Clerk of the Committee
Local Government and Environment Select Committee
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings
FREEPOST
Wellington
Date: ……. February 2013
Submission to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee
Resource Management Reform Bill 2013 and Local Government (Auckland Transitional
Provisions) Act 2010
This submission is presented by:
Name: …………………………………….
Contact address:
……………………………………………...
……………………………………………...
……………………………………………...
Contact telephone numbers:
……………………………………………………………………………………
I / we wish / do not wish to appear before the committee in Auckland, to speak to this submission.
My submission is:- [include those items below you wish to support]
I / we oppose the amendments to section 76 of the Resource Management Reform Bill, and
request that they be removed from the Bill for the following reasons:
1. Amendments to section 76 of the Resource Management Reform Bill remove the right of a local
authority to make its own district plan rules regarding urban tree protection and will effectively
remove all tree protection rules in urban areas from district plans.
2. Banning tree protection rules is inconsistent with the principles and purposes of the RMA (Part II),
sections 5, 6, 7, and 8.
3. This change will allow only scheduling of specific individual trees for on-going protection. This
approach has proven to be complex and costly to the council and its ratepayers to implement and
maintain. If the present Resource Management Reform Bill is passed the expense to councils and
demands on staff time will escalate and be on-going.
4. Scheduling does not recognise that groups of trees function as ecological units – it is not the
individual tree alone that matters, but the whole unit.
5. Coastal fringes, riparian margins, catchment areas, natural bush zones and special areas, (eg,
those parts of Waitakere City, which come under the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Act), will not
have the protection they need.
6. Trees are a public asset, and contribute to the greater good, not solely to an individual or private
property.
7. The function that 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’.
8. Trees in urban environments serve many functions:- 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.
9. Forms of tree protection provide a safety net that guards against wanton destruction.
10. Trees are under particular pressure in the Auckland region, with increasing demands on land,
inside and outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit.
11. 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.
12. Mature trees tell the story of Auckland’s settlement and subsequent development.
13. Trees can take decades to mature to their full potential and in the process provide great amenity
value, bio-diversity, environmental and aesthetic benefits.
14. Tree protection provides a safety net against wanton destruction especially by those for whom
environmental values are seen as an impediment to maximising profitability.
15. Without tree protection rules councils are unable to stipulate mitigation measures under consent
conditions, to replace the loss of mature trees from a site.
16. Coastal fringe Pohutukawa and other coastal trees are a hugely important part of Auckland’s
natural ecological heritage, as well as helping with cliff stabilisation.
17. Local authorities have a duty (under RMA section 70) to protect riparian margins from pollution
and soil erosion. This is primarily provided by specific vegetative planting, including trees. Trees
need to have protection in order to perform this role.
18. Trees within some parks would be left unprotected. The Bill only provides protection if trees are
within designated Reserves. Only 100 of the 800 parks in Auckland Council (Isthmus Section)
District Plan are classified as Reserves, eg. Monte Cecilia Park in Hillsborough, of great historic
and botanical value, is not a Reserve.
See next page for Amendments to the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.
Amendments to section 32 of the
Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010
The proposed amendments remove the ability of the Auckland Council to determine the best outcome
for the Auckland Unitary Plan.
The amendments to section 32 are inherently undemocratic.
The requirement to appoint the hearings panel by the Ministers of Environment and Conservation is
strongly opposed. This is Auckland’s plan, drafted in the interests of residents and ratepayers and
must be reviewed by a panel appointed by Auckland’s democratically elected representatives not
imposed by the government.
Changes to the Act that will allow the Unitary Plan to ignore National Policy Statements is seriously
flawed. Auckland’s Unitary Plan will be serving 1/3rd of New Zealand’s population – this requires more
care and consideration of the environment, not less, if we are to succeed in having a healthy living
city.
The plan making process for the Auckland Unitary Plan should be amended to address the
concerns raised above, and those of other submitters, on this proposal.
Signed.