QDD DLNU@K HNBDR@M BGNNK ENQ HQKR KXCD SQDDS~ ORNL · 2017. 10. 12. · ¨ qdd dlnu@k~ hnbdr@m...

Assessment of Environmental Effects

Tree Removal

Diocesan School for Girls

Clyde Street, Epsom

Prepared for

Diocesan School for Girls

August 2017

© Civitas Ltd 2017 (unless otherwise agreed with the Client)

This report has been prepared for the purpose of applying for resource

consent for the work described in the report and on the basis of arborist,

landscape, health and safety and quantity surveying advice provided by

others. No responsibility is accepted for the use of any part of this report

for any other purpose or for the advice provided by others.

AEE – Tree Removal, Diocesan School for Girls, Epsom

Dio NorPi AEE 17-0817 17 August 2017

Page i

Table of Contents 1 Key Information .............................................................................................................. 1

2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2

3 Existing Environment ..................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Location ................................................................................................................................................ 3

3.2 Description of Site ............................................................................................................................ 4

3.3 Surrounding Area ............................................................................................................................. 6

3.4 Unitary Plan Notations ................................................................................................................... 7

3.5 Other Notations ................................................................................................................................ 9

4 Proposed Tree Removal ............................................................................................... 10

4.1 The Trees Proposed for Removal .............................................................................................10

4.2 Activity Around the Trees ............................................................................................................12

4.3 History of Branch Failure .............................................................................................................13

4.4 Risk Management Options .........................................................................................................25

4.5 Summary of Options to Manage Risk ....................................................................................27

4.6 Health and Safety Reviews..........................................................................................................28

4.7 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment ...........................................................................32

4.8 The School’s Decision ...................................................................................................................32

4.9 Matters Requiring Consent ........................................................................................................34

5 Statutory Considerations ............................................................................................. 35

5.1 Resource Management Act ........................................................................................................35

5.2 Health and Safety at Work Act ..................................................................................................36

5.3 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act ....................................................................................................37

6 Purpose and Principles of the RMA ............................................................................ 39

6.1 Case Law on Application of Part 2 ...........................................................................................39

6.2 Assessment under Part 2 .............................................................................................................39

7 Effects on the Environment ......................................................................................... 41

7.1 Visual Amenity Effects ..................................................................................................................41

7.2 Shading Effects ................................................................................................................................46

7.3 Ecological Effects ............................................................................................................................46



Page ii

7.4 Natural Hazard Effects ..................................................................................................................47

7.5 Cumulative Effects ..........................................................................................................................47

8 Policy Framework ......................................................................................................... 48

8.1 National Policy Statements ........................................................................................................48

8.2 National Environmental Standards ..........................................................................................48

8.3 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) ............................................................................48

9 Other Matters ............................................................................................................... 58

9.1 Health and Safety at Work Act ..................................................................................................58

9.2 Precedent Effect ..............................................................................................................................60

10 Consultation .................................................................................................................. 61

10.1 Consultation with Council Officers ..........................................................................................61

10.2 Consultation with Neighbours ..................................................................................................62

10.3 Consultation with Local Representatives ..............................................................................62

10.4 Consultation with Other Parties ...............................................................................................63

11 Conditions of Consent.................................................................................................. 64

12 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 65

12.1 Part 2 ...................................................................................................................................................65

12.2 Unitary Plan ......................................................................................................................................65

12.3 Effects on the Environment ........................................................................................................67

12.4 Health and Safety ...........................................................................................................................67

12.5 Overall Conclusion .........................................................................................................................68

Appendices Appendix 1 - Application Form

Appendix 2 - Certificate of Title

Appendix 3 - Unitary Plan Notable Tree Schedule

Appendix 4 - Auckland Council Tree Evaluation 1993



Page iii

Appendix 5 - Peers Brown Miller Tree Evaluation 2014

Appendix 6 - Specimen Tree Company, Arboricultural Assessment, August 2013

Appendix 7 - Peers Brown Miller, Assessment of Tree Management Regime, April 2014

Appendix 8 - Specimen Tree Company, Arboricultural Assessment, February 2016

Appendix 9 - Arbor Connect, Arboricultural Assessment, July 2016

Appendix 10 - Arbor Connect, Arborist Letter, February 2017

Appendix 11 - Arbor Connect, Arborist Letter, August 2017

Appendix 12 - Peers Brown Miller, Comments on Management Options, August 2017

Appendix 13 - Holmes Consulting, Calculations and Plans for Canopy

Appendix 14 - Maltby’s, Cost Estimates for Canopy

Appendix 15 - Workplace Assistance, Health and Safety Assessment, May 2016

Appendix 16 - Safety Associates, Health and Safety Assessment, August 2017

Appendix 17 - Recent Reported Examples of Tree Failure

Appendix 18 - Boffa Miskell, Landscape and Visual Amenity Assessment

Appendix 19a - Consultation Records – Council Pre-Application Meeting

Appendix 19b - Consultation Records – Letters to Neighbours

Appendix 19c - Consultation Records – Letters to Local Representatives

Appendix 19d - Consultation Records – Letters to Other Parties

Appendix 19e - Consultation Records – Responses



Page 1

1 Key Information

Address Clyde Street, Epsom (a.k.a. 44 Margot Street)

Legal Description Lot 1 DP 393716 NA 374931

Site Area 5.142 hectares

Owner Diocesan School for Girls

Occupier Diocesan School for Girls

Applicant Diocesan School for Girls

Plan Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016

Zoning Special Purpose - School

Overlays Natural Heritage: Notable Trees Overlay - 290, Norfolk Island Pine (2), South Queensland Kauri

Natural Heritage: Regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshafts And Height Sensitive Areas Overlay [rcp/dp] - W26, Mount Wellington, Viewshafts

Built Heritage and Character: Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place [rcp/dp] - 1726, School House

Built Heritage and Character: Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place [rcp/dp] - 1727, St Barnabas's Chapel

Road Classification All adjoining roads are “non-arterial” roads

Proposed Activity Removal of two notable Norfolk Island Pine trees

Consent Triggers District Plan Rule D13.4 (A7) – removal of notable trees –discretionary activity.

Other consents/permits that may be required under legislation

None



Page 2

2 Introduction This report is submitted as part of the application by Diocesan School for Girls (“School”) for

land use consent from Auckland Council (“Council”) for the removal of two Norfolk Island Pine

trees at the School campus in Clyde Street, Epsom (“site”). A completed application form is

provided as Appendix 1. No other resource consents are required.

The purpose of this report is to provide sufficient information to enable a full understanding

of the proposal, the effects that the proposal may have on the environment and the policy

framework relevant to the proposal. The report also outlines the consultation undertaken for

the application.

In preparing this assessment, I have visited the site, reviewed the relevant planning documents

and relied on the specialist advice appended to this report.



Page 3

3 Existing Environment

3.1 Location

Diocesan School is an independent school for girls providing both primary and secondary

education from its campus in Clyde Street, Epsom1.

The main campus comprises 5.14 hectares bound by Clyde Street, Margot Street, Mount St

John Avenue and the Dilworth School Senior Campus, as shown in Figure 1 below.

The School and associated entities also own properties on the north side of Clyde Street

between Ngaire Avenue and Erin Street. These properties, used primarily for boarding and

tennis, are not affected by this application.

Figure 1 – Location of Site (Main Campus Outlined in Blue)

1 The School identifies its address as “Clyde Street” but the site is known as 44 Margot Street in the

Council system.



Page 4

3.2 Description of Site

The School’s main campus is intensively developed with a mixture of heritage buildings, more

contemporary buildings and playing surfaces, interspersed with landscaping, as shown in

Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph of Main Campus

The certificate of title for the main campus is provided in Appendix 2. There are several

interests on the title but none of these are significant to the proposal.



Page 5

The School has occupied its main campus for over 100 years and faces a constant challenge to

accommodate more students and improve its facilities within a tightly constrained site.

This challenge has been met to date through the redevelopment of substantial parts of the

main campus, including:

The redevelopment of the Junior School within the south-western part of the campus,

completed in 1997;

The construction of the Centennial Building (curved building) to the east of the Junior

School, completed in 2003;

The construction of the Common Rooms building to the east of the historic School

House, completed in 2006;

The construction of the Aquatic Centre, which replaced the school pool on the Margot

Street frontage, completed in 2009;

The construction of the underground carpark and overhead sports turf and tennis /

netball courts in the north-western part of the campus, completed in 2012; and

The construction of the Arts Centre to the east of the carpark / turf, stage 1 of which has

recently been completed, with stage 2 to follow when funds permit.

Despite the level of redevelopment, the campus retains significant areas of vegetation,

particularly around the edges of the site.

This vegetation includes three notable trees, being one South Queensland Kauri located along

the eastern edge of the campus, and two Norfolk Island Pine trees located within the southern

part of the site, as identified in Figure 3 overleaf.

These scheduled trees are subject to intensive management by the School’s arborists due to

branch failures over the last 15 years. All three trees are inspected on a six-monthly basis, and

after every storm event, and all three now have a bracing system installed to hold branches in

the canopy in the event they break. This bracing system has been applied to 480 branches

within the Norfolk Pines.

Each new development within the campus has seen the removal of some vegetation, and the

planting of new vegetation, generally resulting in an increase in the number of trees within the

campus. Overall, the School has removed 85 trees since 2006 and planted 107 replacement

trees.



Page 6

Figure 3 – Notable Tree Locations

3.3 Surrounding Area

The Diocesan main campus adjoins Dilworth School Senior Campus to the east.

The campus faces suburban residential development across Margot Street to the west and

across Mt St John Avenue to the south.

The campus faces more intensive residential development (a mix of flats, detached housing

and social housing) and the School’s own boarding houses across Clyde Street to the north.

The immediately surrounding area could be broadly characterised as comprising one to two

storey dwellings and units, with a mixed housing typology to the north, and a predominance

of villas and character buildings built in the 1900s to 1930s to the south. The area is reasonably

highly vegetated, particularly around the edges of the School and to the south, and has high

residential amenity values.

Scheduled South Queensland Kauri Scheduled

Norfolk Pines



Page 7

3.4 Unitary Plan Notations

3.4.1 School

The School is zoned Special Purpose – School under the Auckland Unitary Plan (“Unitary Plan”)

and is subject to the following overlays:

Natural Heritage: Notable Trees Overlay - 290, Norfolk Island Pine (2), South Queensland

Kauri

Natural Heritage: Regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshafts And Height Sensitive Areas

Overlay [rcp/dp] - W26, Mount Wellington, Viewshafts

Built Heritage and Character: Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place [rcp/dp] - 1726,

School House

Built Heritage and Character: Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place [rcp/dp] - 1727,

St Barnabas's Chapel

The School is not subject to any Unitary Plan “controls” or designations.

3.4.2 Surrounding Area

Most of the land on the western side of Margot Street is zoned Mixed Housing Urban, with

the land on the southwest corner of Margot and Clyde Streets zoned Mixed Use.

The residential land on the northern side of Clyde Street is zoned Mixed Housing Urban while

the School land on the north side is zoned Special Purpose – School.

The land to the south on Mt St John Avenue is zoned Single House. This area is also subject

to a Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential Isthmus C.

An extract from the Unitary Plan zoning map is provided as Figure 4 overleaf. The zoning

legend for Figure 4 is provided overleaf from the figure.



Page 8

Figure 4 – Unitary Plan Zoning (Site outlined in Blue)



Page 9

3.5 Other Notations

The Council’s Geomaps identifies a number of overland flowpaths crossing the site but these

are not of any significance to the current application. Similarly, part of the School House lawn

is identified as weak/filled ground, but this notation is not of any significance to the current

application.

St Barnabas’ Chapel (Selwyn Chapel) is listed as a Category 2 Historic Place by Heritage New

Zealand, but is well clear of the area affected by this application. Heritage New Zealand also

lists the Gazebo on the School House lawn, west of School House, as a Category 2 Historic

Place, but this is also clear of the area affected by this application.



Page 10

4 Proposed Tree Removal The School proposes to remove the two Norfolk Island Pine trees located between the Junior

School turf and the Centennial Building.

To mitigate the removal of those trees, the School proposes to plant a large grade pohutukawa

in place of the two pines.

4.1 The Trees Proposed for Removal

The two trees proposed for removal can be seen in Figure 5 overleaf.

The trees are scheduled as notable trees (ID290) in Schedule 10 of the Unitary Plan. The

relevant page from Schedule 10 is provided as Appendix 3.

The scheduling of the trees was carried over from the tree schedule in the Auckland Operative

District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1993 (“District Plan”).

The School initially opposed the proposal to schedule the trees in the Unitary Plan due to the

risks the trees posed to staff, students and visitors and the ongoing costs of managing those

risks, but did not pursue its submission to the hearing on that topic (in July 2015).

I was advised at the time of Unitary Plan submissions that the last Council evaluation of the

trees was undertaken in 1993 (the trees were not assessed by Council’s arborists prior to

notification of the Proposed Unitary Plan). A copy of the Council’s 1993 evaluation is provided

as Appendix 4. Of most note, the trees were given a score of:

4 out of 5 for their size (“large”);

5 out of 5 for their age (“more than 100 years old”);

4 out of 5 for their visual contribution to the landscape (“skyline”);

5 out of 5 for their view audience (“visible from more than one trunk road”); and

4 out of 5 for their contribution to group character (“crucial to the character of the

group”).



Page 11

The trees scored a total of 43 out of 68 points which was sufficient to be scheduled in the

District Plan. The trees were scheduled in the District Plan principally for their visual amenity

value.2

Figure 5 – Norfolk Pine Trees Proposed for Removal

2 Operative Auckland District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1993, Appendix 2.



Page 12

The trees were assessed for the School in 2014 by Peers Brown Miller (“PBM”), against the

Proposed Unitary Plan criteria for scheduling of notable trees. The PBM assessment is provided

as Appendix 5. PBM gave the trees a total score of 32 out of 40 points, with maximum points

for “character or form” and “visual contribution”, and concluded that the trees were still worthy

of scheduling.

The School has no information regarding the provenance of the trees, however, as noted in

the Council’s 1993 evaluation, and the subsequent PBM evaluation, they are very likely to be

more than 100 years old.

The trees have been regularly assessed by the School’s arborists (The Specimen Tree Company

(“STC”) until closure of that company in 2016, now Arbor Connect) as part of the School’s

ongoing tree management programme.

The STC August 2013 report (refer Appendix 6) states that the trees are “mature” and that they

“are exhibiting good health and have good form”3. Subsequent advice from the arborists

confirms that is still the case.

The STC report identifies Tree 1 (the southernmost tree) as having a height of approximately

53.5m; a canopy spread of approximately 25m; and a girth at 1.4m of 5.9m. Tree 2 is identified

as having a height of approximately 43m; a canopy spread of approximately 22m; and a girth

at 1.4m of 5.75m. The trees are very close together and the branches of the trees intermingle.

The height of the trees means they are visible from a wide area.

4.2 Activity Around the Trees

The area around the two trees has been modified over the years as the School has

endeavoured to accommodate additional students.

Of note, the Junior School within the area to the west of the trees was redeveloped in 1996,

with construction of the Junior School turf and the southern wing of the new Junior School

building within the dripline of the trees.

In addition, the area to the east of the trees was redeveloped in 2005, with the construction of

the Centennial Building. STC advise in their August 2013 report that this required some minor

3 The Specimen Tree Company, Arboricultural Assessment, August 2013, section 3.



Page 13

tip pruning of the lower branches along the eastern side of Tree 2, where the building is closest

to the trees.4

Most of the land within the dripline of the trees is permanently fenced-off to prevent access

by staff and students, and planted. However, the trees overhang the Junior School turf by

approximately 5m and a playground to the north of the trees by approximately 3m, both of

which are in frequent use. In addition, there is an amenity area to the south of Tree 1 and a

path along the eastern side of the trees to allow pedestrians to move through the campus to

and from Mt St John Avenue. The areas of overhang have been temporarily fenced off, since

February 2016.

4.3 History of Branch Failure

The School has experienced four incidents of branch failure since February 2013 and several

incidents of large cones falling onto the Junior School building and turf. In total, 10 branches

have fallen during those four incidents. All branches have fallen from Tree 1.

4.3.1 Initial Branch Failures

The first two incidents happened in reasonably quick succession and resulted in the

commissioning of the previously mentioned report from STC outlining options for managing

the risk posed by the trees.

The first incident occurred on 15 February 2013 when a branch fell from Tree 1, landing on the

Junior School turf, adjacent to the trees. A photograph of the branch is provided as Figure 6.

STC’s report states that:

The fallen branch had a diameter of approx. 100mm.

The branch caused puncture marks in the Junior School turf, where it fell.

No structural defects were evident on the remnants of the fallen branch.

No signs of structural weakness were identified at the branch detachment point on the

tree.

4 Ibid, section 4.



Page 14

The weather was fine on this day, with “average” wind speeds recorded on the Grey Lynn

Auckland Weather site. 5

Figure 6 - Branch Failure February 2013

Both trees were climbed by STC following this incident, and all remaining branch attachment

points were inspected. No obvious signs of structural weakness were identified.6 The cause

5 Ibid, paras 4.10-4.12.

6 Ibid, para 4.12.



Page 15

of the failure was not identified and no further actions were recommended by STC at that

stage.

Despite that inspection, and the advice that no immediate action was required, a second

incident occurred on 17 May 2013 when a branch fell from the same tree, landing in a similar

location. A photograph of that branch is provided as Figure 7. The STC report states that:

The second fallen branch also had a diameter of approx. 100mm.

No structural defects were evident on the remnants of the fallen branch.

No signs of structural weakness were identified at the branch detachment point on the

tree.

The weather on this day was wet and windy, with NNE gusts in excess of 40kph. STC

note that this may have been a contributory factor. 7

Figure 7 - Remnants of Branch that Fell in May 2013

7 Ibid, paras 4.13-4.15.



Page 16

The trees were again climbed and inspected. There was no visible change evident in the

remaining branch attachment points.8

4.3.2 Initial Risk Management Measures Taken

The STC report following the second incident identified three options for the School to manage

the risks posed by the trees, as follows:

Option 1

Erection of a suitable fence around the trees to reduce access to the space under the

trees;

Tip pruning to clear the roof of the Junior School building and reduce the extent to

which the branches overhang the Junior School turf and playground;

Installation of a branch strapping system to tie the branches overhanging the Junior

School playground and turf to the trunks of the trees, to prevent any future branch

detachment falling through the canopy to the ground.

Option 2

Significant tree pruning to eliminate the risk of branches falling onto the Junior School

playground and turf.

Option 3

Tree removal.

The School considered the advice received from STC and elected to give effect to Option 1.

The pruning and fencing works recommended under that option were completed in October

2013 and the branch strapping system was installed during November 2013. Figure 8 shows

the branch strapping in part of the tree.

8 Ibid, para 4.15.



Page 17

Figure 8 - Existing Branch Strapping

Despite the measures implemented by the School, a number of parents, staff and board

members remained concerned about the risks posed by the trees (concerns that extended to

other trees within the campus as well). Consequently, the School engaged PBM to undertake

an independent peer review of the School’s ongoing tree monitoring and management

regime. The primary purpose of that review was to see if there was anything more the School

could reasonably do to minimise the risks posed by the trees within the campus. A copy of

PBM’s report is provided as Appendix 7.

As part of that review, PBM studied STC’s tree surveys and monitoring reports and an outline

of STC’s methodology for managing risk. PBM also inspected every tree on the campus. The

author of the PBM report notes that he was unable to identify a single tree within the campus

that could be justifiably classed as presenting an unacceptable risk of harm or property

damage. In addition, the report notes that the measures taken to minimise the risk of branch

and limb failures on the three scheduled trees were “extraordinary”. The author of the PBM

report concluded by stating that “the level of tree care and tree risk management carried out



Page 18

by The Specimen Tree Company is the most effective and conscientious I have seen in my

arboricultural career”.9

4.3.3 Additional Branch Failures

Despite the “extraordinary” measures taken by the School to manage the risks posed by the

two Norfolk Island Pine trees, the School’s ongoing management regime and the independent

peer review undertaken by PBM, additional branches (and cones) fell from the trees over the

2015/2016 Christmas holidays10 and again in February 2016. These incidents resulted in the

commissioning of a further report from STC outlining options for managing the risks posed by

the trees.11 That report is provided as Appendix 8.

The third incident occurred sometime between late December and mid-January, resulting in

five branches falling within the fenced area and two branches falling onto the footpath that

runs between the trees and the Centennial building. A photograph of the branches on the

eastern side of the trees is provided as Figure 9. The STC report states that:

All of the branches detached from Tree 1.

The diameters of the fallen branches ranged from 100-150mm.

The fallen branches were inspected and no structural defects that could have caused the

failures were identified.

Both of the trees had more than the usual amount of semi-mature cones especially in

the top half of the canopies.

Between 1 January and 25 January, the Grey Lynn, Auckland Weather site recorded nine

days with gusts of wind between 40.5 and 68.5 KPH.12

9 PBM, Assessment of Tree Management Regime for Diocesan School for Girls, 28 April 2014.

10 The exact date is not known as the School was closed over that period.

11 STC, Arboricultural Assessment, February 2016.

12 Ibid, paras 2.2-2.6.



Page 19

STC concluded that strong winds combined with the additional weight of the cones probably

caused the topmost branch to fail, which then landed on the branch below causing it to fail,

resulting in a domino effect through the tree.13

Figure 9 - Debris from January 2016

A further, fourth incident occurred on 4 February 2016 when a branch fell onto the steps

around the edge of the Junior School turf. A photograph of this branch is provided as Figure

10 overleaf. The STC report states that:

The branch measured 65mm diameter.

A second branch of similar diameter was also located hanging in the canopy of the tree.

Both branches originated on the south-eastern side of Tree 1. The branch that landed

on the edge of the turf would have travelled in a clockwise direction as it fell (i.e.

bouncing off other branches on the way down).

13 Ibid, para 2.7.



Page 20

There were no signs of structural defects in the branches.

Again, a combination of wind gusts and the additional weight of the cones was considered the

likely cause of the branch failures.14

Figure 10 - Branch and Debris from February 2016

In addition to the fallen branches discussed above, several intact cones were found scattered

around the trees after these two incidents. Photographs of some of these cones are provided

as Figures 11 and 12. As Figure 12 shows, the cones that form in these trees are substantial.

14 Ibid, para 2.10.



Page 21

Figure 11 – Cones and Debris from Trees



Page 22

Figure 12 - Cone from Trees

The STC report also included an assessment of the risk of harm from further branch failures

using the Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (“QTRA”) model, which STC advised is an accepted

model for assessing these types of risk. STC calculated a risk of harm within the next 12 months

of 1 in 1 million which, under the QTRA model, is considered to be “broadly acceptable”, with

“no action currently required”.



Page 23

Arbor Connect has subsequently reviewed this QTRA assessment and advised that insufficient

weight was given to the potential for an unstrapped branch to move around the canopy as it

falls and end up on the turf or playground (the strapped side of the tree). In addition,

insufficient weight was given to the possibility of one of the strapped branches breaking

beyond the point of connection to the trunk (e.g. as a result of a higher branch falling on it),

where it is strapped.

Arbor Connect has advised that the probability of failure for Tree 1 should have been assessed

in the 1/1000 to 1/10,000 range, resulting in a risk of harm of 1 in 500,000.15 Under the QTRA

system, this level of risk is “tolerable” if further risk reduction would involve a disproportionate

financial or environmental cost.16 This reassessment is provided in the Arbor Connect letter in

Appendix 11.

4.3.4 Damage to Roof of Junior School Building

In addition to debris falling on the turf, playground and path to the east of the trees, the School

has advised that it has replaced 22 tiles on the roof of the Junior School building over the last

three years following breakages caused by falling debris. Some of the new tiles can be seen

in Figures 13 and 14 overleaf.

15 Arbor Connect, QTRA Reassessment, August 2017, paras 4 and 5.

16 QTRA Practice Note, Version 5.2.2 (NZ), p2.



Page 24

Figure 13 - Replacement Tiles on Roof of Junior School Building

Figure 14 - Replacement Tiles on Roof of Junior School Building



Page 25

4.3.5 Further Risk Management Measures Taken

Following the above incidents, and despite the 2016 QTRA assessment which suggested the

risk of harm from the trees was very low, the School:

Fenced off the southern part of the Junior School playground, the eastern part of the

Junior School turf and the path to the east of the trees.

Instructed STC to remove the cones from the trees to reduce the end weight on the

branches and lessen the likelihood of further branch failures.

Sought further advice from STC regarding additional measures that could be taken to

allow the School to meet its duty of care for the safety of staff, students and visitors to

the School. This advice is discussed below.

4.4 Risk Management Options

As noted in section 4.3.5 above, the School sought further advice from STC regarding

additional measures that could be taken to mitigate the risks posed by the trees and allow

restoration of the use of the full playground and turf. That instruction led to the preparation

of a report by Arbor Connect (the consulting successor to STC, following the closure of STC

shortly after the School’s instruction).17 A copy of the Arbor Connect report is provided as

Appendix 9. The report identifies the following further options for managing the risks posed

by the trees:

Installation of additional strapping within the canopies of the trees, so that all primary

branches are strapped (at present, 480 primary branches on the northern and western

sides of the trees, overhanging the playground and turf, are strapped – the option

identified by Arbor Connect was to strap an additional 780 primary branches, resulting

in a total of 1,260 branches being strapped).

Regular monitoring of the flowers and cones in the trees, and removal of cones.

Additional pruning of branches overhanging the playground and turf.

Removing Tree 1, being the tree that has dropped all the branches to date.

17 Arbor Connect, Arboricultural Assessment, July 2016.



Page 26

Construction of a canopy around the trees to protect the people below.

The Arbor Connect report provides approximate costings for the first three of the options

identified above, however, those costings have since been updated, initially to ensure that the

monitoring of the trees and strapping would be robust, and subsequently in response to

feedback from Council regarding the efficacy of the strapping. The latter feedback is discussed

in section 10 of this AEE. Arbor Connect’s final estimates for these options are provided in

Appendix 11 and supersede those included in the report and letter provided in Appendices 9

and 10 respectively. These costs are summarised and discussed in section 4.5 below.

Arbor Connect recommended strapping the remaining 780 primary branches, more regular

inspection of the strapping and trees, and more regular de-coning. Arbor Connect did not see

further pruning as a viable solution, noting that it would not be possible to reduce the branches

to the extent necessary to guarantee that they would not fall beyond the existing (permanent)

fence without seriously affecting the trees’ visual amenity and health, and that any significant

pruning would give the trees an unnatural look.18 In addition, Arbor Connect was not

supportive of removing Tree 1 (leaving Tree 2), as the removal of the Tree 1 would leave the

remaining tree exposed to wind forces that it has not adapted to, increasing the risk of branch

failure for the remaining tree.19 Similarly, while noting the option of constructing a canopy,

Arbor Connect considered the combination of additional strapping and more regular

inspection and de-coning would be adequate (i.e. that a canopy would not be required if these

measures were put in place).

Following receipt of the Arbor Connect report, the School engaged PBM to peer review the

recommended management options. PBM’s initial review considered the costs of the Arbor

Connect recommendations to be excessive, and recommended that the School explore an

alternative approach, comprising:

Selective pruning of branches over the turf and playground.

Construction of a canopy around the trees to protect people below the trees.

PBM advised that, if a canopy was constructed, consideration could be given to removing the

existing strapping. PBM considered that a canopy might be more cost-effective over the long

18 Ibid, paras 4.4-4.6.

19 Ibid, paras 5.1-5.3.



Page 27

term as it would avoid the cost of the additional strapping and replacing that strapping every

three years.

Following the PBM advice, the School engaged Holmes Consulting to prepare plans for a

canopy. The School then engaged Maltby’s to advise on the cost of constructing that canopy.

The plans for the canopy are provided in Appendix 13. The Maltby’s estimates are provided in

Appendix 14.

The canopy plans and estimates address two options: a canopy fully encircling the trees so

that all existing facilities within the dripline of the trees can be used again; and a partial canopy

protecting the playground, turf and corner of the Junior School building, with no protection to

the amenity area to the south of the trees or the path along the eastern edge of the trees.

Under the partial canopy option, the amenity area and path would need to be permanently

fenced off to prevent access.

PBM have since reviewed the Maltby’s estimates (summarised below) and advised that they

consider the costs of both canopy options be excessive relative to the benefits of the trees

(refer Appendix 12).

4.5 Summary of Options to Manage Risk

The risk management options identified by the School’s arborists, and the costs associated

with those options, can be summarised as follows:

Table 1 – Arbor Connect Recommendations

Recommendation One-off Cost Cost over 30 years

Replace existing strapping with strapping for all primary branches (one strap at each end)

$96,000 $96,000

Replace strapping every three years

$96,000 $960,000

Cone removal every two years

$3,185 $47,775



Page 28


Inspection and monitoring every six months

$6,300 $378,000

Inspection after storms $1,210 $36,300

Total Cost $1,518,075

Table 2 – Peers Brown Miller Alternative


Option 1 – Full Canopy

Construction of canopy $1,280,000 $1,280,000

Pruning to reduce overhang $12,960 $12,960

Maintenance of canopy Not quantified Not quantified

Total Cost $1,292,960

Option 2 – Partial Canopy

Construction of canopy $727,000 $727,000

Pruning to reduce overhang $12,960 $12,960

Maintenance of canopy Not quantified Not quantified

Fencing to path and amenity area

Not quantified Not quantified

Total Cost $739,960

I note that all the above costs are priced at 2017 rates. No allowance has been made for

inflation. These costs also exclude GST.

4.6 Health and Safety Reviews

In March 2016, the School engaged Workplace Assistance NZ, a health and safety consultancy,

to assess the risks posed by the trees and advise the School on its responsibilities under the



Page 29

new Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (“Health and Safety Act”). A copy of that advice is

provided as Appendix 15.

Workplace Assistance assessed the risks posed by the trees using two models: a risk matrix

that the author advised originates from the AS/NZ Standard on Risk Management; and the

QTRA model used earlier by STC.20 The author’s conclusion from both models was that further

mitigation was required.

The School subsequently engaged a second health and safety consultancy, Safety Associates,

to review the options identified by the arborists, and peer review the advice from Workplace

Assistance. The Safety Associates review is provided as Appendix 16. Although the two health

and safety consultancies have reached similar conclusions, it is my opinion that the Safety

Associates review is more rigorous than the Workplace Assistance report so I have given more

weight to this report in assessing the proposal.

4.6.1 Duties under the Health and Safety Act

Section 36 of the Health and Safety Act imposes a “primary duty of care” on the School to

“ensure, so far as reasonably practicable” the health and safety of staff, students and visitors,

and any persons carrying out work “influenced or directed” by the School (hence the School’s

duty of care extends to any persons who might be engaged to implement the risk mitigation

options identified by the School’s arborists (such as installation of additional strapping and

construction of a canopy)).

In giving effect to its primary duty of care, section 30 imposes a duty on the School to

eliminate the risks posed by the trees as far as is reasonably practicable. If (and only if) the

School cannot eliminate those risks in a reasonably practicable way, the Act requires the School

to minimise those risks as far as is reasonably practicable.21

The Health and Safety Act also imposes a duty on the School to notify Worksafe NZ of any

“notifiable incidents” that occur at the School. I am advised that a further branch failure may

be a 'notifiable incident' under section 24(1)(f) of the Act, which the School would be required

20 The author noted that he did not have prior experience with the QTRA model, or access to the software licensed to QTRA practitioners, but was able to calculate the risk of harm by reference to the QTRA Practice Note, available from the QTRA website.

21 Safety Associates, Peer Review, August 2017, paras 8-10. Also, section 30 of the Health and Safety Act.



Page 30

to report to WorkSafe. This illustrates the seriousness with which the legislation treats

incidents of this nature.

4.6.2 Assessment of Current Situation

The Safety Associates report uses two models to assess the risk of harm from the trees:

The QTRA model (used by STC, Arbor Connect and Workplace Assistance), which the

author of the report notes is “not a common model … used for dealing with health and

safety risk under the Safety Act”22; and

A “semi-quantitative three way variable risk model” which the author advises is

“consistent with current guidance from Worksafe New Zealand on ways to assess work

risks and is used by the Accident Compensation Corporation”.23

The Safety Associates report calculates a risk of harm within the next 12 months of less than

1/1000 under the QTRA model, which the model describes as an “unacceptable” risk, requiring

action.24 This calculation is based on the existing level of strapping remaining in place. This

figure matches the outcome calculated by Workplace Assistance but represents a higher risk

of harm than calculated by Arbor Connect.25

The primary reason for the difference in outcome between Safety Associates and Arbor

Connect is the value used by the two parties for “probability of failure”: Safety Associates has

used a value of 1 (representing a probability of failure within the next 12 months between 1/1

and 1/10) while Arbor Connect has used a value of 4 (representing a probability of failure

between 1/1,000 and 1/10,000).

The Safety Associates report calculates the risk level using the alternative “semi-quantitative

three way variable risk model” as “high to extreme”. In addition, the report notes that the

installation, inspection and replacement of the straps, and regular inspection and de-coning

of the trees, required by the current mitigation measures, introduces new health and safety

risks (i.e. risks additional to those posed by the failure of branches and dropping of cones),

namely risks associated with arborists working at height and working with mobile plant and

22 Ibid, para 33.

23 Ibid, para 40.

24 Ibid, para 32.

25 Arbor Connect calculated a risk of 1/500,000 – refer Appendix 11.



Page 31

equipment. Furthermore, the risk reduction value of these existing mitigation measures can

be adversely affected by a number of factors including the reliance on people to initiate, and

act on the outcomes of, the inspections, and the competency of the people undertaking the

inspections.26

Overall, Safety Associates considers that the School cannot discharge its primary duty of care

under the Health and Safety Act by reliance on the current risk mitigation measures.27

4.6.3 Assessment of Additional Risk Mitigation Measures

The Safety Associates report goes on to consider the additional risk mitigation measures

identified by Arbor Connect and PBM (as outlined in section 4.4 above).

Safety Associates considers that the additional strapping suggested by Arbor Connect would

reduce the overall risk of harm to “medium”, which is the same as achieved by the existing

temporary fencing (the risk of harm would not fall below medium because secondary branches

of a mass that could cause harm would remain unstrapped). This option would allow the

existing temporary fencing to be removed without generating an increase in risk relative to

the current situation, however, the cost of achieving that benefit (approx. $1.5m over the

probable remaining life of the trees) is disproportionate to the reduction in risk (relative to the

existing situation without the temporary fencing). Furthermore, as noted in section 4.6.2

above, this option would carry its own additional risks in terms of arborists working at height

and working with mobile plant, and the behavioural and competency risks associated with

reliance on humans for implementation. Overall, Safety Associates considers that the

proposed mitigation would not allow the School to discharge its primary duty of care under

the Health and Safety Act, and further mitigation of risk would be required if the additional

strapping was used as a permanent solution.28

Safety Associates reaches a similar conclusion in respect of the canopy option identified by

PBM. Safety Associates calculates an overall risk of harm of “medium” for the canopy option.

Again, this would allow the existing temporary fencing to be removed without generating an

increase in risk relative to the current situation, however, the cost of achieving that benefit

(approx. $1.2m) is disproportionate to the reduction in risk. Furthermore, as with the strapping

26 Safety Associates, Peer Review, August 2017, paras 49.1 and 49.2.

27 Ibid, para 49.4.

28 Ibid, para 52.



Page 32

option, this option would introduce its own additional risks in terms of maintenance staff

working at height (to construct and maintain the canopy), working with mobile plant, and

being struck by falling objects, as well as the behavioural and competency risks associated with

reliance on humans for implementation and maintenance. Overall, Safety Associates considers

that the proposed mitigation would not allow the School to discharge its primary duty of care

under the Health and Safety Act, and further mitigation of risk would be required if the

additional strapping was used as a permanent solution.29

4.7 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

In August 2016, recognising that the trees are scheduled primarily for their visual amenity

value, and wishing to have a better sense of their significance in that regard, the School

engaged Boffa Miskell to assess the potential landscape and visual effects of removing the

trees. The Boffa Miskell assessment is provided as Appendix 18 and discussed in section 7.1

below.

Of significance to the decision that the School needed to make, Boffa Miskell conclude in their

report that the removal of the two trees would result in more than minor adverse landscape

and visual effects, but that the amount and scale of vegetation within both the school and

surrounding area would reduce the impact of their removal and provide resilience to the

proposed change.30

4.8 The School’s Decision

The School has considered the advice provided by the above experts and concluded that it

should seek the removal of the two trees to provide for the safety of its staff, students and

visitors. The School’s reasoning is as follows:

1. The School has a moral responsibility to its staff, students and visitors to provide a safe

environment.

2. In addition, the School has duties under the Health and Safety Act that it is legally

obliged to meet.

29 Ibid, para 53

30 Boffa Miskell, Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects Assessment, 21 November 2016, section 9.



Page 33

3. The two Norfolk Island Pine trees pose a clear risk to the safety of staff, students and

visitors. In this regard, I note that:

a. The branches on the two trees are of a size and weight sufficient to kill if someone

is unfortunate enough to be struck by one of them. STC have estimated the

weight of the branches as up to 250kg.31 The cones are also potentially lethal if

they fall intact.

b. The branch failures that occurred in 2016 indicate that incidents of branch failure

will continue to occur unless further action is taken. They also indicate that branch

failure is impossible to predict or prevent despite the School’s tree management

regime (described by Richard Peers of PBM in 2014 as “the most effective and

conscientious I have seen in my arboricultural career” 32).

c. The events to date indicate that when branches detach, they do not necessarily

fall straight to the ground, but can impact other branches as they fall, resulting in

a domino effect of falling branches (as occurred in January 2016), and/or branches

falling a considerable horizontal distance from the point of detachment (as

occurred in February 2016). As a consequence, the existing strapping is not

sufficient to prevent branches from falling onto the Junior School turf or

playground, and even severe pruning, beyond any level of pruning that the

School’s arborists are willing to support, might not prevent branches from falling

onto those play areas.

4. The Health and Safety Act requires the School to eliminate risks to health and safety as

far as is reasonably practicable – the School can only minimise risks if it is not reasonably

practicable to eliminate the risks.33

5. The only way to eliminate the risk of harm posed by the trees is to remove the trees,

and it is reasonably practicable to do so. This is discussed in more detail in section 9

below.

31 STC, Arboricultural Assessment, August 2013, para 7.3.

32 PBM, Assessment of Tree Management Regime, 28 April 2014, section 4.0.

33 Safety Associates, Peer Review, May 2017, paras 8-10.



Page 34

6. The costs of the various alternatives to removing the trees are disproportionate to the

reduction in risk achieved by the proposed measures, and unreasonable.

7. The costs of the various alternatives to removing the trees are disproportionate to the

benefits provided by the trees, and unreasonable.

8. The landscape and visual effects of removing the trees are acceptable in the context of

the above matters.

The School is very conscious of tree failures that have occurred recently elsewhere within

Auckland and overseas. These have included the tree failures reported in Appendix 17. The

two recent failures in Cornwall Park, in particular, reinforce the unpredictable nature of tree

failure, as the trees in both cases were inspected by the Cornwall Park Trust Board’s arborists

within the 12 months prior to their failures and assessed as safe.34 Indeed, the risk of harm

from the tree that crushed four cars in Cornwall Park in November 2016 had been assessed by

the Park’s arborist as less than 1/1,000,000 – a lower level of risk than Arbor Connect has placed

on Tree 1 at the School.35 The same scenario has played out at the School since 2013 with the

trees being inspected on a six monthly basis and deemed safe, but still shedding branches and

cones following the inspections.

4.9 Matters Requiring Consent

For the reasons outlined above, the School seeks resource consent under the Unitary Plan for

the removal of the two Norfolk Island Pine trees located to the east of the Junior School turf.

These trees are identified as notable trees (ID290) in Schedule 10 of the Unitary Plan.

It is my assessment that the removal of these two trees requires resource consent under Rule

D13.4 (A7). The removal of notable trees is a discretionary activity under this rule.

34 Newshub, 20 November 2016, NZ Herald, 6 December 2016.

35 NZ Herald, 6 December 2016.



Page 35

5 Statutory Considerations

5.1 Resource Management Act

Council’s decision on the proposal must give effect to the purpose and principles of the RMA,

as set out in Part 2 of the Act, and have regard to the relevant matters in sections 104 to 108

of the Act.

5.1.1 Purpose and Principles of the Act

The purpose of the Act, set out in Section 5, is to promote the sustainable management of

natural and physical resources. This is defined as:

“managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical

resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide

for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety

while—

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding

minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;

and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and

ecosystems; and

(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the

environment.”

The broader principles of the Act are set out in sections 6 to 8 of the Act. Section 6 identifies

a number of matters of national importance. It is my opinion that none of these are directly

relevant to the application. Section 7 sets out a number of “other matters” to which the Council

is required to have regard. These matters include:

(aa) The ethic of stewardship:

(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:

(d) The intrinsic value of ecosystems:

(g) Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:



Page 36

Section 8 requires Council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I have provided an assessment against Part 2 of the Act in section 6 below.

5.1.2 Section 104 – Matters for Assessment

Of relevance to this application, Section 104(1) of the Act requires the Council to have regard

to:

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;

and

(b) any relevant provisions of –

(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably

necessary to determine the application.

An assessment of the effects of the proposal on the environment is provided in section 7 of

this report. Assessments against the relevant statutory documents are provided in section 8

below. An assessment of other relevant matters is provided in section 9.

Section 104(2) of the RMA states that, in considering the potential effects of allowing an

activity, a consent authority may disregard an adverse effect if the plan permits an activity with

that effect. It is my opinion that there is no relevant permitted baseline in this case. Permitted

activities include limited pruning and work within the root zone of notable trees. However, the

proposal is to remove the two notable trees, and the effects of this will be completely different

to the effects of pruning and/or undertaking work within their root zones. Accordingly, no

further consideration is given to the permitted baseline.

5.2 Health and Safety at Work Act

This is not an application to be decided under the Health and Safety at Work Act but the Act

can be considered as an “other matter” under section 104(1)(c) the RMA.

As noted in section 4.6 above, section 36 of the Health and Safety Act imposes a “primary duty

of care” on the School to “ensure, so far as reasonably practicable” the health and safety of

staff, students and visitors. This duty of care also extends to workers carrying out work



Page 37

“influenced or directed” by the School, so (for example) also applies to arborists undertaking

work for the School (for example, to give effect to an ongoing tree management regime, such

as suggested by Arbor Connect).

Under section 30, to give effect to this primary duty of care, the School must eliminate risks

to health and safety as far as reasonably practicable. “Reasonably practicable” is defined in

section 22 as:

that which is, or was, at a particular time, reasonably able to be done in relation

to ensuring health and safety, taking into account and weighing up all relevant

matters, including—

(a) the likelihood of the hazard or the risk concerned occurring; and

(b) the degree of harm that might result from the hazard or risk; and

(c) what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know, about—

(i) the hazard or risk; and

(ii) ways of eliminating or minimising the risk; and

(d) the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimise the risk; and

(e) after assessing the extent of the risk and the available ways of eliminating

or minimising the risk, the cost associated with available ways of

eliminating or minimising the risk, including whether the cost is grossly

disproportionate to the risk.

Under section 30, the School may only adopt a risk minimisation (rather than elimination)

strategy if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks.

The School and “officers” of the School are exposed to the risk of prosecution if they fail to

adequately discharge their duties under the Act.

The Health and Safety Act is further discussed in section 9 of this report.

5.3 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act

Section 9 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (“HGMPA”) states that a consent authority

must, when considering an application for resource consent within the Hauraki Gulf, its islands



Page 38

and catchments, have regard to sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA in addition to the matters

contained in the RMA.

Section 7 of the HGMPA states that the interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands,

and catchments, and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity

of the environment of the Gulf and its islands, are matters of national significance; while Section

8 identifies a number of objectives for the management of the Gulf, its islands and its

catchments.

It is my opinion that the proposal does not conflict with these sections. In particular, it is my

opinion that the proposal will have no effect on the life-supporting capacity of the Gulf; will

have no effect on the natural, historic or physical resources of the Gulf (such as kaimoana); will

have no effect on the cultural and historic associations between people and communities and

the natural, historic and physical resources of the Gulf; will have no effect on the social and

economic wellbeing of the people and communities of the Gulf; and no effect on peoples

recreation within or enjoyment of the Gulf.



Page 39

6 Purpose and Principles of the RMA

6.1 Case Law on Application of Part 2

The Council’s assessment under section 104 of the RMA is subject to the overarching purpose

and principles of the Act, set out in Part 2 of the Act.

However, there is contrasting High Court authority as to whether an overall broad judgment

approach, involving recourse to Part 2, still applies in the consideration of applications for

resource consent.36

The Environment Court recently considered this matter in Envirofume Limited v Bay of Plenty

Regional Council. In that case the Court concluded Part 2 was still relevant to the resource

consent process:

as an overview or check that the purpose of the Act and Part 2 issues are properly

covered and clear;

to focus the Court or decision makers on the overall purpose of the consent in question;

and

as a check that the various documents have recognised, provided for or given effect to

the Act and other documents in the hierarchy.37

In light of the Envirofume decision that recourse to Part 2 is a useful overall “check”, I have

provided an assessment under Part 2 below.

6.2 Assessment under Part 2

It is my assessment that the proposal to remove the two Norfolk Island Pine trees will give

effect to Part 2 of the RMA for the following reasons:

The trees pose a significant risk to the safety of staff, students and visitors that is

unpredictable, cannot be eliminated without removing the trees, and cannot be

36 Compare the discussion of “Subject to Part 2” in R J Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District

Council [2017] NZHC 52 and New Zealand Transport Agency v Architectural Centre Incorporated & Ors [2015] NZHC 1991.

37 Envirofume Limited v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2017] NZEnvC 12 at [143].



Page 40

satisfactorily mitigated in a cost-effective way or without creating new risks that need

to be managed and that at least partly offset the reduction in risk being achieved. As a

consequence, the removal of the trees is necessary to enable the School to provide for

the health and safety of the school community.

The presence of the trees is not required to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of

future generations or to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and

ecosystems.

The adverse effects of removing the trees can be mitigated (although not fully) and are

outweighed by the need to provide for the health and safety of staff, students and

visitors.

The removal of the trees will enable the School to regain full use of the Junior School

turf and playground thereby re-enabling the efficient use of the School’s valuable land

and facilities.



Page 41

7 Effects on the Environment

7.1 Visual Amenity Effects

Boffa Miskell have assessed the landscape and visual effects of the proposal in their report


Boffa Miskell note that the trees have reached a height that has allowed them to stand clear

of other features within the surrounding urban environment, resulting in a potentially large

visual catchment.

However, from many locations, views of the trees are obscured by intervening buildings and

vegetation, and from many of the more distant vantage points (where the trees are not

obscured by intervening buildings and vegetation), the trees are difficult to distinguish due to

the complex visual nature and scale of the surrounding urban landscape.38

Boffa Miskell have identified the trees’ primary viewing audiences and taken photos from a

range of viewing locations representative of those audiences. These photos are appended to

the Boffa Miskell report. For eight of those locations, they have then prepared visual

simulations (also appended to the Boffa Miskell report) showing the same view without the

trees. Boffa Miskell’s conclusions39 are set out in 7.1.1 to 7.1.6 below and summarised in

section 7.1.7.

7.1.1 Views from Local Roads

The majority of views towards the trees that road users currently experience are

glimpse views – with limited duration – to either side of the carriageway (refer

figures LV15, LV24-27, LV30 and LV31). Pedestrians on these local roads, would

experience these views for a longer duration, however their experience of the view

is still transient in nature. Overall, it is considered that the low sensitivity of these

travelling viewing audiences, together with the typically glimpse nature of such

views, would result in moderate-low to low, adverse visual effects resulting from

the removal of the trees, dependent on location, orientation and duration of the

particular viewpoint. It is not considered that the planting and establishment of a

38 Boffa Miskell, Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects Assessment, 21 November 2016, section 6.

39 Ibid, section 8.2.



Page 42

large grade Pohutukawa would alter the nature of this visual effect given the

lesser height of such a tree.

7.1.2 Views from More Distant Roads

Views from distant road and footpath locations afford limited visibility of the

trees. Existing roadside vegetation and buildings largely screen views of the trees,

however on occasion, glimpse views, for short durations may be afforded. It is

considered that these views are occasional, and when afforded, are of a small

portion of the trees within a wider contextual environment, making up a small

portion of the view. The removal of the trees from within these distant transient

viewings is considered to result in very low adverse visual effects.

Road users traveling in a southerly direction on the Newmarket viaduct, State

Highway 1 (refer figure LV08-09), experience views towards the trees, and from

this location, the absence of elevated landforms forming a backdrop (depending

on the location on the viaduct this may include Mount St. John), allows the trees

to be more visually prominent. From this moving location, the scale of the trees

can be appreciated in what is a panoramic view. Although the sensitivity of drivers

on SH1 is low, passengers in vehicles (including buses) do have the opportunity

to observe the trees when their outlook is oriented west. It is therefore considered

that passengers of vehicles travelling south would potentially notice the removal

of these two trees, and although a panoramic view is attainable, this would result

in moderate adverse visual effects.

7.1.3 Views from Surrounding Residential Area

Residential viewing audiences from within close proximity may gain view of the

trees from fixed locations, and these viewing audiences would experience the

visual change resulting from removal for an extended duration (refer figures LV15,

LV22-31)….

The two trees to be removed are considerably taller than other trees and buildings

within the immediately surrounding urban environment. Therefore, views towards

the trees from these close proximity residential locations, tend to be from a low

elevation, directed towards the skyline. As such their removal would result in a

noticeable change.



Page 43

In addition, the relatively flat topography immediately surrounding the trees, and

the low form of adjacent buildings, result in views that do not contain other

elements of similar scale, thereby increasing the magnitude of change and extent

of adverse visual effects. It was observed however that the entire form of the trees

(which is considered a key component of their value and recognisability) is often

not fully appreciated from properties or roads, due to existing visual screening.

Therefore, when considering the wide range of views likely to be attained from

close proximity residential viewing audiences, the removal of the trees is

considered to overall result in moderate adverse visual effect. Whereas adverse

visual effects for residents who live in houses on more elevated land which

provides for a greater contextual outlook (such as those on the northern slopes

of Mount St. John) are considered to be moderate-low, as they are focussed on a

wider view. It is not considered that the planting and establishment of the large

grade Pohutukawa would be sufficient to reduce these effects over time to a lower

level.

For more distant residential viewing audiences, it is considered that given the

greater distance, the trees would have less prominence and comprise a lesser

component of their view. The removal of the trees would, potentially, be

noticeable from some locations however; the visual change would overall be

small. It is also likely that large numbers of residents within such distant viewing

locations do not currently experience any views towards the trees as a result of

visual obstruction from existing features. It is therefore considered that the

potential adverse visual effects for these viewing audiences is very low.

7.1.4 Views from Nearby Business Premises

Workers and customers of commercial business along the northern end of

Manukau Road (refer figure LV24) and Great South Road, will have more fixed

views towards the trees. However, these viewing audiences tend to be engaged

in activities which are not considered to have a high sensitivity to the type of

visual change that will be generated by the removal of these two trees. For

example, a worker may be located in an external or internal position in their

premises, however, they are more likely to be occupied with activities relating to

their employment, than observing or focusing on the nature or amenity of the

trees. It is therefore considered that this viewing audience would experience very



Page 44

low to low adverse visual effects after the removal of the trees, depending on

position and orientation, and in many cases are not likely to notice their removal.

7.1.5 Views from Volcanic Cones

Views from Mount St. John Domain toward the trees are largely obstructed by

existing mature vegetation on the northern slopes of this volcanic landform,

which remain undeveloped. It is not until viewing audiences reach the southern

side of the summit, that a glimpse view of the upper most portion of the two trees

is attainable (refer figure LV14), in these views the prominence of the trees is

reduced as a result of intervening vegetation which screens the lower portion of

the trees reducing their apparent height. Additionally, the elevated viewing

location means that the trees only slightly extend above the skyline. The trees

from this location are also not the tallest trees forming the vegetated skyline. The

removal of the trees from this specific view location would result in a moderate

level of visual change, as the absence of the trees would potentially allow views

toward the vegetated built environment and cityscape beyond. It is however

considered that the removal of the trees from views at the summit of Mount St.

John, would result in low adverse visual effects.

More distant views from Mount Hobson (refer figures LV11-13) to the east, Mount

Eden (refer figures LV20-21 (refer figure LV16) to the west and One Tree Hill to

the south, provide broad contextual views of the urban environment at a regional

scale. Whilst views of the trees obtainable from lower elevations of the slopes

allow the trees to extend above the skyline, heightening their contrast and form,

the absence of the trees in these views is considered to result in moderate – low

to low adverse visual effects, dependent on location, orientation and duration of

the view. Views from the summits of Mount Eden and Mount Hobson are

considered to experience very low adverse visual effects, as the form of the trees

are already visually absorbed within the backdrop of the existing urban

environment, and these views contain a complex urban outlook over a wide area.

It is considered that given the elevation and distance of views from the lookout

on Maungakiekie, One Tree Hill, the absence of the trees would not be noticeable,

and therefore the adverse visual effects would be very low.



Page 45

7.1.6 Views from Parks and Reserves

Views from Melville Park (refer figures LV17-19), frequently visited by dog walkers,

cricketers and spectators, experience low elevation, contextual views of the

surrounding environment (afforded by the grassed open space of the cricket

ground). A number of other Norfolk Island Pines are evident from this Park which

add to the variation in the nature of vegetation forming the skyline. The rising

landforms of Mount Hobson and Mount St. John are also clearly visible within

these views. The removal of the two Norfolk Island Pines from this location would

be somewhat noticeable, however the level of recognition of this visual change

would vary depending on the location and activities of these viewing audiences.

It is possible that these views may be similar to those experienced from adjacent

residential properties, looking across the park. It is considered that the level of

adverse visual effects resulting from the removal of the trees from this location is

very low, given the contextual views afforded, the low magnitude of visual change

and distance from the trees.

7.1.7 Summary of Visual Amenity Effects

Table 3 summarises Boffa Miskell’s conclusions for each key viewing audience:

Table 3 – Visual Amenity Conclusions

Viewing Audience Visual Impact

Local road users Ranging from moderate-low to low

More distant road users Ranging from moderate to very low

Surrounding residential area Ranging from moderate to very low

Nearby business premises Ranging from very low to low

Visitors to volcanic cones Ranging from moderate to very low

Visitors to parks and reserves Very low

Overall, Boffa Miskell conclude that the removal of the two trees would result in more than

minor adverse landscape and visual effects, but that the amount and scale of vegetation within



Page 46

both the school and surrounding area will reduce the impact of their removal and provide

resilience to the proposed change.40 I accept and adopt that expert assessment.

7.2 Shading Effects

The removal of the two Norfolk Island Pine trees will reduce the existing level of shading of

the Junior School turf, playground and classroom building. It will have a similar effect in terms

of shading of the Centennial Building to the east. The removal of the trees may also reduce

shading of Mt St John Avenue to the south and some of the residential properties along Mt St

John Avenue to the immediate south of the School.

This reduction in shading / increased admission of sun and light to these areas will be positive

during winter months and arguably negative during summer months, when shading can be

beneficial for a number of reasons.

Overall, I note and acknowledge the potentially positive and adverse effects in terms of

shading, but do not consider these effects to be particularly significant to the decision that

needs to be made on this application.

7.3 Ecological Effects

Norfolk Island Pines are indigenous to Norfolk Island but common across the globe where

they are propagated for use as house plants, Christmas trees and landscape and coastal

plantings.

Like all trees, they have ecological value insofar as they convert carbon dioxide to oxygen,

improve air quality, conserve water, preserve soil, provide shelter from wind, drop litter that

eventually composts on the ground below and support wildlife.

However, Norfolk Island Pines are not recognised for having any significant ecological value

over and above other trees: they do not for example produce significant quantities of food in

the form of fruits, flowers, leaves or seeds that are significant to the survival of wildlife in this

area and unable to be provided by other vegetation.

40 Ibid, section 9.



Page 47

Overall, it is my opinion that the ecological impact of removing these two trees will be minor,

and is able to be mitigated by replacement planting.

7.4 Natural Hazard Effects

The Norfolk Island Pine trees do not perform any significant function in preventing or

mitigating any natural hazards in this case. Accordingly, the removal of the trees will not have

any adverse effects in terms of natural hazards.

7.5 Cumulative Effects

A cumulative effect is an effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects.

A cumulative effect of this proposal would include an effect generated by the proposed tree

removal, which is additional to, or cumulative upon, the effect of any other applications

approved by the Council in the immediate area, or any other activities on the site.

I am not aware of any other significant vegetation removal applications approved by Council

in the immediate area upon which the effects of this proposal would be cumulative and note

that the School itself has increased the number of trees located within its campus over the last

11 years. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposed tree removal will not result in any

cumulative effects that are significantly greater than the effects described in the sections

above.



Page 48

8 Policy Framework

8.1 National Policy Statements

It is my opinion that there are no national policy statements of significance to this application.

8.2 National Environmental Standards

It is my opinion that there are no national environmental standards of relevance to this

application.

8.3 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

The Council must have regard to the relevant objectives, policies and assessment criteria of

the Unitary Plan.

8.3.1 Regional Policy Statement

The Regional Policy Statement (“RPS”) addresses notable trees in Chapter B4. The provisions

in respect of notable trees are operative.

The RPS notes that:

“individually and collectively, trees represent a significant element of Auckland’s

natural character and biodiversity” and “measures are required to identify and

protect particular notable individual trees and groups of trees from damage or

destruction by inappropriate subdivision, use or development or through

inappropriate construction methods.”41

Consequently, the RPS includes objectives and policies in respect of both the identification and

removal of notable trees.

It is my opinion that the objectives and policies guiding the identification of notable trees are

not of significant utility in assessing the current application, as the School is not disputing the

41 Unitary Plan, B4.1 Issues, p2.



Page 49

identification of the trees as notable. The impact of removing the trees on the values of the

trees is discussed under the notable tree provisions in section 8.3.2 below.

The RPS includes the following objectives and policies of relevance to applications to remove

notable trees:

B4.5.1. Objectives

(1) Notable trees and groups of trees with significant historical, botanical or

amenity values are protected and retained.

B4.5.2. Policies

(4) Avoid development that would destroy or significantly adversely affect the

identified values of a notable tree or group of trees unless those effects are

otherwise appropriately remedied or mitigated

It is my opinion that these objectives and policies should be read in the context of the

objectives and policies of the notable tree overlay (see below) as, on their own, they do not

offer a lot of guidance for this application.

The objective seeks to protect and retain notable trees. This is entirely logical and consistent

with normal planning practice: having identified the value of notable trees, and gone to the

effort of identifying notable trees, it makes sense to have a policy position that those trees

should be protected and retained.

The policy provides more specificity and seeks to avoid development that would destroy the

identified values of a notable tree unless those effects are otherwise appropriately remedied

or mitigated. In this case, no development is proposed. However, the policy could be read as

setting a general principle that applications that would have the effect of destroying the values

of a tree (e.g. an application to remove a tree altogether) may be acceptable subject to

appropriate remediation or mitigation.

8.3.2 Notable Tree Objectives and Policies

The Notable Tree Overlay is addressed in Chapter D13 of the Unitary Plan. The overlay is

operative. The following objectives and policies are set out in D13:



Page 50

D13.2. Objective

(1) Notable trees and notable groups of trees are retained and protected from

inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

Comment:

The School’s desire to remove the two trees does not emanate from any desire to subdivide

or further develop the adjacent parts of the site, but rather from the desire to provide for the

safety of staff, students and visitors to the site in a way that regains the use of the Junior School

turf and playground – existing long-standing facilities that contribute to the efficient use of

the site.

Accordingly, the application to remove these trees is not the result of a desire to undertake

inappropriate subdivision, use or development.

D13.3. Policies

(2) Require notable trees and notable groups of trees to be retained and

protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development, by

considering:

(a) the specific attributes of the tree or trees including the values for which

the tree or trees have been identified as notable;

Comment:

See comment above re inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

The trees have been identified in Council’s 1993 evaluation and PBM’s 2014 evaluation as

notable for the reasons identified in section 4.1 of this report, principally their size, age, visual

contribution and viewing catchment. The removal of the trees will eliminate these values, and

this needs to be weighed against the other relevant matters.

In terms of the visual contribution and viewing catchment of the trees, Boffa Miskell have

assessed the visual impact of the proposal in their report provided as Appendix 18. This impact

will vary from one location to the next, however, the Boffa Miskell assessment is that the impact

of their removal will range from “very low” to “moderate”, with the impact from most locations

being at the lower end of that scale. Overall, Boffa Miskell conclude that the removal of the

two trees would result in more than minor adverse landscape and visual effects, but that the



Page 51

amount and scale of vegetation within both the school and surrounding area will reduce the

impact of their removal and provide resilience to the proposed change.42

(b) the likelihood of significant adverse effects to people and property from

the tree or trees;

Comment:

As noted in section 4.3 above, Tree 1 has dropped 10 branches and numerous cones since

January 2013. These branches and cones have caused damage to the roof of the Junior School

building. More importantly, they have had the potential to severely injure a person.

Furthermore, the larger branches on this tree (none of which have fallen yet) and Tree 2 have

the potential to be lethal.

The events to date indicate that incidents of branch failure are likely to continue to occur, and

are impossible to predict, despite the School’s extraordinary tree management regime, and

that there is a risk of significant adverse effects to people and (to a lesser extent) property

unless the trees are removed or significant and very expensive further measures are taken by

the School to further reduce the risk of harm.

(c) the degree to which the subdivision, use or development can

accommodate the protection of the tree or groups of trees;

Comment:

The issue in this case is one of an existing incompatibility between the trees and the existing

uses and development nearby – no subdivision or additional use or development is proposed

in the vicinity of the trees. The School has a very constrained campus and regaining full use

of its existing long-standing Junior School playground and turf will allow better use of that

campus.

(d) the extent to which any trimming, alteration or removal of a tree is

necessary to accommodate efficient operation of the road network,

network utilities or permitted development on the site;

42 Ibid, section 9.



Page 52

Comment:

As noted above, the removal of the trees is necessary for the safe resumption of use of the

Junior School playground and the eastern end of the Junior School turf. The playground and

turf are long established – the turf was constructed pursuant to a resource consent granted in

1996 while a playground has existed in this location since 2003. Both activities are permitted

activities under the Unitary Plan, so these activities form part of the permitted development

on the site.

(e) alternative methods that could result in retaining the tree or trees on

the site, road or reserve;

Comment:

The alternatives to removal identified by the School’s arborists are discussed in sections 4.4

and 4.5 of this report. These alternatives carry very significant up-front and ongoing costs. It

is my opinion, having regard to reasons for scheduling the trees, the health and safety advice

provided by Safety Associates, and the visual impact assessment prepared by Boffa Miskell,

that those costs are disproportionate to the overall reduction in risk that would be achieved

by their implementation and disproportionate to the environmental benefits of retaining the

trees.

(f) whether minor infringements of the standards that apply to the

underlying zone would encourage the retention and enhancement of

the tree or trees on the site;

Comment:

No further development is proposed near the trees – the School simply wishes to regain use

of its existing facilities without putting its staff, students and visitors at risk of harm and without

creating new risks for its arborists.

(g) whether the values that would be lost if the tree or trees are removed

can be adequately mitigated;

Comment:

Given the size of the trees, it would be very difficult to fully mitigate their removal, particularly

the visual effects of their removal as viewed from beyond the site, however, the School

proposes to plant a large grade pohutukawa which will in time help to mitigate the visual



Page 53

effects within the site and will eventually help to mitigate the visual effects as viewed from

beyond the site (although not fully). It is my opinion that these measures will adequately

mitigate the removal of the trees.

(h) whether the proposal is consistent with best arboricultural practice;

Comment:

It is difficult to imagine a situation in which two arborists would be willing to agree that the

removal of large healthy trees is best arboricultural practice. However, that misses the point

in this case. The issue here is not one of best arboricultural practice, but one of weighing the

values provided by these trees with the risks posed by the trees, the costs of adequately

mitigating those risks and the use (including potential loss of use) of the school land. Whilst

it is difficult to weigh such disparate matters, it is my opinion that the recognised values of the

trees are outweighed by the costs necessary to mitigate the risks posed by the trees if they are

retained.

(i) methods to contain and control plant pathogens and diseases

including measures for preventing the spread of soil and the safe

disposal of plant material; and

Comment:

N/a

(j) the provision of a tree management or landscape plan.

As mentioned in section 4.3, the School has a comprehensive tree management regime already

in place, described in 2014 (prior to the last branch failures) by Richard Peers of PBM as “the

most effective and conscientious I have seen in my arboricultural career”.43 However, the

branch failures of 2016 show that, despite that evaluation, the existing regime is not sufficient

to eliminate or sufficiently reduce the risk of harm posed by the trees.

Arbor Connect has identified amendments to the existing tree management regime which

would reduce the risk of harm to staff, students and visitors, namely the replacement of the

existing strapping, installation of additional strapping so that all primary branches are included,

and strapped at both ends, and more comprehensive inspections of the trees and strapping.

However, those amendments would impose a significant financial burden on the School. In

43 PBM, Assessment of Tree Management Regime for Diocesan School for Girls, 28 April 2014.



Page 54

addition, the benefits of reduced risk to staff, students and visitors would be at least partially

offset by increased risk of harm to the School’s arborists who would need to climb the trees to

replace the existing strapping and install the additional strapping, and then climb the trees on

a regular and more comprehensive basis to inspect and (every three years) replace the

strapping. These risks would be additional to the existing risks created by the need to climb

the trees to inspect for weaknesses and damage after each storm and to de-cone the trees.

Whilst it is difficult to compare cost with risk, and cost with the environmental benefits of trees,

it is my opinion in this case that the costs of this tree management approach are excessive

relative to the net reduction in risk achieved and the environmental benefits of the trees.

8.3.3 Notable Tree Assessment Criteria

The Unitary Plan does not include any assessment criteria for the removal of notable trees,

however, the criteria for restricted discretionary activities can be used as a guide for the

assessment of such applications (these criteria apply to applications to prune notable tees and

undertake work within their root zone). These criteria are as follows:

(a) the extent to which alternative methods that could result in avoiding

alteration of the tree or trees have been considered;

Comment:

The alternatives to tree removal have been discussed in sections 4.3, 4.4 and 8.3.2 above.

(b) the specific values of the tree or trees including any ecological values with

respect to water and soil conservation, ecosystem services, stability, ecology,

habitat for birds and amelioration of natural hazards;

Comment:

The specific values of the trees have been discussed in sections 4.1 and 8.3.2 above.

(c) the extent to which effects on the values of the tree or trees including any

effects on the natural shape, form and branch habit and the root network

can be minimised;

Comment:

N/a to removal of the trees – removal of the trees will eliminate the identified values of the

trees.



Page 55

(d) the extent to which any impact on the immediate or long-term health and

stability of the tree or trees is able to be minimised or avoided;

Comment:

N/a to removal of the trees – removal of the trees will render concerns about their long-term

health and stability redundant.

(e) the loss of any amenity values that the tree or trees provided;

Comment:

The removal of the trees will eliminate their visual amenity value. This is discussed in section

7.1 above.

(f) the risk of actual damage to people and property from the tree or trees

including the extent to which adverse effects on the health and safety of

people have been addressed;

Comment:

The trees pose a risk of damage to the Junior School building within the south-western extent

of the dripline of Tree 1 and a significant risk of harm to people, as discussed in sections 4,

8.3.2 and 9.

(g) the degree to which any proposed mitigation adequately responds to the

effects on the tree or trees;

Comment:

The adequacy of the proposed mitigation is discussed in section 8.3.2 above.

(h) the degree to which the proposal is consistent with best arboricultural

practice guidelines for tree management;

Comment:

This matter is discussed in section 8.3.2 above.

(i) methods to contain and control plant pathogens and diseases including

measures for preventing the spread of soil and the safe disposal of plant

material;



Page 56

Comment:

N/a.

(j) the provision of a tree works plan, to address:

(i) the effects on the tree or trees;

(ii) the proposed methods to be used;

(iii) the extent to which the proposed works are consistent with best

arboricultural practice;

(iv) for tree alteration, the methods proposed to reduce any adverse effects

and the extent of the alteration of the tree or trees; and

(v) for works within the protected root zone, the methods proposed to

reduce any adverse effects on the tree or trees, including the depth of

the works, and the extent of area of the protected root zone or zones

that is affected.

Comment:

N/a to tree removal.

(k) the need for the direction and supervision of a qualified arborist while the

works are being carried out;

Comment:

The removal of the trees would need to be undertaken by qualified arborists to ensure the

work is undertaken safely.

(l) the functional and operational requirements of infrastructure; and

Comment:

N/a.

(m) the benefits derived from infrastructure.

Comment:

N/a.



Page 57

8.3.4 Zone Objectives and Policies

The objectives and policies of the Special Purpose – School zone are also relevant to this

application. The following objectives are relevant:

H29.2. Objectives

(1) The educational needs of school students are met and the well-being of

students, staff and visitors is provided for.

Comment:

The trees pose a risk of harm to staff, students and visitors that needs to be addressed under

this objective.

It is my opinion, for the reasons noted in sections 4, 8.3.2 and 9, that this risk of harm requires

the School to act, and that the removal of the trees is the most appropriate course of action

to ensure the wellbeing of students, staff and visitors.

(2) School activities, including the development of new schools and appropriate

redevelopment, intensification and expansion of existing schools, are

enabled.

Comment:

The trees are currently hindering school activities, as the southern part of the playground and

eastern part of the Junior School turf cannot be safely used. The removal of the trees will re-

enable use of these facilities.

H29.3. Policies

(1) Enable the efficient utilisation of school land, buildings and infrastructure.

Comment:

The trees are currently hindering the efficient use of the school land and facilities, particularly

the Junior School playground and turf, but also the access to Mt St John Avenue that runs

along the eastern edge of the trees. The removal of the trees will re-enable the efficient use

of these facilities.

Overall, it is my opinion that the removal of the two trees will help to give effect to the relevant

objectives and policies for the School zone.



Page 58

9 Other Matters Section 104(1)(c) of the Act permits Council to have regard to “any other matter the consent

authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application”.

9.1 Health and Safety at Work Act

As noted in section 5.2 above, the Health and Safety Act can be considered as an “other matter”

under section 104(1)(c) of the RMA.

The School has engaged Safety Associates to advise on its responsibilities under the Health

and Safety Act and to review the options identified by Arbor Connect and PBM. That review is


Safety Associates has outlined the School’s obligations under the Health and Safety Act and

advised that the School cannot discharge its duties under the Act by implementing either set

of risk mitigation measures.

9.1.1 Arbor Connect Recommendations

Safety Associates considers that Arbor Connect’s initial recommendations to strap an

additional 780 branches and then undertake regular and more thorough inspections,

replacement of strapping and de-coning of the trees, do not eliminate the risk of harm, or

sufficiently minimise the risk of harm to satisfy the School’s duties under the Health and Safety

Act. This is because:

It is only feasible to strap the primary branches (the branches connected to the trunk)

and not the secondary branches (the branches that extend from the primary branches).

Secondary branches are generally not as substantial as primary branches but some are

still of a mass sufficient to cause serious harm if they were to fall on a person, particularly

a child.

The processes of strapping, inspecting the strapping, inspecting the trees and de-coning

are all subject to human error (e.g. failure to correctly identify a weakness at a branch

attachment or to notice a frayed strap).

The processes of strapping, inspecting the strapping, inspecting the trees and de-coning

introduce their own risks (i.e. to the arborists undertaking work at height) for which the

School shares responsibility.



Page 59

Inspections will not necessarily detect issues as not all issues manifest themselves visibly

and issues may arise between inspections – some of the failures to date have occurred

within weeks of inspections that have given the trees a clean bill of health.

The whole regime is reliant on human behaviour (e.g. to initiate and pay for the

inspection and replacement work).

Componentry (e.g. straps) may fail between inspection periods.

Safety Associates also considers that the costs of implementing the measures identified by

Arbor Connect are disproportionate to the reduction in risk achieved by the recommendations.

As such, the substantially cheaper and more effective option of removing the trees (and

thereby eliminating the risks created by the trees) is the better option under the Health and

Safety Act.

9.1.2 Peers Brown Miller Initial Recommendations

Safety Associates has also assessed PBM’s initial recommendations to prune the trees (i.e.

reduce the extent to which they overhang the turf and playground) and construct a canopy

beneath the trees.

Safety Associates considers that the measures identified by PBM would reduce but not

eliminate the risk of harm, and that further mitigation would be required to satisfy the School’s

responsibilities under the Health and Safety Act. This is because:

Branches may bounce off other branches as they fall (as occurred in early 2016), and fall

beyond the extent of the canopy.

The pruning of the trees and the construction and maintenance of the canopy

introduces new risks that are similar to the risks being mitigated.

I note that PBM subsequently advised that they considered the overall costs of the canopy

option to be excessive, and Safety Associates agree. At an estimated cost of $739,960 (plus

maintenance and fencing) for a partial canopy, and more than $1.2m for a full canopy, the

costs of the initial PBM recommendations are disproportionate to the reduction in risk

achieved by the suggested measures. Again, the much cheaper and more effective approach

of removing the trees and thereby eliminating the risks is the more appropriate approach

under the Health and Safety Act.



Page 60

Overall, Safety Associates conclude that the School cannot discharge its duties under the

Health and Safety Act by implementing the measures identified by the arborists. The School

can, however, discharge it duties by removing the trees.

9.2 Precedent Effect

The Court of Appeal has held that the granting of a resource consent has no precedent effect

in the strict sense:

It is obviously necessary to have consistency in the application of legal principles,

because all applications must be decided in accordance with a correct

understanding of those principles. But a consent authority is not formally bound

by a previous decision…. Indeed, in factual terms no two applications are ever

likely to be the same; albeit one may be similar to another. The most that can be

said is that the granting of one consent may well have an influence on how

another application should be dealt with. The extent of that influence will depend

on the extent of the similarities.44

The Court has also held that consideration of precedent effect does not necessarily require an

area-wide enquiry to deal with all the possible future implications of the granting of the

particular consent, as this would impose “very considerable additional burdens” and would be

a “rather speculative exercise”.45

It is my opinion that this application will not have any precedent effect except to the extent

necessary and desirable to achieve consistency in the application of legal principles. The

Unitary Plan provides for applications to remove notable trees; applications are lodged from

time to time; and those applications need to be assessed on their individual merits. The

granting of consent to this application would not bind the Council to grant consent to any

other applications to remove notable trees at the School or elsewhere, as each case would

need to be assessed on its individual merits.

44 Russell Dye v Auckland Regional Council, CA86/01

45 Russell Dye v Auckland Regional Council, CA86/01



Page 61

10 Consultation

10.1 Consultation with Council Officers

The School, Derek Nolan (the School’s lawyer) and the writer met with Council officers (Ben

Cunningham and West Flynn) on site during July 2017 to discuss the proposal to remove the

Norfolk Pine trees. The Council’s minutes for that meeting are provided as Appendix 19a. Of

note, the Council’s arborist:

Noted that Norfolk Pines were difficult trees to “read”, whereas with many other trees,

defects are more obvious. This is consistent with the School’s experience.

Observed that the height of the School’s trees made them difficult to reliably inspect

(the School could not reliably inspect the trees or the strapping via binoculars, because

it would be too easy to miss a defect).

Noted the risk of a branch towards the top of one of the trees falling and hitting the

branches below, causing them to fall as well, in a domino effect. We noted that such an

event had occurred at the School in early 2016. Mr Flynn also noted that, when that

happened, the branches might ultimately land on a different side of the tree to the side

they detached from. Hence, strapping one side of the trees (as per the current situation

at the School) reduces, but does not eliminate, the risks to people on the other sides of

the trees. Again, we noted that such an event had occurred in 2016.

Noted that, if a branch was to fall on a branch below, the branch below would not

necessarily break at the point of attachment to the trunk – the branch might break

further out into the canopy (e.g. if that is where it is struck). Hence, strapping the

branches at the trunk, as per the current situation, would not in his opinion provide

sufficient mitigation against the risk of branches falling. Mr Flynn advised that, in his

opinion, if the School was to rely on strapping as a risk mitigation measure, the branches

would need to be secured along their full length.

Said that, in his experience, Norfolk Pines seem to reach a point sooner or later where

branches start to fail more regularly, at which point the trees become dangerous in a

built-up environment. Whilst it was impossible to determine when the School’s trees

would get to this point, he considered this to be a relevant consideration when weighing

up the cost of implementing expensive risk mitigation measures such as canopies and

strapping.



Page 62

Considered that a canopy might not be effective as a risk mitigation option, as at least

some branches would inevitably bounce or fall off the canopy.

I acknowledge the above advice and note that it is broadly consistent with the School’s own

experience with the trees and with its own assessment of the various risk mitigation options.

10.2 Consultation with Neighbours

The School wrote to its residential neighbours to the west and south of the School (as the

primary viewing audience for the trees) during late May and early June to advise them of the

School’s concerns with the trees and intention to seek resource consent to remove the trees.

I am advised that these letters – copies of which are provided in Appendix 19b – were delivered

by the School’s Property Manager to the letterboxes of the following properties:

All the residential properties on Margot Street, between Clyde Street and Warborough

Avenue

All the residential properties in Mt St John Avenue

All the residential properties in Belvedere Street

At the time of writing, two responses have been received, as follows:

Mt St John Residents Group Inc. – email in support – refer Appendix 19e

Catherine Peters and Jonathan Anyon – letter of support – refer Appendix 19e

10.3 Consultation with Local Representatives

As a courtesy, the School has advised the following local representatives of its concerns with

the trees, and its intention to apply for consent to remove the trees:

Cathy Casey, Albert-Eden-Roskill ward councillor

Christine Fletcher, Albert-Eden-Roskill ward councillor

Peter Haynes, Chairperson of the Albert-Eden-Roskill Local Board

David Seymour, MP for Epsom

Paul Goldsmith, List MP for Epsom



Page 63

Copies of these letters are provided in Appendix 19c.

At the time of writing, three responses have been received, as follows:

David Seymour – email in support – refer Appendix 19e

Christine Fletcher – acknowledgement of receipt

Peter Haynes – acknowledgement of receipt

10.4 Consultation with Other Parties

As a courtesy, the School has also advised the following parties of its intention to apply to

remove the trees:

The Tree Council

The Notable Tree Trust

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of NZ

Copies of these letters are provided in Appendix 19d.

The Tree Council has acknowledged receipt of the School’s letter and queried whether consent

will be sought on a notified basis. The School has confirmed its intent to apply for consent on

a notified basis. The other parties had not responded as at the time of writing.



Page 64

11 Conditions of Consent Based on the assessment above, conditions of consent to the effect of those below would be

appropriate and form part of the application.

1. Within the first planting season following the removal of the two Norfolk Island Pines

approved for removal under this consent, the consent holder shall plant one 1000 litre

grade (minimum height 5m) pohutukawa tree within the space between the Junior

School turf and Centennial building.

2. The tree planted under condition 1 shall be planted and maintained for a minimum 24

months by a company with experience in planting and providing aftercare maintenance

for large grade trees. The aftercare maintenance shall include monitoring the tree’s

condition, watering, maintaining the mulch level around the tree, fertilising as required,

pest and disease control, formative pruning and weed control.

3. If the tree planted under condition 1 dies within 5 years of planting, the tree shall be

replaced with another pohutukawa of the same size in the same general location and

that replacement tree shall be maintained in accordance with conditions 1 and 2 above.



Page 65

12 Conclusion In considering whether to approve this application, the Council is required to give effect to

Part 2 of the RMA; have regard to the relevant provisions of the Unitary Plan; have regard to

the effects of the proposal on the environment; and have regard to any other relevant matters

which, in my opinion, includes the School’s duty of care under the Health and Safety Act. I

have provided a summary of my assessment of each these matters below. I conclude with my

overall assessment.

12.1 Part 2

It is my assessment that the proposal to remove the two Norfolk Island Pine trees will give

effect to Part 2 of the RMA for the following reasons:

1. The trees pose a significant risk to the safety of staff, students and visitors that is

unpredictable, cannot be eliminated without removing the trees, and cannot be

mitigated in a cost-effective way or without creating new risks that need to be managed

and that at least partly offset the reduction in risk being achieved. As a consequence,

the removal of the trees is necessary to enable the School to provide for the health and

safety of the school community in accordance with Part 2 of the Act.

2. The presence of the trees is not required to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of

future generations or to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and

ecosystems.

3. The adverse effects of removing the trees can be mitigated (although not fully) and are

outweighed by the need to provide for the health and safety of staff, students and

visitors.

4. The removal of the trees will enable the School to regain full use of the Junior School

turf, playground and pathway thereby re-enabling the efficient use of the School’s

valuable land for its zoned purpose and the facilities that have been developed on that

land.

12.2 Unitary Plan

It is my opinion that the removal of the trees is appropriate having regard to the objectives,

policies and assessment criteria of the Unitary Plan. In this regard, I note that:



Page 66

1. The relevant objective for notable trees seeks to protect and retain notable trees. This

is entirely logical and consistent with normal planning practice: having identified the

value of notable trees, and gone to the effort of identifying notable trees, it makes sense

to have a policy position that those trees should be protected and retained. However,

this policy position needs to be weighed with other relevant matters, including those

identified in the underlying policies.

2. The relevant policies for notable trees require consideration of a range of matters

including the specific attributes of the trees; the likelihood of significant adverse effects

to people and property from the trees; the extent to which removal is necessary to

accommodate permitted use and development on the site; alternatives to removal; and

potential mitigation. In this case:

a. The trees have been scheduled primarily for their visual amenity value. The Boffa

Miskell landscape and visual amenity assessment concludes that the visual impact

of removing these trees will range from moderate to very low depending on the

vantage point but that the amount and scale of vegetation within both the school

and the surrounding area will reduce the impact of their removal and provide

resilience to the proposed change.

b. A total of 10 branches have fallen from Tree 1 since the beginning of 2013, as well

as a number of cones. These have been of a size capable of causing serious injury

to people below. Other branches within the trees would likely kill a person if they

struck one. The events to date indicate that incidents of branch failure will

continue to occur for as long as the trees remain, and that branch failure is

impossible to predict or prevent despite the School’s intensive tree management

regime.

c. The removal of the trees will permit the School to regain use of the eastern end

of the Junior School turf, southern end of the Junior School playground and the

pathway from Mt St John Avenue. As such, removal of the trees will re-enable

the efficient use of the School’s land and the facilities for which the land is zoned

under the Unitary Plan.

d. The School has considered the alternatives to removal identified by Arbor

Connect and PBM, however, the costs of these alternatives are disproportionate

to the reduction in risk achieved by the suggested measures, disproportionate to

the benefits provided by the trees, and unreasonable.



Page 67

e. Due to their age and scale, it would be impossible to fully mitigate the adverse

effects of removing the two trees. However, the School does propose to plant a

large pohutukawa specimen in place of the trees, which would in time mitigate

those adverse effects.

12.3 Effects on the Environment

I have provided an assessment of the effects on the environment of removing the trees in

section 7 of this report. By way of summary, I note that:

1. The removal of the two trees would result in more than minor adverse landscape and

visual effects, but that the amount and scale of vegetation within both the school and

surrounding area would reduce the impact of their removal and provide resilience to

the proposed change.

2. The removal of the trees would have both positive and (arguably, depending on one’s

perspective) negative effects in terms of access to sun and light for the School and

potentially neighbours on the south side of Mt St John Avenue. I would assess these

effects as positive overall.

3. The ecological impact of removing the trees will be minor and capable of mitigation by

replacement planting.

4. The removal of the trees will not have any adverse effects in terms of natural hazards.

12.4 Health and Safety

Part 2 of the RMA seeks (amongst other things) to enable people and communities to provide

for their health and safety and section 104(1)(c) states that Council must have regard to any

other matter relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

The School has a duty of care under the Health and Safety Act to ensure the safety of all who

visit the site or are engaged by the School to undertake work on the site, and it is my opinion

that the Council must have regard to this duty under section 104(1)(c).

The School has taken professional advice on its responsibilities regarding the trees under the

Health and Safety Act. That advice is that:



Page 68

1. The School has a duty to eliminate risks relating to the trees as far as reasonably

practicable; the School may only seek to minimise risks if it is not reasonably practicable

to eliminate those risks.

2. The measures identified by the School’s arborists will reduce the risks posed by the trees

but not eliminate them.

3. The measures identified by the School’s arborists will introduce new risks that will at

least partially offset the reduction in risk achieved by those measures.

4. The costs of implementing the measures identified by the School’s arborists are

disproportionate to the reduction in risk achieved by those measures.

Accordingly, the School needs to seek consent to remove the trees to discharge its obligations

under the Health and Safety Act.

12.5 Overall Conclusion

It is my observation from working with the School over a long period that the School is very

aware of the significance of the two Norfolk Island Pine trees that are the subject of this

application, particularly in terms of their age, height and visual amenity value, and has not

taken the decision to apply for their removal lightly.

The School has occupied its site and looked after these trees for over 100 years. Indeed, it

started looking after these trees long before they were identified and scheduled by Council as

notable, and has continued to do so since 2013 when the first significant branch failures

occurred, despite significant concerns within the school community about the risks the trees

pose to the safety of staff, students and visitors, and despite the significant costs incurred by

the School in managing the risks posed by the trees.

It is my opinion that the School’s approach to these trees has been entirely consistent with its

approach to trees generally, in the time that I have been advising the School. As noted in

section 3.2 of this report, the School has faced a constant challenge to accommodate more

students and improve its facilities within a tightly constrained inner-city site, and it has met

that challenge to date while retaining a significant stock of trees. Indeed, as noted in section

3.2, the School has planted more trees since 2006 than it has removed, which is quite an

achievement for a school under such pressure for development.



Page 69

However, some trees are more suitable in an urban environment than others, and it is my

opinion that the time has come to accept that these two trees are no longer suitable in this

urban school environment. Tree 1 has dropped 10 branches since the beginning of 2013, as

well as a number of cones. These branches – which have been small compared to many others

within the trees – could have seriously injured a child if they had struck one, as could have

some of the cones. Furthermore, the events to date indicate that incidents of branch failure

are likely to continue to occur, and are impossible to predict or prevent, despite the School’s

“extraordinary” tree management regime, described by Richard Peers (prior to the last set of

branch failures) as “the most effective and conscientious I have seen in my arboricultural

career”.

The School has taken extensive advice at significant cost over the last year with a view to

reaching the most appropriate decision regarding the trees. It has engaged with health and

safety advisers, arborists, engineers, planners, quantity surveyors and landscape architects, as

well as its school and wider communities. As a responsible landowner, it has considered the

advice of those experts, and the feedback of its communities, very carefully and in a measured

way over a considerable period. It has not come to the decision to seek removal of these trees

hastily or lightly.

Having considered the purpose and principles of the RMA, the relevant provisions of the

Unitary Plan, the options for retaining the trees, the potential adverse effects of removing the

trees, and the School’s obligations under the Health and Safety Act, it is my opinion that it

would be appropriate to grant consent to remove the trees. Whilst it is difficult to weigh these

disparate matters, it is my opinion that the risks to the safety of staff, students and visitors, the

School’s statutory responsibility to ensure the health and safety of staff, students and visitors

and the very substantial costs that will need to be incurred to manage these risks if the trees

are retained, outweigh the visual amenity and environmental benefits of retaining the trees.

Accordingly, I support the School’s application to remove these trees.

Prepared by:

Iain McManus

BA, BPlan (Hons), MNZPI

QDD DLNU@K HNBDR@M BGNNK ENQ HQKR KXCD SQDDS~ ORNL · 2017. 10. 12. · ¨ qdd dlnu@k~ hnbdr@m...

Documents

Transcript of QDD DLNU@K HNBDR@M BGNNK ENQ HQKR KXCD SQDDS~ ORNL · 2017. 10. 12. · ¨ qdd dlnu@k~ hnbdr@m...