legislation has shown the law of unintended circumstances comes into play, viz a viz NO ONE plants natives in Auckland anymore. You do so and when they are 6m high, you lose control of your land.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10595838
Any comment?
And yes, agree its obvious Twyford is angling for Auckland Central. Dont you live in Mt Albert? Why didnt you stand there,hmmmm
Captain Crab, I don’t think anyone here has said that the current rules are perfect. There seems to be reasonable agreement that they’re too drawn out, lengthy and expensive. However, this is clearly a situation where the baby is being thrown out with the bath-water.
Surely there are sensible middle-ground options here.
@ Jarbury – Ah, the voice of reason.
Captain Crab, perhaps your advice is relevant to the PM who does not live in his electorate. Now you mention it, where does Ms Kaye live these days?
Mr Twyford does not need to defend himself in any way about what he wrote in relation to the Auckland Central incumbent. He is making, very gently, a point that increasing numbers of people are making in the constituency. Ms Kaye is sitting below the radar here in Auckland on the big issues, whilst voting solidly for the National line on the Supercity etc. down in Wellington. Nothing surprising about that, except that, when she’s doing the coffee circuit, she’s sweetness and light and, as Mr Twyford says, empathetic to the nth degree. Fairly soon her constituents are going to expect some commitment on her part to dicussion of the big issues.
If 200 angry residents is an increasing number of people then I am afraid it would seem that the majority are happy with the change.
I personally insulted by those who think that because I own my own home in Auckland the moment this law is passed I will go out and chop down all the tree’s on my property. Auckland home owners enjoy their trees just as much as you. I just now have the option of planting some more without effectively donating my property to the council.
I don’t know if you live in Auckland Central Mr Winter, but I do, and I’m impressed with Nikki Kaye.
Nikki Kaye pushed hard to have Waiheke and Great Barrier have their own local boards as they wanted them under the Super City. Mr Twyford I don’t think expressed a view on this until he realised what Waiheke and Great Barrier’s reaction would be. As I understand it Labour only wanted six or seven local boards, clearly not including Waiheke or Great Barrier.
In my suburb (quite leafy) I don’ tthink there’s going to be a great move to chop down trees. What will happen I think is that people won’t have to go through the bureaucratic farce of applying for a council consent to trim a tree, as it should be.
Mr Twyford still hasn’t answered why after nine years of labour government, they did nothing to remove some of the red tape about trimming trees in my own back yard.
I think the move will have a positive effect. I wouldn’t plant a tree in my back yard if I knew I had to get a council consent to trim it as soon as it reached five metres.
Ok she was single handedly responsible for Waiheke and Great Barrier geeting their local boards. Do you think she may be able to explain to the hundreds of similar sized communities in Greater Auckland why they will not be getting similar representation?
i restate all other citys and towns in new zealand dont have these stupid rules but for some reason they still have trees
Tim, the excessive red tape to remove trees is actually the fault of the council. As I said above, Auckland City Council have tremendously stupid rules with regards to tree removal. Go have a look: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/district/Part05c.pdf (page 18 onwards).
You will note that applications can pretty much only be assessed on the basis of the health of the tree, rather than wider resource management issues. It’s this very narrow focus (which is messy anyway as a restricted discretionary activity consent is supposed to be easier to get than a discretionary one, but in this case the opposite seems to be true) that has caused most of the problems in Auckland.
As I said before, why are we throwing the baby out with the bath-water? Why haven’t measures other than a heavy handed “you shall be prohibited from including this rule in the District Plan!” been looked at?
It should be pointed out to some of the antagonists on this thread that Labour has a system of “buddy MPs”. That is: non Labour electorates are assigned one or more buddy MPs whose role it is to keep the members and supporters up to date on issues which affect their electorate. Phil Twyford is a buddy MP for Auckland Central.It is his responsibility to air the issues that are important to them. I hope that takes care of graham lowe and Captain Crab and I will throw in that NACT perennial, Tim Ellis for good measure. Now back to the issues eh?
to ann come on we all know that a backroom deal was done to stop the ex mp for auckland central coming back if wants to stand for auckland central he can he dosent need you to spin a line for him
jarbury, those are good points about Auckland City Council’s processes. I don’t think however that the consents process is just a problem in Auckland City.
What is interesting abou tthis article is that Mr Twyford is only concerned about the cost to council of designating individual trees, rather than the cost to ratepayers of having to go through a consents process to trim individual trees.
Tim, I have heard the Green Party is going to table an amendment that would mean you’re able to trim your tree without consent, but not outright ban general tree protection rules. I imagine Labour would support a “middle-ground” solution like that.
Good Herald Editorial today on the matter: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10596043
(hint, read past the first paragraph and you’ll actually find the editorial is damning of the law change)
Ummm…. why the heck are Labour supporting the legislation?
so phil isnt going to say sorry
Better article today Jarbury
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10596265
Note the part where he points out the sale of large shade trees almost stopped completely when these laws were introduced.
[...] challenged Auckland Central MP Nikki in an earlier post to walk the talk, and vote with the Labour and Green amendments, given how much concern she has [...]