Tree Protection Abolished | Clause52 New Zealand

Eric Frei · 31st August 2009, 10:42 PM

Clause 52 of the act bans the general protection of trees in urban areas, allowing people to chop down trees without punishment.

3 News > National > Story > Should people be allowed to chop down trees in urban areas?

YouTube - clause 52 New Zealand

Urban Treecare NZ · 1st September 2009, 06:43 AM

Maybe 3 news should have watched Campbell live before the wrote the article about MS Stacy Colyer

, I think both sides have valid arguments but some sort of compromise should be looked at. Removing protection completely is a HUGE step back after having protection in place for so many years....

Urban Treecare NZ · 2nd September 2009, 06:24 PM

STOP THE CHOP if the website if anyone is interested in making a submission

Urban Treecare NZ · 10th September 2009, 06:22 AM

Latest News, A new law was pushed through last night to allow for tree pruning without consent as of the start of October!!!

Late shift slashes restriction on pruning - National - NZ Herald News

Quote:

Large trees will be able to be pruned without council permission three weeks from today under a last-minute law change passed by Parliament late last night.

MPs approved under urgency changes to the Resource Management Act - including one making councils that dither over resource consents forfeit some of their processing fee.

The bill included two last-minute changes that have angered green groups and Opposition MPs.

The first scraps a right of councils to require permits for tree trimming from October 1.

The second alters the test for deciding whether the public have a say on new developments.

The Government had planned to give councils two years to make lists of individual trees they wanted to protect before scrapping rules covering felling and trimming.

Last night, that two years was cut to three weeks for trimming.

Councils still have two years to complete their lists of protected trees before rules against felling are scrapped in January 2012.

The Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Bill allows landowners to cut down any tree that is not in a reserve or listed in a district plan.

In Parliament yesterday, National's Auckland Central MP, Nikki Kaye, challenged Environment Minister Nick Smith to assure Aucklanders that valuable trees would be listed before 2012.

Dr Smith said he would write to each council in Greater Auckland and ask for its work programme for listing new trees.

The bill does not define what is trimming and what is felling.

Auckland Labour list MP Phil Twyford said that in theory, a landowner could chop a tree to little more than a stump and call it "trimming".

A spokesman for Dr Smith said councils had definitions of trimming in their plans.

But Auckland City development chief John Duthie said his council would be seeking guidance from the legislation.

If it gave none, the council would develop its own guidelines.

North Shore City environmental policy and planning manager Phill Reid said his council was also waiting to see whether Parliament would clarify what counted as "trimming".

"Trimming" that resulted in the death of the tree should be considered felling, he said.

Mr Twyford said councils had made it clear that if the law changed, they would not list anything like the number of trees that were now protected.

Listing individual trees was "a crazy and bureaucratic solution".

Mr Reid said almost all trees on streets in the Auckland region would be affected, because most were not in reserves and so were not exempt from the law change.

A second late change last night restricts public participation in development decisions to projects that "will have or are likely to have" more than minor effects on the environment.

Under the Resource Management Act, the public can comment on and appeal against council decisions on developments only if the project is publicly notified - as about 5 per cent of developments are.

Originally the bill said developments had to be put out for public comment if they "may" have a more than minor effect.

Green MP Jeanette Fitzsimons said the councils were being asked to decide on the balance of probabilities whether significant effects were likely before hearing any evidence from the community.

Dr Smith told MPs he "made no bones" about the fact that the law change shifted the balance from public participation towards reducing costs for developers.

guy thomas · 10th September 2009, 08:54 AM

Unbelievable, I spent ten years working in NZ (Auckland) and came home with totally respect for the tree law there. This must be a backwards step. Especially for the Waitakere's which are just recovering from a century of deforestation

Eric Frei · 10th September 2009, 04:12 PM

I wonder what the urgency is? There's something hidden here, smells fishy.

guy thomas · 10th September 2009, 06:59 PM

Unbelievable, I spent 10 yrs working there and thought the tree laws worked well.What a shame the Waitakere ranges are just recovering from major deforestation

Urban Treecare NZ · 11th September 2009, 06:24 AM

There is obviously a serious hidden agenda here... Will be very interesting what the will speculate in the pruning changes... Maybe a politician with a Pohutukawa in his view???

Eric Frei · 5th May 2010, 07:21 PM

Up to $20,000 to get a tree protected - Environment - NZ Herald News

Quote:

Up to $20,000 to get a tree protected
By Eloise Gibson
4:00 AM Wednesday May 5, 2010

Aucklanders hoping to save a favourite tree from being chopped when the law changes in 2012 could face a $20,000 bill.

A planning report for Auckland City Council estimated that as the cost of adding a single pohutukawa in Epsom to its list of protected trees.

In another case, the Tree Council (Auckland) was told it would have to pay an $11,000 deposit to try for a private plan change to protect an 80 to 100-year-old pohutukawa in Rosebank Rd, Avondale.

Total costs could rise to $20,000 or more if it went ahead with the plan.

A council spokesman said that, if there was no opposition, a tree listing by a private citizen could cost as little as $5000, but $20,000 was "not out of the realms of possibility".

From January 2012, rules requiring a permit to chop down all trees over a certain height are to be dropped.

Only trees that are individually listed in district plans will be protected.

To get ready for the law change, North Shore and Waitakere city councils have taken suggestions from the public and begun the process of listing new trees in a bid to get the best ones covered by 2012.
CCID: 32972

Auckland City Council has decided not to update its tree list. Instead it will hand a list of suggested trees to the new Super City council when it takes over in November.

A key reason was that it would have cost close to $900,000 to inspect and schedule trees people had suggested adding since 2000, according to a planning report presented to the city development committee in March.

Tree Council spokeswoman Sigrid Shayer said the group would struggle to afford to get any new trees listed in Auckland city by 2012.

"This is a completely different scenario from the one that was painted last year ...

"It basically means we are dependent on the council to schedule trees, and at the moment the Auckland City Council is not interested in being proactive."

She said when that the law change was announced, she was told it would cost $2500 to $4500 for someone from outside the council to list a tree.

A year ago, the Auckland City Council told the Herald that if someone from outside the council wanted to schedule a individual tree, they would pay a deposit of $4480 followed by another fee of $1260.

The costs include council officers' time, public advertisements and holding a hearing to consider the proposal.

Environment Minister Nick Smith has said scrapping general protections would cut costs by saving councils from processing thousands of permits to trim or fell tall trees.

When councils raised questions about the time and cost involved in scheduling trees to get ready for the law change, he scrapped the requirement for pruning permits to free up staff resources.

POLITICS OF PROTECTION
* From January 2012 only trees that are individually listed in district plans will be protected.
* A report has estimated that the cost of adding a single pohutukawa to the list of protected trees could be as much as $20,000.
* The North Shore and Waitakere City Councils have taken suggestions from the public and are listing new trees in a bid to get the best ones covered by 2012.
* The Auckland City Council has decided not to update its tree list.

dov · 6th May 2010, 04:23 AM

I'm really not convinced that laws protecting trees on private land in urban areas really do much anyway. A certain percentage of people will always flaunt such laws - and get away with it anyway. About 8 months ago I moved from an area in Melbourne with very tight laws protecting vegetation on private land to an area with pretty much no protection at all. There is a very similar level of vegetation in both areas. The difference is that it costs a lot less and takes less time to get a dangerous tree pruned or removed in the area without protections. Melbournians in general like trees and gardens, maybe that's why the lack of real difference between regions. It could work out quite differently elsewhere.

The laws often go way too far and, in my opinion, often infringe against a persons free use of their own land. As one man put it, "I planted the tree, why shouldn't I be able to take it out?"

Eric Frei · 15th October 2010, 06:54 PM

When you read stories like this you must wonder, what a load of rubbish the system is!

$15,000 to cut down protected tree - national | Stuff.co.nz

Quote:

15/10/2010

A Khandallah family have had to fork out more than $15,000 to try to get permission from Wellington City Council to remove a dangerous tree on their property – because it is protected.

Laura Flannigan and her husband, Richard, approached the council to see if they could have a 40-year-old norfolk pine on their Box Hill property removed because it had started shedding massive cones and six-metre- long branches.

"We have had some big storms in Wellington over the past few years and branches keep falling down," Mrs Flannigan said.

"During a storm in January, when we were doing some renovations, one of the painters was walking up the property and these huge branches fell down and almost swiped him.

"He was very, very upset with us and that is when we went to the council to see if we could remove it. We also have two young children who can't play in their own frontyard."

The kindergarten across the road also had safety concerns, as did another elderly neighbour. Mrs Flannigan said the council told them it could not remove the tree because it was protected. "So without even coming to look at it they said, 'No, we protect trees."'

The Flannigans then formally applied for the tree to be removed. This was declined. "They said the harm to the environment is far greater that anything else."

The council then told them they could try to get the tree removed through notified resource consent, which would cost them about $13,000.

That sum was to pay for newspapers ads, a sign outside their house and the council's "expert advice".

"I don't know how that amounts to $13,000. We are writing a letter to the mayor about it because it is ridiculous."

The couple have paid the $13,000 – on top of $1500 for their initial application – and have also incurred lawyers' fees.

The council looks after about 160 heritage trees, of which a spokesman said the norfolk pine was one because of its stature and prominence.

"If they want to cut the tree down they have to go for a notified resource consent application."

A hearing would then take place before the council made its decision.

Garry Brockley · 15th October 2010, 07:24 PM

You know what stories like these really annoy the living hell out of me!
you can guarantee there is some jobs worth at the local CC that if he got off his arse would be able to give these people some decent advice on how to proceed like:

1. Start by getting an arborist in and get a full report to help you understand the tree and the defects if any it has.

2. if the tree is defective then the Arborist will give you ways to fix the problems.

3. the Arborist will have dealt with these people before and you get to know the prats in the organisation (we all know at least one) therefore be able to give you the best path to take to get the outcome you need.

but instead they hinder everything you try to do. and they charge you everytime for stuff that is yours in the first place
we used to call it daylight robbery but you make upyour own mind

Jeff Darby · 15th October 2010, 08:30 PM

Unfortunately it's seems that trees have a higher value than human life for some, significant, heritage, planted by some dignitary. If it is starting to drop limbs and becoming a threat to human life or property its time to start planning removal of the tree.

I say to the people who hang on to these trees and force their view once they have substantiated the tree is dangerous, let him bring his kiddies to play under it. I bet you wouldnt let them within falling distance of this tree, if it is heritage or historic clone the tree and re plant the same tree back in its place.

However in saying this I feel that all other options for retaining the tree must be explored by an independent arborist so all is above board.

JayD

derwoodii · 16th October 2010, 03:38 PM

I,m still hopefully my idea or somthin like it will find the middle ground between no controls and crap controls. Please explore, its been given some thought at TW already. Some like, some say nup will never work. Seems what we have in Oz and NZ don't quite work either. Perhaps fresh minds from NZ may find the tweak to get it over the line.

Tree protection controls a new approach

Oh but take back your door knockin loppers please. They are this week workin the streets makin the rounds down here and spreading grief with em.

http://www.treeworld.info/f6/officia...hread-898.html

Eric Frei · 16th October 2010, 06:20 PM

I got a call form a bloke in Perth, asking advice on how to deal with the deluge of Islander door knockers!

Blame the immigration dept I say!

1st September 2009, 06:43 AM	#2
Urban Treecare NZ Certificate in Horticulture (Level 4) + Diploma in Arboriculture (Level 6) Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Zealand Posts: 256	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand Maybe 3 news should have watched Campbell live before the wrote the article about MS Stacy Colyer, I think both sides have valid arguments but some sort of compromise should be looked at. Removing protection completely is a HUGE step back after having protection in place for so many years.... __________________ www.urbantree.co.nz www.urbantreecare.co.nz

2nd September 2009, 06:24 PM	#3
Urban Treecare NZ Certificate in Horticulture (Level 4) + Diploma in Arboriculture (Level 6) Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Zealand Posts: 256	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand STOP THE CHOP if the website if anyone is interested in making a submission __________________ www.urbantree.co.nz www.urbantreecare.co.nz

10th September 2009, 08:54 AM	#5
guy thomas Sappling Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: uk Posts: 6	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand Unbelievable, I spent ten years working in NZ (Auckland) and came home with totally respect for the tree law there. This must be a backwards step. Especially for the Waitakere's which are just recovering from a century of deforestation

10th September 2009, 04:12 PM	#6
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,996	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand I wonder what the urgency is? There's something hidden here, smells fishy. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

10th September 2009, 06:59 PM	#7
guy thomas Sappling Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: uk Posts: 6	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand Unbelievable, I spent 10 yrs working there and thought the tree laws worked well.What a shame the Waitakere ranges are just recovering from major deforestation

11th September 2009, 06:24 AM	#8
Urban Treecare NZ Certificate in Horticulture (Level 4) + Diploma in Arboriculture (Level 6) Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Zealand Posts: 256	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand There is obviously a serious hidden agenda here... Will be very interesting what the will speculate in the pruning changes... Maybe a politician with a Pohutukawa in his view??? __________________ www.urbantree.co.nz www.urbantreecare.co.nz

6th May 2010, 04:23 AM	#10
dov Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 649	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand I'm really not convinced that laws protecting trees on private land in urban areas really do much anyway. A certain percentage of people will always flaunt such laws - and get away with it anyway. About 8 months ago I moved from an area in Melbourne with very tight laws protecting vegetation on private land to an area with pretty much no protection at all. There is a very similar level of vegetation in both areas. The difference is that it costs a lot less and takes less time to get a dangerous tree pruned or removed in the area without protections. Melbournians in general like trees and gardens, maybe that's why the lack of real difference between regions. It could work out quite differently elsewhere. The laws often go way too far and, in my opinion, often infringe against a persons free use of their own land. As one man put it, "I planted the tree, why shouldn't I be able to take it out?"

15th October 2010, 07:24 PM	#12
Garry Brockley Bayside Tree Care Brisbane Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,641	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand You know what stories like these really annoy the living hell out of me! you can guarantee there is some jobs worth at the local CC that if he got off his arse would be able to give these people some decent advice on how to proceed like: 1. Start by getting an arborist in and get a full report to help you understand the tree and the defects if any it has. 2. if the tree is defective then the Arborist will give you ways to fix the problems. 3. the Arborist will have dealt with these people before and you get to know the prats in the organisation (we all know at least one) therefore be able to give you the best path to take to get the outcome you need. but instead they hinder everything you try to do. and they charge you everytime for stuff that is yours in the first place we used to call it daylight robbery but you make upyour own mind __________________ My business:- Brisbane Bayside Tree Care

15th October 2010, 08:30 PM	#13
Jeff Darby Moderator - Previously known as JayD Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TreeWorld, Sydney Australia Posts: 2,059	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand Unfortunately it's seems that trees have a higher value than human life for some, significant, heritage, planted by some dignitary. If it is starting to drop limbs and becoming a threat to human life or property its time to start planning removal of the tree. I say to the people who hang on to these trees and force their view once they have substantiated the tree is dangerous, let him bring his kiddies to play under it. I bet you wouldnt let them within falling distance of this tree, if it is heritage or historic clone the tree and re plant the same tree back in its place. However in saying this I feel that all other options for retaining the tree must be explored by an independent arborist so all is above board. JayD __________________ Member: Australian Tree Association Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard ! Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others © Jeffrey J Darby 2011

16th October 2010, 03:38 PM	#14
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand I,m still hopefully my idea or somthin like it will find the middle ground between no controls and crap controls. Please explore, its been given some thought at TW already. Some like, some say nup will never work. Seems what we have in Oz and NZ don't quite work either. Perhaps fresh minds from NZ may find the tweak to get it over the line. Tree protection controls a new approach Oh but take back your door knockin loppers please. They are this week workin the streets makin the rounds down here and spreading grief with em. http://www.treeworld.info/f6/officia...hread-898.html

16th October 2010, 06:20 PM	#15
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,996	Re: Tree Protection Abolished \| Clause52 New Zealand I got a call form a bloke in Perth, asking advice on how to deal with the deluge of Islander door knockers! Blame the immigration dept I say! __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
AS4970 Draft\| Australian Development Tree Protection	Sean Freeman	Tree Information and Facts	68	15th April 2010 07:34 PM
Gold Coast City Council Tree Protection Laws	Eric Frei	Local law regs, start thread with County then State then Country	0	18th November 2008 11:04 AM
Bayside Council \|VIC\|New Draft Tree Protection Policy	TrevMcRev	Local law regs, start thread with County then State then Country	9	22nd October 2008 11:48 PM
Madison New Jersey shelve tree protection	Eric Frei	ANNOUNCEMENTS	1	16th May 2008 07:31 PM
Tree Protection on Development Sites, are there any Australian Standards?	Eric Frei	General Tree Chat	18	31st January 2008 01:02 PM