· Web viewSupport the definition of Modification and amend by inserting a comma after the word “vegetation” 7 Accept in Part The definition as amended by the Urban Tree Variation

Appendix 2: Chapter 3 Ecology and Biodiversity Table of Recommendations to Submissions and Further Submissions

Please note that submissions are ordered in this table chronologically in relation to the Topic Column (and therefore plan provisions number). Submissions on the Section 1.4 Definition section follow the submissions relating to Chapter 3. That is, excepting those submissions specific to Ecological Sites in Schedule 3.1 which are located at the foot of the table and ordered chronologically by Ecological Site Reference number as listed in the Topic Column.

Chapter 1 Recommended Amendments

Sub. No.

Submitter

Topic

Decision Sought

Section of Panel’s Report

Panel’s Recommendation

Panel’s Reasons / Comments

Recommended Amendments to PDP?

Information Requirements for Applications for Land Use Consent

UTV

1.2

Robert Patterson

UTV

Amendment 1 - Information Requirements for Applications for Land Use Consent

Oppose - There should be no restrictions on the trimming of listed trees.

Amend rule 1.3.2 to allow for trimming by property owners not just arborists.

6

Accept in Part

Agree that a more reasonable and balanced approach could be pursued that aims to protect the health and integrity of protected trees whilst providing landowners flexibility to continue to manage their trees on their property. Recommend amendments to trimming rules in Appendix 1.

No

UTV

2.2

Anthony and Janet Jack

UTV


Seek Amendment - To remove tree T55 from the notable trees list

6

Reject

Insofar as Schedule 10.1 was not notified with the UTV, however this is recommended for removal in the Chapter 10: Historic Heritage Report.

No

UTV 3.2

Tom Seaman

UTV


Support - No further information provided

6

Accept

Amendment 1 ensures consistency with other changes proposed as part of the UTV. However, other submissions have resulted in recommended changes to Amendment 1.

No

UTV 4.2

Thomas Connor

UTV


Seek Amendment - Remove clause amendment 1.3.2. (I) d) "a Notable Tree Listed" as these trees are covered by clauses 1.3.2(l) a), b) & c).

Remove the protected and notable trees lists

6

Reject

Notable Trees are not covered in Schedule 3.1, 3.2, 3.2A or 3.3 and the notable tree list was not notified with the UTV. Any recommended amendments are identified in the Chapter 10: Historic Heritage Report.

No

UTV 8.2

John Granville

UTV


Support - Property owners should have the ability to plant, trim and remove trees on their property.

6

Accept

Amendment 1 ensures consistency with other changes proposed as part of the UTV. Agree that a more reasonable and balanced approach could be pursued that aims to protect the health and integrity of protected trees whilst providing landowners flexibility to continue to manage their trees on their property. Changes proposed trimming rules may address some of the submitters concerns.

No

UTV 11.2

Angela Cooper

UTV


Seek Amendment - No further information supplied

6

Reject

Unclear of Submitters intent.

No

UTV 19.2

Janice Wakeman

UTV


Oppose - Variation places high costs on owners to comply with application requirements. Obtaining a plan of trees can in excess of $1800. There would also be arborist costs to provide an assessment. Therefore the owner is unfairly penalised.

Time is also required to gain the required reports and information which would delay an application.

This could cause a risk to life or property if access is blocked.

The costs involved to comply with the requirements of the application should be borne by the Council.

6

Accept in Part


Yes

UTV 20.2

Murray Allerby

UTV


Oppose - No compensation is given to owners for the costs and loss of rights of the change. Should either

scrap the variation in in its entirety or mitigate the loss of land use and cost of trimming trees through

rate reductions and/or paying for reports etc.

6

Accept in Part


Yes

UTV 24.2

Forest and Bird

UTV


Support in Part - Support in part. The matters included in an application are not broad enough for an assessment of effects on biodiversity generally, particularly in ecological sites. Point (ii) requires an assessment of any vegetation modification including any impact on other vegetation.

For ecological sites and areas near a water body /coastal marine area in particular, there are likely to be effects on a number of biodiversity aspects (i.e. more than on just vegetation). It is not clear from the information requirements that an assessment of those effects is required. Further, an arborist is unlikely to be qualified to comment on these.

Retain, but amend point (ii) to the following effect:

For trimming or modification of vegetation in Schedule 3.2, 3.2A, 3.3, 10.1:

An assessment prepared by a suitably qualified arborist or ecologist describing the condition of the vegetation intended to be trimmed or modified and the impact of any proposed modification including any impact on other nearby vegetation.

For trimming or modification of vegetation in ecological sites, or within 20 metres of a water body of the coastal marine area.

An assessment prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist describing the condition of the vegetation intended to be trimmed or modified and the impact of any proposed modification including any impact on other nearby biodiversity, including fauna and vegetation.

6

Accept in Part

Agree for the need to include clause (e) “in or within 20 metres of a water body or the coastal marine area where it is not in an urban environment”. There are other rules in the plans which rely on this. Also agree that Schedule 3.2A should also be included in the list but not that an arborist assessment should be required for all situations.

Yes

Further Submitter 1: Transpower

Oppose in Part - Transpower opposes the reference to trimming “within 20 metres of a water body of the coastal marine area” as the amendment introduces a rule type element into the information requirements that is not reflected in the rule framework. I.e. there is no reference in the rules to trimming or medication within 20m of a water body of the coastal marine area.On this basis the sought amendment is potentially confusing and introduces elements of consideration that are beyond the scope of the variation.

6

Reject

There is a need to include clause clause (e) “in or within 20 metres of a water body or the coastal marine area where it is not in an urban environment”. There are other rules in the plan which rely on this.

No

UTV 27.2

Wayne and Adaleen Irion

UTV


Seek Amendment - KCDC need to state how long it will take to procure a Resource Consent. In a storm, parts or all of old trees will be damaged or even uprooted. KCDC need to approve Consent within 24 hours, following tree damage in a severe storm.

6

Accept in Part

Section 87F of the RMA requires that non notified consents are processed within 20 days, however, also recommend inclusion in rules relating to trimming where there is imminent threat to life or property may address the submitters concerns.

Yes

UTV 30.1

Josephine McLean

UTV


Seek Amendment- There are trees that are indigenous to the area, which are useful to birds, (up to 20 in one kowhai, tuis) they also provide cover and where near the stream, insurance against erosion, especially in areas that receive additional rainfall, i.e. streams/banks.

KCDC need to look into the impact of proposed modification including any impact on the soil or land, or vegetation of a bank of a stream or waterway. Also need to consider measures to prevent debris entering any waterway or removal of a soil.

There are significant indigenous trees:

1. 363 Titoki over 6.5 (4.9 metres from Waitohu Stream)

2. 650 Marble leaf over 6m

3. Cabbage tree over 6m (situated approximately from stream)

4, Kowhai

5. Totara, over 6 metres

6

Accept in Part

Agree there is a need to include clause (e) “in or within 20 metres of a water body or the coastal marine area where it is not in an urban environment”. There are other rules in the plan which rely on this.

Yes

UTV 31.1

Alan and Ann Parsonage

UTV


Seek Amendment - The current buffer on our property extends 5 m into our back bedroom; into the family room; part of our lounge and onto the 'built in' back deck (a feature of the house when built in 1986). Mention was also raised of a possible reduction on our Ecological Site boundary. This appears logical to us in view of the steep slope at the back of our section.

Both amendments would be appreciated.

6

Accept in Part

We recommend changes to the Ecological Site boundary, but this requires no consequential amendments to Schedule 3.1. There are also other trees listed on Schedule 3.2A for this property which will continue to be protected.

No

Information Requirements for Applications for Land Use Consent

UTV 3.3

Tom Seaman

UTV Amendment 2 – Information Requirements for Applications for Land Use Consent

Support

6

Accept

Proposed changes ensure links to and consistency with Schedules 3.1: Ecological Sites and 3.2A Key Indigenous Tree Species

No

UTV 4.3

Thomas Connor


Seek Amendment - Remove section 1.3.3. as it is covered elsewhere.

Remove the protected and notable trees lists.

6

Reject

We do not agree that Section 1.3.3 is covered elsewhere; however we note that some amendments are recommended as a result of the integration process.

There is no scope within the UTV to remove Schedule 10.1: Notable Trees as this was not notified as part of the UTV. Proposed changes also ensure links to and consistency with Schedules 3.1: Ecological Sites and 3.2A Key Indigenous Tree Species

No

UTV 8.3

John Granville


Support

6

Accept


No

UTV 19.3

Janice Wakeman


Support

6

Accept


No

UTV 20.3

Murray Allerby


Oppose - Schedules are not accurate or complete and have not been un-biasedly prepared. Does not reflect the outcomes of the RMA.

6

Accept in part

Where inaccuracies were identified we have recommended their removal from the Schedules in response to submissions or in accordance with clause 16(2). More substantial changes would require a Schedule 1 process.

The schedules give effect to sections 76 4A and 4B of the RMA.

Yes

UTV 24.3

Forest and Bird


Support

6

Accept

Proposed amendments ensure links to and consistency with Schedules 3.1: Ecological Sites and 3.2A Key Indigenous Tree Species

No

UTV 27.3



Seek Amendment - KCDC defines a "Protected" tree.

KCDC defines a "Notable" tree.

6

Accept in Part

UTV suggests new definitions for protected trees in Amendment 5. Notable trees are also defined in Chapter 1.

Yes

UTV 30.2

Josephine McLean


Support - Importance of ecological features to be noted by developers, land users including NZTA (roading). Preservation over development to be ensured. Preservation of existing key indigenous trees and geological features relied upon.

6

Accept

Proposed amendments ensure links to and consistency with Schedules 3.1: Ecological Sites and 3.2A Key Indigenous Tree Species

No

Definition of Ecological Domains

440.10

Kāpiti Coast District Council

Chapter 3 Natural Environment – Definition of Ecological Domain(s

Amend the definition of ecological domain(s) to include the “Hill Country” ecological domain.

11

Reject

The definition of and reference to ‘Ecological Domain(s)’ is recommended to be removed from the Plan as a consequential changes as ’ecological domains’ are not appropriate as a measurable planning tool to be defined with fixed lines on a map.

No

FS139 Support

11

Reject

As Above

No

New Definition for Indigenous Vegetation

UTV 1.3

Robert Patterson

UTV Amendment 3 – New Definition for Indigenous Vegetation

Support

7

Accept

The proposed new definition is clear in identifying what the Council wishes to protect to satisfy its obligations under sections 6 and 31 of the RMA whilst enabling landowners to manage trees appropriately.

No

UTV 3.4

Tom Seaman


Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 4.4

Thomas Connor


Support - Lists of Protected Tree`s and Notable Tree`s should be removed and included in the Variation. As the proposed changes adequately control what can and cannot be done to trees of their age and size.

7

Reject


No

UTV 8.4

John Granville


Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 22.2

Spark New Zealand


Support - Support the definition as, in conjunction with the rules, it provides greater certainty as to which treesare subject to the rules, as well as greater flexibility by making it clear that non-indigenous trees, andindigenous trees planted by humans are not caught by the provisions

7

Accept


No

UTV 24.4

Forest and Bird


Seek Amendment - Oppose definition as it is too narrow. Section 6 requires the protection of indigenous vegetation, meaning indigenous to New Zealand. Limiting this definition to vegetation or plant species that 'occur naturally within the Kapiti Coast', potentially excludes a large number of indigenous species that may not have been found in Kapiti originally, but nonetheless are now found here.

This also ignores that indigenous vegetation, even where planted by humans, can have important biodiversity value, even in a relatively short time period. Undermines restoration projects. It is contrary to s6 RMA, which is not limited to vegetation that has naturally occurred. It is also contrary to Council's obligation to maintain biodiversity under s31.

Amend definition:

Indigenous vegetation means vegetation or plant species that naturally occur in New Zealand, and includes indigenous vegetation that has been planted by humans

6

Reject


No

UTV 27.4



Seek Amendment - KCDC claims to 'protect' indigenous trees, some of these have grown from fence posts.

KCDC need to focus on more than tree height e.g. health of trees.

KCDC must inspect ALL trees they want to 'protect', before trees are classified as "Protected indigenous trees".

7

Reject

Trees have been identified following survey work and assessment against criteria to determine a biodiversity score.

No

UTV 29.2

Chorus (Mary Barton)


Support - Support the definition as, in conjunction with the rules, it provides greater certainty as to which trees are subject to the rules, as well as greater flexibility by making it clear that non-indigenous trees, and indigenous trees planted by humans are not caught by the provisions.

7

Accept


No

UTV 30.3

Josephine McLean


Oppose - Proving vegetation was planted by humans in an area full of birdlife including waterfowl (and possibly water rats) is impossible. Amend to state "and where possible to know, excluding vegetation that may have been hand planted."

7

Reject


No

UTV 33.2

Johanne McCormish


Seek Amendment - delete "excluding...humans"

7

Reject


No

UTV 34.2

Transpower New Zealand


Support in part - The definition of Indigenous vegetation provides clarification and assists in plan interpretation. However, there is one aspect of the definition which may create confusion as it is open

to interpretation. Specifically, the last part of the definition 'and excluding vegetation planted by humans' may be difficult to interpret as determining whether vegetation has been planted by humans may not always be clear.

(i) That the definition of Indigenous vegetation be retained but Council re-assess the necessity of the last part of the definition given potential interpretive difficulties.

(ii) Any consequential amendments.

7

Accept


No

Definition - Key Indigenous Tree

UTV 1.5

Robert Patterson

UTV Amendment 5 – Definition of Key Indigenous Tree

Oppose - There should not be a Schedule 3.2A. The council should only protect those trees worthy of inclusion in Schedule 10.1 Notable Trees.

7

Reject

Provisions ensure that significant indigenous vegetation is protected and the trees listed on Schedule 3.2A have a high biodiversity value.

No

UTV 3.6

Tom Seaman


Support

7

Accept

The definition provides clarity and has been included to identify difference between Schedules 3.2 and 3.2A.

No

UTV 4.6

Thomas Connor


Seek Amendment - Remove the definition of 'Key Indigenous Tree' as it is covered in other sections. Remove the protected and notable trees lists

7

Reject

The definition provides clarity and has been included to identify difference between Schedules 3.2 and 3.2A and is not covered elsewhere. There is no scope through the UTV to remove Schedule 10.1: Notable Trees and there were no submissions requesting this on Chapter 10: Historic Heritage.

No

UTV 8.6

John Granville


Support - Schedules need to be re-looked at and re-created by an independent Ecologist

7

Accept


No

UTV 20.5

Murray Allerby


Oppose

7

Reject

The schedules have been developed following extensive surveys and site visits.

No.

UTV 27.6



Seek Amendment - Definition of "Key Indigenous Tree" too vague. Need a new clear definition. KCDC should list what they now claim are Kapiti's "Key Indigenous trees".

7

Reject

The definition has been included to ensure that there is a distinction between Schedule 3.2 of the Proposed District Plan: Key Indigenous Tree Species, and Schedule 3.2A of the UTV: Key Indigenous Trees.

No

UTV 30.5

Josephine McLean


Seek Amendment - This amendment needs to be discussed and clarified.

7

Reject

Submission in unclear, however, the submissions and hearings process provides the opportunity for Submitters comments to be considered and addressed.

No

UTV 34.4



Support - Definition of Key indigenous tree is supported as it provides clarification and assists in plan interpretation.

7

Accept


No

Definition – Locally Indigenous Vegetation

443.9

Allan Smith

Definition of Locally Indigenous Vegetation

Amend to clarify the meaning of the term “locally indigenous vegetation” to reconcile the difference between the definition and explanatory text following Policy 3.2

7

Accept in part

The term ‘locally indigenous vegetation’ is recommended to be deleted and where appropriate replaced with the term ‘indigenous vegetation’ with the meaning of ‘indigenous vegetation’. The proposed new definition of “Indigenous Vegetation” is also clear in identifying what the Council wishes to protect to satisfy its obligations under sections 6 and 31 of the RMA

Yes

FS9, FS10, FS42, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS102, FS139, FS142, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187

Support

7

Accept in part

As Above

Yes

385.2

Margaret Smith

Definition of Locally Indigenous Vegetation

Submitter supports the submission from A A Smith. See submission 443 for detail

7

Accept in part

The term ‘locally indigenous vegetation’ is recommended to be deleted and where appropriate replaced with the term ‘indigenous vegetation’ with the meaning of ‘indigenous vegetation’. The proposed new definition of “Indigenous Vegetation” is also clear in identifying what the Council wishes to protect to satisfy its obligations under sections 6 and 31 of the RMA.

Yes

FS1, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS167, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,

Support

7

Accept in part

As Above

Yes

250.21

Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Definitions of Locally Indigenous Vegetation

That the Locally Indigenous Vegetation classification and associated mapping and provisions are deleted from the Plan, and that Council investigate using this ecological information as an education and partnership tool.

7

Accept in Part


Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS146, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,

Support

7

Accept in part

As above for submission 250.21.

Yes

UTV 1.6

Robert Patterson

UTV Amendment 6 – Definition of Locally Indigenous Vegetation

Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 3.7

Tom Seaman


Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 4.7

Thomas Connor


Support - But remove protected and notable trees lists

7

Accept in part

The term ‘locally indigenous vegetation’ is recommended to be deleted and where appropriate replaced with the term ‘indigenous vegetation’ with the meaning of ‘indigenous vegetation’. The proposed new definition of “Indigenous Vegetation” is also clear in identifying what the Council wishes to protect to satisfy its obligations under sections 6 and 31 of the RMA. There is no scope to remove Schedule 10.1: Notable Trees through the UTV.

No

UTV 8.7

John Granville


Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 19.4

Janice Wakeman


Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 20.6

Murray Allerby


Oppose - A definition needs to be clarified with affected parties. The existing definition to remain until something better is written and agreed.

7

Reject


No

UTV 24.6

Forest and Bird


Support - Support removal For the reasons given in relation to amendment number 3, this definition is inappropriate.

7

Accept

The term ‘locally indigenous vegetation’ is deleted and where appropriate replaced with the term ‘indigenous vegetation’ with the meaning of ‘indigenous vegetation’. The proposed new definition of “Indigenous Vegetation” is also clear in identifying what the Council wishes to protect to satisfy its obligations under sections 6 and 31 of the RMA.

No

UTV 27.7



Seek Amendment - No further information supplied.

7

Reject

Unclear of submitters intent, however, the term ‘locally indigenous vegetation’ is deleted and where appropriate replaced with the term ‘indigenous vegetation’ with the meaning of ‘indigenous vegetation’. The proposed new definition of “Indigenous Vegetation” is also clear in identifying what the Council wishes to protect to satisfy its obligations under sections 6 and 31 of the RMA.

No

UTV 30.6

Josephine McLean


Seek Amendment - Without full description there will be no reason to observe rules or to protect trees. Justification of change needed. Outline reason for change to allow discussion, show alternative description.

7

Reject

The term ‘locally indigenous vegetation’ is deleted and where appropriate replaced with the term ‘indigenous vegetation’ with the meaning of ‘indigenous vegetation’. The proposed new definition of “Indigenous Vegetation” is also clear in identifying what the Council wishes to protect to satisfy its obligations under sections 6 and 31 of the RMA.

No

Definition - Modification

191.11

Landlink Ltd

Definition of Modification

Oppose definition of "modification" as this is overly restrictive in relation the trees dripline and seek this definition be amended to be less restrictive.

7

Reject

It is appropriate that the definition as amended by the Urban Tree Variation (UTV) retains reference to activities under the dripline of a tree. Any consideration of activities that should be permitted or exempted from rules should be made having regard to the rules of the appropriate plan section rather than by amending a broad definition designed to cover activities with consideration of the wider district plan and not just one section.

No

FS9, FS10, FS41, FS142,

Support

7

Reject

As Above

No

208.8

TranspowerNew Zealand Ltd


Support the definition of Modification and amend by inserting a comma after the word “vegetation”

7

Accept in Part

The definition as amended by the Urban Tree Variation (albeit without inserting the requested comma) retains its original intent with amendments that improve clarity and the integration between the definitions of trimming and modification.

No

212 – 2

Quicksilver


Support definition of 'modification' and retain without amendment

7

Accept in Part

The definition as amended by the Urban Tree Variation retains its original intent with recommended amendments that improve clarity and the integration between the definitions of trimming and modification.

No

FS9, FS10, FS42, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS102, FS139, FS142, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187

Support

7

Accept in Part

As Above

No

219 – 21

Horticulture New Zealand


Amend the definition of “Modification” of vegetation to add 'and the management of vegetation for horticultural purposes' after 'trimming'.

7

Reject

Horticultural activities are permitted in Chapter 7 and the rules in Chapter 3 are specific to indigenous vegetation so do not capture or constrain the modification of exotic vegetation planted in support of agricultural or horticultural activities.

No

FS9, FS10, FS43

Support

7

Reject

As Above

No

UTV 1.7

Robert Patterson

UTV Amendment 7 – Definition of Modification

Support

7

Accept

The Amendment provides clarity on the definition of modification and draws a distinction between the reasonable extent of trimming and more substantial modification.

No

UTV

3.8

Tom Seaman


Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 4.8

Thomas Connor


Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 8.8

John Granville


Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 20.7

Murray Allerby


Oppose - Need to reduce or mitigate the costs on owners as a result of the variation.

7

Reject

The recommended amendments to trimming standards in Chapter 3 and a zero resource consent fee for trimming of some protected trees may address these concerns.

No

UTV 22.3

Graeme McCarrison (Spark New Zealand)


Seek Amendment - In conjunction with Rule 3A.1.4, all earthworks associated with undergrounding in the dripline of indigenous vegetation listed in Schedules 3.1, 3.2A or 3.3 will require a resource consent. This could include trees that overhang road reserve - where undergrounding is common. With appropriate performance standards undergrounding can be undertaken while ensuring the health of the tree is not adversely affected.Amend the definition of 'Modification' and/or Rule 3A.1.4 to provide a permitted activity within the Living and Working Zones (excluding the Living and Working Zones at Te Horo Beach, Peka Peka and Paekakariki) for undergrounding within the dripline of indigenous vegetation in Schedules 3.1, 3.2A or 3.3 in specified circumstances, this being drilling 800mm below the root zone or a hand dug trench under the supervision of, or by, an arborist who has attained the New Zealand Qualifications Authority National Certificate in Arboriculture Level 4 or equivalent arboricultural qualification

7

Accept in Part

Agree that undergrounding can be undertaken while ensuring the health of the tree. The amendments sought by the submissions are a reasonable and practical solution.

Yes

UTV 24.7

Forest and Bird


Support in Part - Support in part. 'Disturbance' should remain in definition.

7

Reject

The term ‘disturbance’ is open to misinterpretation and is difficult to define compared to ‘damage’ or ‘destruction’ which address the same issue and are widely recognised terms.

No


Oppose - Transpower prefers the wording in the proposed definition as it is unclear what activities constitute ‘disturbance’

7

Accept

As above

No

UTV 27.8


Amendment 7

Seek Amendment - No mention of how nature modifies old trees when there is a storm etc. - or a drought - Sadly Kohekohe trees are prone to heart rot.

7

Reject

Definition of modification relates to modification undertaken by humans and not nature.

No

UTV 29.3



Support - In conjunction with Rule 3A.1.4, all earthworks associated with undergrounding in the dripline of indigenous vegetation listed in Schedules 3.1, 3.2A or 3.3 will require a resource consent. Could include trees that overhang road reserve - where undergrounding is common. With appropriate performance standards undergrounding can be undertaken while ensuring the health of the tree is not adversely affected.

Amend the definition of 'Modification' and/or Rule 3A.1.4 to provide as a permitted activity within the Living and Working Zones (excluding the Living and Working Zones at Te Horo Beach, Peka Peka and Paekakariki) for undergrounding within the dripline of indigenous vegetation in Schedules 3.1,

3.2A or 3.3 in specified circumstances, this being drilling 800mm below the root zone or a hand dug trench under the supervision or by an arborist who has attained the New Zealand Qualifications Authority National Certificate in Arboriculture Level 4 or equivalent arboricultural qualification.

7

Accept in Part

We agree that undergrounding can be undertaken while ensuring the health of the tree. The changes proposed by the submissions are a reasonable and practical solution.

Yes

UTV 30.7

Josephine McLean


Seek Amendment – The amendment does not go far enough. Stormwater added to areas contains toxins from van roofs.

Soil that is removed changes land character. This rule should include specifics regarding soil dispersal disrupting land (especially around walkways) and toxins including those contained in stormwater from houses.

Amend to read

“removal, damage, destruction of vegetation....

(a) removal, lowering , raising of soil (ADD),

© discharge of toxic substances AND OR STORMWATER

7

Reject

Modification includes ‘work that involves the compaction, sealing or removal of soil, drilling or extraction, and the discharge toxic substances. Other rules also refer to the trimming of vegetation within 20m of a water body.

No

UTV 34.5



Seek Amendment - Definition of Modification is supported as it clarifies what constitutes such works, but seeks amendment amended to read "Modification of vegetation means the felling , removal, damage or destruction of the vegetation and including the following activities within the vegetation drip line”

7

Accept


Definition - Trimming

208.4

TranspowerNew Zealand Ltd

Definition of Trimming

Oppose in part the definition of trimming and amend to add a new clause “4. the removal of branches or vegetation to maintain safe distances from electricity transmission lines."

7

Reject

The definition as amended by the UTV (albeit it with minor recommended amendments) appropriately defines the term ‘trimming’. Ensuring that branches are able to be trimmed to maintain safe distances from electrical lines is more appropriately addressed through the plan rules.

No

327.6

Waa Rata Estate

Definition of

Trimming

Amend the definition of 'trimming' to remove unworkable elements in the definition to make it more practical

7

Accept in Part

The amendments to the definition of Trimming as a result of the UTV (albeit it with minor recommended amendments) make it workable.

No

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS33, FS42, FS43, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS61, FS102, FS126, FS139, FS142, FS146

Support

7

Accept in Part

As Above

No

383 - 3

Gillian Tousoon

Definition of

Trimming

Submitter agrees with submission from Waa Rata. See submission number 327 for detail.

7

Accept in Part

The amendments to the definition of Trimming as a result of the UTV (albeit it with minor recommended amendments) make it workable.

No

FS1, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS146, FS167, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,

Support

7

Accept in Part

As Above

No

UTV 1.8

Robert Patterson

UTV Amendment 8 – Definition of Trimming

Support

7

Accept in Part

We agree that the UTV definition of trimming (albeit it with minor recommended amendments) is appropriate, however, there are some changes recommended as a result of other submissions.

No

UTV 3.9

Tom Seaman


Seek Amendment - Concerned about the requirement for an arborist to trim trees. Concerned about ether there or not there are enough qualified arborists in the Kapiti Coast to cope with demand. Worried that if there are only a small number of arborists that prices for trimming may increase or clients may need to wait 'months' to get the work done, even if there is an urgent need because of broken tree/limb or other dangerous condition.

Rate payers need protection in the event that a suitably qualified arborist is not available. Amend so that work must be in accordance with NZAAIBPG 'Amenity Tree Pruning' Version 3 dated April 2011 but that this work is not required to be undertaken by an arborist.

7

Accept in Part

Clarification is required on how the plan applies trimming rules. Rules identify what is permitted and that trimming must be undertaken in accordance with certain standards where they apply.

Yes

UTV 4.9

Thomas Connor


Support

7

Accept in Part


No

UTV 8.9

John Granville


Support

7

Accept in Part


No

UTV 20.8

Murray Allerby


Oppose - This statement is open-ended and not clear. The existing definition left in place until something better can be worked out and agreed upon by all parties.

7

Accept in Part

Clarification is required on the difference between trimming and modification. Changes to rules may also address some of the submitter’s concerns.

Yes

UTV 22.4



Seek Amendment - The definition does not recognise that trimming is required in some instances to provide for the safe and efficient operation of network utilities (as well as to increase light or air movement or improve tree health which are currently specified).

Amend the definition for ‘Indigenous vegetation’ as notified.

Trimming of vegetation means pruning of vegetation and trees including the removal of broken branches, deadwood or diseased vegetation and selective branch removal to increase light and air movement, or to improve tree health, or to enable the on-going safe and efficient operation and maintenance of network utilities , and excluding the felling, complete removal or destruction of the vegetation or tree

7

Reject

The definition is intended to provide a description of what constitutes trimming and differentiate between trimming and modification, whilst rules identify the standards that will be applied.

No


Support - Transpower supports the submission in so far that it includes network utilities, such as the National Grid.The recognition of the need to undertake trimming to enable the on-going safe and efficient operation and maintenance of network utilities is supported given the importance of network utilities (which includes the National Grid) and the need to ensure their continued operation and maintenance.

7

Reject


No

UTV 24.8

Forest and Bird


Support in Part - The previous definition confused activity standards with a definition of tree trimming.

Definition should include clear limits as to what constitutes trimming.

The final part of the definition is not clear enough to ensure that there isn't a grey area between 'trimming' and 'modification'. If the definition is going to list some of the ways in which 'trimming' would turn into 'modification' then it needs to either list them all or make explicit reference to the modification definition.

Include clear limits in the definition so that excessive 'trimming' does not occur:

a. The maximum branch diameter must not exceed 50mm

b. No more than 10 per cent of live growth of the tree is removed in any one calendar year

c. The trimming must retain the natural shape, form and branch habit of the tree.

Also amend definition to make distinction between trimming and modification clear.

7

Accept

Clarification is required on the difference between trimming and modification. Amendments are recommended to address this.

Yes

UTV 27.9



Seek Amendment - How long will KCDC take to grant consent? Especially following a severe weather event.

How will KCDC monitor tree trimming in back yards?

7

Reject

Section 87F of the RMA requires that non notified consents are processes within 20 days. However recommendations to rules regarding standards that apply to trees where there is imminent threat to life or property may address the submitter’s concerns.

No

UTV 29.4



The definition does not recognise that trimming is required in some instances to provide for the safe and efficient operation of network utilities (as well as to increase light or air movement or improve tree health which are currently specified).

Amend the definition for ‘Indigenous vegetation’ as notified.

Trimming of vegetation means pruning of vegetation and trees including the removal of broken branches, deadwood or diseased vegetation and selective branch removal to increase light and air movement, or to improve tree health, or to enable the on-going safe and efficient operation and maintenance of network utilities , and excluding the felling, complete removal or destruction of the vegetation or tree.

7

Reject


No


Support - Transpower supports the submission in so far that it includes network utilities, such as the National Grid.The recognition of the need to undertake trimming to enable the ongoing safe and efficient operation and maintenance of network utilities is supported given the importance of network utilities (which includes the National Grid) and the need to ensure their continued operation and maintenance.

7

Reject


No

UTV 34.6



Support

7

Accept in Part


No

New Definition for Tree

UTV 1.4

Robert Patterson

UTV Amendment 4 – New Definition for Tree

Support

7

Accept

A definition of tree is required to provide clarity to plan user but amendments have been recommended in response to other submissions.

No

UTV 3.5

Tom Seaman


Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 4.5

Thomas Connor


Support - But remove the protected and notable trees lists

7

Accept in Part

A definition of tree is required to provide clarity to plan user but amendments have recommended as a result of other submissions. Submitter is also seeking amendment that is outside of scope of the UTV and there are no submissions calling for its removal in Chapter 10: Historic Heritage.

No

UTV 8.5

John Granville


Support

7

Accept


No.

UTV 20.4

Murray Allerby


Support

7

Accept


No

UTV 24.5

Forest and Bird


Oppose in Part - Oppose in part as the definition contradicts schedule 3.2, which sets out minimum heights of certain trees which trigger rules. Many of these are 3m.

Definition is contrary to common sense. Most people would understand a 'tree' to include actual trees, even where they are shorter than 4m.

Amend the definition to lower the height limit at most 3m.

7

Accept

Schedule 3.2 does include trees that are 3m or more and that the definition should reflect this.

Yes

UTV 27.5



Seek Amendment - Define a 'Protected" tree - more to a tree than height, it should include position of tree and health of the tree.

7

Accept

The assessment for inclusion of a tree in the scheduled is based on a range of factors such as location, whether it is isolated or part of a group, its species and its health.

No

UTV 30.4

Josephine McLean


Support - Smaller trees and vines are useful erosion protectors as they give cover to the ground. Erosion near or on banks of streams mostly due to human intervention.

7

Accept in Part

The UTV is seeking to ensure a balance between the protection of the most significant indigenous trees with providing the ability for landowners to manage trees that have been planted and have a lower biodiversity value. Some rules also prevents trimming of trees within 20m of a water body or the coastal marine area.

No

UTV 34.3



Support - Definition of Tree is supported as it provides clarification and assists in plan interpretation.

7

Accept


No

Definition – Urban Environment Allotment

UTV 1.9

Robert Patterson

UTV Amendment 9 – Definition of Urban Environment

Support

7

Reject

This is consistent with the RMA definition.

No

UTV 3.10

Tom Seaman


Support

7

Reject

The definition ensures consistency with the RMA.

No

UTV 4.10

Thomas Connor


Support

7

Reject


No

UTV 8.10

John Granville


Support

7

Reject


No

UTV 20.9

Murray Allerby


Oppose - To leave definition as per RMA.

7

Accept


Yes

UTV 30.8

Josephine McLean


Seek Amendment - There is no clarity, please clarify.

7

Accept in Part


Yes


Sub. No.

Submitter

Topic

Decision Sought





Objective 2.2 Explanation

UTV 1.10

Robert Patterson

UTV Amendment 10 – Objective 2.2 Explanation

Support

8

Reject

We do not agree that the proposed UTV amendments to the explanatory text of Objective 2.2 are necessary. The Objective is self-explanatory and other submissions are calling for the plan to be reduced in length and complexity.

No

UTV 3.11

Tom Seaman


Support

8

Reject


No

UTV 4.11

Thomas Connor


Support

8

Reject


No

UTV 8.11

John Granville


Support

8

Reject


No

UTV 20.10

Murray Allerby


Oppose - KCDC already have the ability in subdivision development regulations to protect individual trees and or areas of vegetation. This addition should be deleted as already covered

8

Accept


No

UTV 24.9

Forest and Bird


Support in Part - Delete 'remnant', as this ignores the value of more recent vegetation.

8

Reject


No

UTV 27.10



Seek Amendment - KCDC should use its resources to improve care of the remnants of native bush that still exist in Kapiti.

8

Reject

Provisions strike an appropriate balance between protecting significant indigenous vegetation and providing landowners with the ability to undertake tree maintenance or removal of planted trees or those with a lesser biodiversity value. Amendment 10 also provides an explanation to later plan provisions

No

UTV 30.9

Josephine McLean


Seek Amendment - Now that the main threats are known it is up to everyone including councils to ensure remaining areas, especially waterways and forest remnants are protected and preserved. KCDC need to guarantee their commitment to oversee what government has set up.

8

Accept in Part


No


UTV 1.11

Robert Patterson


Support

8

Reject

Proposed amendments go beyond what was in the PDP as notified and Objectives 2.2 and 2.9 already adequately address areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna.

No

UTV 3.12

Tom Seaman


Support

8

Reject


No

UTV 4.12

Thomas Connor


Support

8

Reject

Proposed amendments go beyond what was in the PDP as notified and Objectives 2.2 and 2.9 already adequately address areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous.

No

UTV 8.12

John Granville


Support

8

Reject


No

UTV 20.11

Murray Allerby


Support

8

Reject

Proposed changes to the explanation to Objective 2.4: Coastal Environment provides clarity as to which trees are proposed for protection through the UTV.

No

UTV 24.10

Forest and Bird


Support in Part - Support in part. Delete 'remnant', as this ignores the value of more recent vegetation.

8

Reject

Proposed amendments go beyond what was in the PDP as notified and Objectives 2.2 and 2.9 already adequately address areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna through the UTV.

No

UTV 33.3

Johanne McCormish


Seek Amendment - In inserted text - delete "remnant", add "and regenerating or replanted vegetation"

8

Reject

Proposed amendments go beyond what was in the PDP as notified and Objectives 2.2 and 2.9 already adequately address areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna through the UTV.

No


UTV 1.12

Robert Patterson


Support

8

Reject

Proposed amendments go beyond what was in the PDP as notified and Objectives 2.2 and 2.9 already adequately address areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna through the UTV

No

UTV 3.13

Tom Seaman


Support

8

Reject


No

UTV 4.13

Thomas Connor


Support

8

Reject


No

UTV 8.13

John Granville


Support

8

Reject


No

UTV 20.12

Murray Allerby


Oppose - The amendment is not necessary as it is covered by other legislation.

8

Accept


Yes

UTV 24.11

Forest and Bird


Support in Part - Support the reference to NZCPS, but could be more explicit e.g. policy 11 NSCPS refers to. Review all policies in Plan to ensure that policy 11 NZCPS is being given effect to. Currently they do not achieve this.

8

Reject


No


Sub. No.

Submitter

Topic

Decision Sought





Chapter 3 Ecology and Biodiversity Related Provisions - General

25.1

Sara Velasquez

General – Chapter 3 Natural Environment

Support the protection of waterways and eels

9

Accept in Part

This is more of a regional council function under section 30 of the RMA. However, objective 2.2 addresses the health of aquatic ecosystems and the mauri of waterbodies. There are also rules seeking to protect waterbodies.

No

FS193

Support

9

Accept in Part

As Above

No

30.2

Paul and Eppie Murton


Support the conservation principles of the Council but not in the arbitrary way in which they are applied.

9

Accept in Part

Provisions relating to the protection of indigenous vegetation should be retained however, amendments to rules are recommended to make the provisions relating to ecological sites more workable for landowners.

No

FS9, FS10, FS142

Support

9

Accept in Part

As Above

No

30.4

Paul and Eppie Murton


Do not add further restrictions on landowners until the Council resolves weed species problem on Council esplanade reserves.

9

Accept in Part

Recommendations as a result of other specific submissions seek to acknowledge and enable pest management and weed control and trimming and modification of indigenous vegetation rules. Concerns regarding weed issues on Council reserves are a Long Term Plan or Annual Plan matter rather than something that can be resolved through a district plan.

Yes

FS9, FS10, FS43, FS142

Support

9

Accept in Part

As Above

No

81.4

Pataka Moore


Support the listing and protection of biodiverse areas and the listing of significant native vegetation (in particular trees).

9

Accept in Part

Amendments are recommended to the Plan as a result of other submissions but provisions protecting significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna are recommended to be retained.

No

138

Bride Coe


Oppose the provisions in chapter 3 as many are unworkable and almost impossible to enforce.

9

Accept in Part

Provisions relating to the protection of indigenous vegetation should be retained however, amendments to rules are recommended to make the provisions relating to ecological sites more workable for landowners.

Yes

FS229

Support

9

Accept in Part

As Above

No

145.2(2)

Ian Corder


Support the extent to which the biodiversity and the natural environment have been considered in the District Plan specifically:

By encouraging the setting aside of suitable areas of land in new subdivisions (Objective 2.18, Policy 3.1 - Ecosystem services, Policy 3.3 - Protection, Policy 8.13 - Indigenous biodiversity).

9

Accept in Part

Amendments are recommended to the Plan as a result of other submissions but provisions protecting significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna are recommended to be retained.

Yes

414.1

David Moore

General

Support continued biodiversity enhancement program especially riparian planting.

6

N/A

Requirements for restoration and enhancement have been withdrawn from the PDP.

No

511.4

Mari Housiaux


Amend provisions relating to excavation/earthmoving of remaining coastal dunes and identified wetland, buffer areas, peatland remaining from extant wetland and areas of indigenous vegetation to make these activities prohibited.

9

Reject

No prohibited activities are recommended. Adequate protection will be provided to ecological sites and in particular Te Hapua wetlands ecological sites K055 – K057.

No

FS197

Support

9

Reject

As above

No

133.1 & 2

Jan Nisbet

General– Chapter 3 Natural Environment

Seek amendment so there is a way that neighbours can be assured that trees cannot takeaway sunshine as they grow. Amend so that landowners should have to trim or remove trees that limit sunshine on adjoining properties similar to the sunshine requirements relating to new buildings. Also amend subdivision rules to govern the types of trees that can be planted.

9

Reject

No changes are recommended as the ‘Property Law Act 2007’ provides the framework to resolve issues from neighbouring trees.

No

FS48

Oppose

9

Accept

As above

No

UTV 1.1

Robert Patterson

UTV General

Oppose - Seeks that the trimming of trees in schedule 3.2A can be done by home owners

9

Accept

Recommend removal of requirement for arborist to trim trees in Schedule 3.2A if this is carried out in accordance with standards, except for notable trees.

Yes.

UTV 2.1

Anthony and Janet Jack

UTV General

Seek Amendment - Notable Trees T55 is dead and landowner seeks removal from Schedule 10: Notable Trees.

9

Reject

Removal of tree T55 is not within scope of the UTV. However, this is recommended for removal in the Chapter 10: Historic Heritage Report.

No

UTV 3.1

Tom Seaman

UTV General

Support - Support the proposed changes as they limit KCDC's ability to be involved in day-to-day decisions about private property except for trees that are protected under Schedule 3.2A. Concerned about the requirement for an arborist to trim trees, particularly that prices for trimming may increase or clients may need to wait 'months' to get the work done, even if there is an urgent need because of broken tree/limb or other dangerous condition.

9

Accept

Recommended amendments provide more manageable and balanced rules and are the most efficient and effective way to achieve objectives. Also recommend removal of requirement for arborist to trim some protected trees if this is carried out in accordance with standards.

Yes

UTV 4.1

Thomas Connor

UTV General

Seek Amendment - Lists of Protected Tree`s and Notable Tree`s should be removed and included in the Variation. As the proposed changes adequately control what can and cannot be done to trees of their age and size.

The UTV discriminates some property owners.

Council should not have any control over trees on private property as they are not the property owners. KCDC should concentrate on reserves, public parks and our national treasure (Kapiti Island) and let all property owners have full discretion and control over their trees.

9

Reject

Removal of Schedule 10.1 is not within scope of the UTV. It is also appropriate to include the list of schedules to which Information Requirements for Land Use Consent apply. There were no submissions seeking this in relation to Chapter 10.

Recommended amendments provide more manageable and balanced rules and are the most efficient and effective way to achieve objectives.

No

UTV 5.1

Dayle and Neil Rawstorn

UTV General

Seek Amendment

9

Accept in Part


Yes

UTV 6.1

Rachael Palmer

UTV General

The Totaras on the submitter’s property are an asset. The tree that is listed in the plan is hardy and very attractive. Other urban dwellers should plant native trees or make their gardens friendly to native flora.

9

Accept

Agree that trees are an asset and should be protected where practicable.

No

UTV 7.1

Andra and Tony Davies

UTV General

Seek Amendment - The proposed variation is a responsible approach to retaining specific native flora. There is still uncertainty in the rules and they need to be clearer. Unsure whether or not a cabbage tree on their property is protected or not.

If KCDC wants to protect private trees it should take responsibility for looking after the welfare of the trees.

9

Accept in Part

Clarity does need to be provided in some cases including the definition of the urban environment. There is also a zero resource consent fee for trimming of some protected trees and we recommend amendments to trimming and modification provisions.

Yes

UTV 8.1

John Granville

UTV General

Support - Support the amendment as it reduces the number of protected trees and allows tree people to plant, maintain and when necessary trim or remove their trees on their property. Happy that the almost all private trees remain under the control of the property owners.

9

Accept


No

UTV 9.1

Janet MacDonald

UTV General

Support - The plan change is more sensible than the previous rules. The rules are more manageable for council and will not unnecessarily waste ratepayer dollars.

The proposal gives residents good control of their gardens. The new rules will hopefully support owners in having attractive and well planned gardens.

9

Accept


No

UTV 11.1

Angela Cooper

UTV General

Seek Amendment - KCDC is handling indigenous tree protection in an overly legislated and controlled manner. If KCDC are concerned about the trees they should look after them and organise and pay for any work required. KCDC should work with landowners by offering assistance, not by making a lot of rules.

9

Reject


No

UTV 12.1

Ferdinand Kneepkens

UTV General

Oppose - The plan creates resentment against some trees. They have managed their trees and plants for over 40 years without rules or this change. Whole heartedly objects the change. This change doesn't take into account or consider basic rights of property owners.

9

Reject


No

UTV 13.1

Mark and Eva Stevenson

UTV General

Oppose - Oppose the inclusion of tree 8805 in Schedule 3.2A. Including this tree is contrary to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA as it will unreasonably constrain the development of the section for no environmental benefit. The section cannot be developed without removing the tree. Listing the tree has more costs than benefits. There are no environmental benefits as the tree has limited ecological value. The tree has no naturally occurred but has been planted. Council should consider how protecting planted trees without landowner consent, will discourage tree planting. Scheduling tree 8805 will have a cost to the owners. Even though there will be no Council fee for an application for removal, there are still costs. The owners would need to demonstrate how the tree prevents development of the section and pay for an arborist's report. The status of the removal of the tree may change the activity status of the entire development.

9

Accept in Part

Trees should not be removed from schedules and modification should not be a controlled for the purpose of enabling development. The Council is required to give effect to sections 5 and 6 of the RMA. However, we agree that tree 8805 on Schedule 3.2A is listed inaccurately, as the site the tree is located on is not an urban environment allotment, but note that this does automatically mean that the tree could be modified without a resource consent.

Yes

UTV 14.1

Lauren Murray

UTV General

Empathises with the proposal. Concerned with the listing of the tree on their property. Tree is so large that is hangs over the boundary and takes up a lot of space. Potential drainage problems caused by the tree for the owners and their neighbours are the main concern. Lack of sunlight on the property, which could lead to dampness and create more maintenance for the entire property, is also a concern. Designing a house on the site would be restricted by the tree being listed possibly preventing a two-storeyed dwelling. The tree could also decrease natural light (essential for good health), block views and stop the house being what the owners envisage. Would like to have the tree trimmed to a more manageable size and an investigation into its roots. If the roots are a problem, then the tree may need to be removed. Removal would be a last resort.

9

Reject

We do not agree that rules relating to modification should be permitted or a controlled activity for the purpose of development of the site.

No

UTV 15.1

Chris Dentice

UTV General

Support - Some protected trees are not legitimately protected.

T106 and T120 are on the submitter’s property. T106 is a Puriri and not indigenous. T120 is a Karaka which a tree surgeon says is in poor shape because of past trimming and rot. Neither T106 nor T120 is suitable for an urban yard due to shading and created debris. Review the listing of T106 or T120 and any other questionable designations.

If protection remains, the costs of normal trimming should be met by the community (Ratepayers) not property owners.

9

Reject

Removal of trees from Schedule 10.1 is not within scope of the UTV. Unless submissions have been made on Chapter 10: Historic Heritage this would have to form part of a Schedule 1 process.

No

UTV 16.1

Laura Lincoln

UTV General

Seek Amendment - There is a discrepancy between the description of the intent of the variation on the KCDC website, and what the variation contains. Examples of information on the website were given which talk about the variation relating to scheduled trees. The rules actually apply to all ‘indigenous vegetation’ (defined much more broadly than only trees).

Concerned that land owners have been misled by the notification information, particularly owners with scheduled ecological sites. This should be remedied in the interests of fairness and sound resource management practice so that the variation applies in the way the public thought it would.

The current provisions for modification, felling and removal of trees on ecological sites within urban areas (especially those zoned residential) are too restrictive, and potentially deprive owners of the right to reasonably use their land.

Modification, felling, and removal of indigenous vegetation on ecological sites in Schedule 3.1 in urban areas, where either there are no identified trees on the site or where the proposal does not remove any identified tree, should be a permitted activity or at worst a controlled activity where the modification, felling or removal is for the purpose of constructing a building platform and reasonable curtilage within the site, and where there are no other areas on the site where these activities can locate.

Support no application fee for controlled activity resource consents in relation to the modification of trees in urban areas. If the relief that sought above regarding a permitted or controlled activity rule is not granted, KCDC should also remit application fees for consents required as a result of the rules in Variation No. 1.

The relief sought may extend to consequential amendments to the objectives, policies and other provisions of Variation No. 1 and the Proposed Plan to give effect to the relief sought. Seeks amendments to all provisions in line with this.

9

Accept in Part

Recommended amendments address inconsistencies between the notified PDP and UTV and provide more manageable and balanced rules and are the most efficient and effective way to achieve objectives. The rules as notified in the UTV rules are less restrictive than the rules notified in the PDP and we note that there is a $0 resource consent fee for the trimming of some protected trees.

We do not consider that the modification of trees should be a permitted activity for the purposes of allowing development.

Yes

UTV 17.1

Errolyn Jones

UTV General

Oppose - Wants blanket protections to continue to apply. The proposed variation will not protect biodiversity and ecosystems. KCDC should protect the greater good by encouraging the protection of trees, not enable their removal. Trees add beauty, improve air quality, mute sound, encourage wildlife, support bees, soften the harsh lines of urban development and add to the overall quality of life for all. There are two totara, a kauri, a rimu and a nursery stand of cabbage trees on the submitter’s site. These trees have taken years to grow to their current size; they were protected in the District Plan, but will not be under the variation.

9

Reject

UTV gives effect to sections 76 4A and 4B of the RMA by listing trees proposed to be protected and these lists provide a balance between protection and flexibility for landowners.

No

UTV 18.1

Murray Cooper

UTV General

Oppose - The problem being solved by the council with this variation is not a problem. KCDC is using the variation to keep staff numbers high.

Submitter has looked after the 5 trees on site for 35 years and is their custodian, not council. If council wants to claim the trees they should pay for the water used to water them since water metering was introduced and provide a qualified arborist.

Would like information about what KCDC has done for the 3 acres of native bush behind his property.

9

Accept in Part

Recommended amendments provide more manageable and balanced rules and are the most efficient and effective way to achieve objectives. Information was also provided to the submitter on the work recently undertaken by Council in respect of the native bush.

No

UTV 19.1

Janice Wakeman

UTV General

Seek Amendment - No consultation was undertaken with the submitter before the September letter. Contrary to Council information that states that a ‘programme of consultation has been undertaken’ and ‘letters were sent to all owners of properties containing trees identified by the 2010 tree survey that fall within the scope of Schedules 3.1 and 3.2’. The description of trees on the site is inaccurate and out of date. The owner has a Topographical Survey of the ecological site, this lists 27 trees. Copies of the tree schedule were attached. The survey came at significant cost to the owner. There are not Kohekohe or Karamu listed in the survey schedule. The trees listed are planted and non-indigenous camellia and grapefruit. Far more than two thirds of the section is in the ecological site, with a portion of the house area not in the zone. The owner has to drive through the site to get to the garage which is partially within the ecological site. If trees block the access to the site the owner should be able to trim or remove them immediately. If the rules come into force the owner could be in a situation where she could not access her house. Trees are living organisms that need to be cared for this includes trimming and in some cases felling. The owner pay rates on land that cannot be used, landscaped, planted, trimmed, or cared for without cost and expense to provide supporting evidence if the variation continues as notified. In favour of protecting our habitat but not at the detriment of normal everyday living, unexpected emergencies and the health and wellbeing of the occupants of the house.

There is a proposal to change the area of the ecological site on this property, which is sensible and correctly protect the trees in the front corner of the property. This area contains the oldest trees that were part of the original forest. These trees should be protected. Seeks that the UTV is amended such that the proposed list of trees for 39 Karu Crescent in the Urban Tree Variation to include planted or non-indigenous trees.

9

Accept in Part

6000 letters were sent to landowners in advance of the UTV being notified and UTV notified in accordance with clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Amendment proposed to extent of the ecological Site on submitters property and recommended amendments to chapter 3 rules to make trimming and modification rules more enabling.

No

UTV 20.1

Murray Allerby

UTV General

Oppose - Object to the variation as it does not give a sustainable solution to the problem. It puts private property rights in the control of KCDC, while leaving the costs (trimming of trees, preparation of consents, reports and works to be carried out) in the hands of the landowner. The variation offers no financial mitigation for the owners. KCDC cannot handle their own ecological sites and waterways, so now they are taking privately owned natural vegetation to compensate for their lack of management. KCDC have failed to manage or eradicate pests in the district and should address this problem to conserve native bush rather than taking away owners’ rights. Many owners have done a wonderful job of looking after their trees for a long time and have planted indigenous trees. Education is the best way to preserve our ecological systems. Education and pest control are ignored by this variation.

If KCDC and/or the public want to dictate what happens with trees and/or vegetation on private property they should pay for that right. Especially in relation to costs created by the variation (costs of trimming of trees, maintenance, tending to including watering and feeding, reports required and the rates of the associated land area). The schedules do not properly identify sites/trees in quantum or on individual sites and often have do not have the correct status of the vegetation. This variation should be dropped. In its place KCDC should have a comprehensive programme of education and pest control. They should work with owners on a case by case basis where a problem is perceived. KCDC would have more success with a solution negotiated with individual owners. The variation may lead to a reduction the planting of vegetation or people letting vegetation establish.

9

Accept in Part

Recommend removal of requirement for arborist to trim trees in Schedule 3.2A, (if this is carried out in accordance with standards) and we recommend amendments to trimming and modification rules.

Yes

UTV 22.1


UTV General

Support - Generally support the move to a less restrictive approach but request changes to specific amendments.

Documents

· Web viewSupport the definition of Modification and amend by inserting a comma after the word “vegetation” 7 Accept in Part The definition as amended by the Urban Tree Variation