City wants Environment Court direction on protecting trees

Auckland Council is seeking the Environment Court's help over fears that rules protecting many urban trees will become unlawful in 13 months. Photo / Alan Gibson

Auckland Council is seeking the Environment Court's help over fears that rules protecting many urban trees will become unlawful in 13 months.

Blanket protection for trees stops from 2012 in an amendment to the Resource Management Act. However, one of the amendment's directions has raised fears over whether areas of regenerating native forest and clusters of coastal pohutukawa trees that are mapped in district plans can carry on as untouchable.

The council is seeking a declaratory finding from the court over whether district plans' rules giving "general protection" will stand if trees are not specifically identified in the plan.

Areas of public concern include pohutukawa groves on the North Shore and regenerating native bush on private land in urban Titirangi and Laingholm. A court hearing will be held on March 28 and 16 parties will be involved in the proceedings.

Environment Minister Nick Smith yesterday played down the confusion.

"I have no difficulty with the council going to court to seek clarification.

"Government's intent was clear: Blanket protection rules across a whole district to remove or trim a tree are unnecessary and pose excessive administration and compliance costs on property owners as well as councils.

"But it was always our intention to allow councils to identify individual trees or groups of trees of significance to a community that would require a resource consent to remove. I'm happy with councils either identifying an individual tree or a group of trees."

A council staff report to yesterday's Parks and Heritage Forum said the amendment had significant implications for managing urban vegetation in the region.

Mayor Len Brown has received a request from the Tree Council to urgently discuss effects of the RMA changes and the Albert-Eden Local Board also asked the council to give urgency to the process of forming a schedule of notable trees for protection against removal.

Council officers felt all district plans, except for Franklin's, would be illegal after January 2012 because they were not as specific as the act required.

Tree Council field officer Hueline Massey said the minister had talked about saving money but had forced the council to go through a "long and expensive process" to change provisions that were currently in district plans. She feared agencies would be more generous to the case of the applicant for resource consent than those who sought to save a tree.

Dr Smith said he was putting pressure on councils to complete their schedules of protected trees and required monthly reports on progress.