3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 1 of 31

BEFORE THE CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

In the matter of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014

And

In the matter of Chapter 9 – Natural and Cultural Heritage: Section 9.4 Significant Trees

Submitter the Christchurch Civic Trust and Others Submitter numbers: 3700, 3618, 3566, 3233, 3287, 3278, and 3270

SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF HELEN LOWE 29 July 2016

Duncan Cotterill Solicitor acting: J M van der Wal PO Box 5, Christchurch 8140

Phone +64 3 379 2430 Fax +64 3 379 7097 [email protected]

6712391_1 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 2 of 31

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 2

Introduction ...... 1

Scope of Evidence ...... 2

The Additional Submissions Received...... 3

Planning Approach and Support for the Mediated Agreement ...... 5

Submission 6, The Ministry of Education, and Designated Sites ...... 9

Support for Policy 9.4.2.1 and A More Enabling Approach To The Management of Significant Trees ...... 9

Consideration of Specific Trees Raised By The Submitters ...... 13

Conclusion ...... 14

Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 3 of 31

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

i. This hearing has arisen as the result of the Panel’s concerns regarding procedural fairness in terms of the proposed pCRDP rescheduling of a number of trees on private property. The reinstatement occurred as a result of a mediated agreement between the Christchurch City Council and the Christchurch Civic Trust and aligned submitters (the Trust.)

ii. My evidence addresses why I consider the adjusted thresholds set under the mediated agreement are appropriate and better achieve the purpose of the RMA and the statutory framework than either the pCRDP as notified, or the revised proposals filed by the Christchurch City Council (CCC) on 22 and 26 July respectively – which will also affect a large number of trees where no change has been requested and no concerns raised.

iii. In particular, I set out why I believe the proposed higher thresholds will result in a significant number of trees that are significant or exceptional no longer being identified or protected, with attendant significant adverse effects on the city’s landscape, amenity, historic and cultural heritage values. iv. I also address, in broad terms, the concerns raised by the additional submitters in terms of the scheduling and management of significant and exceptional trees. In doing so I identify the considerable steps that have already been taken to ensure that the pCRDP is significantly more enabling than the Operative Plans as well as considering what further can be done in this respect, particularly in terms of Policy 9.4.2.1.

v. Finally, I address specific instances where I believe delisting of the trees raised through submission may be appropriate, based on the evidence available to date.

Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 4 of 31

INTRODUCTION

1.1 My name is Helen Elizabeth Lowe. I have set out my full qualifications and experience in my evidence-in-chief for the 9.4 Trees hearing (Brief of Evidence of Helen Lowe) which was filed on 13 January.

1.2 I am authorised to give evidence on behalf of the following submitters (the Submitters) insofar as their submissions relate to 9.4 Significant Trees:

1.2.1 Christchurch Civic Trust (3700);

1.2.2 NZ Notable Trees Trust (3618);

1.2.3 NZ Institute of Landscape Architects Canterbury West Coast (3566);

1.2.4 Peterborough Village/Pia Kaik Inc. Society (3233);

1.2.5 Royal NZ Institute of Horticulture (3287); and

1.2.6 NZ Arboricultural Association (3278)

1.2.7 Lady Barbara Stewart (3270)

2 I have already provided the following statements of evidence regarding Section 9.4, to which I adhere, subject to modifications or corrections made in subsequent statements, including this statement:

2.1 Evidence in Chief, 13 January 2016

2.2 Rebuttal evidence, 15 January 2016

3 I have read all the briefs of evidence filed by Mr Bradley Cadwallader and by Ms Di Lucas in relation to these proceedings, including their respective briefs of 29 July 2016, and rely on their expertise in relation to arboricultural and landscape issues.

4 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person.

1 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 5 of 31

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

5 This hearing has arisen as the result of the Panel’s concerns regarding procedural fairness in terms of the reinstatement of a number of trees on private property, currently scheduled on the OCDP, into Appendix 9.4.5, Appendices – Trees of the pRCDP. The reinstatement occurred as a result of a mediated agreement between the Christchurch City Council and the Christchurch Civic Trust and aligned submitters (hereafter simply the Trust.) As Mr Cadwallader explains in his 29 July evidence, the essence of that was to adjust the thresholds at which the original CTEM methodology considered trees to be significant, in order to address the deficiencies in the CTEM assessment method.

6 Through its memoranda in response to the additional submissions, the CCC has raised the following three issues:

6.1 Issue 1: Should the specific trees raised in landowner comments and late submissions be included in the Schedule of Significant Trees?

6.2 Issue 2: Should the provisions for the pruning of significant trees be more enabling?

6.3 Issue 3: Whether and if so how should the provisions in Topic 9.4 including the objectives, policies and rules, be amended in light of concerns raised by landowners?

7 In its Memorandum of 29 July 2016, the Trust has put forward a further issue:

7.1 Issue 4: What is the appropriate test and method for determining whether submitters’ trees should be included or excluded from the Schedule of Significant Trees?

8 At the prehearing, with respect to Issue 2, the Trust sought that consideration also be given to the proposed form of the 9.4 provisions, not only as notified, but following the eight month pCRDP process of revision via expert conferencing, mediation and hearing at the time of legal closing.

9 In my evidence, I will address these issues through:

9.1 Setting out why I consider the adjusted thresholds set under the mediated agreement are appropriate and better achieve the purpose 2 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 6 of 31

of the RMA and the Statutory Framework, as set out at Section 6 of my Evidence in Chief (EiC), than either the pCRDP as notified or the revised proposals filed by the Christchurch City Council (CCC) on 22 and 26 July respectively. (Issues 1and 4.)

9.2 I will also address the concerns raised by the additional submitters in terms of appropriate consideration of other matters affecting the scheduling of significant and exceptional trees, both generally and where these may occur on a site specific basis. (Issue 1 and 4, in part; also Issues 2 and 3)

THE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

10 103 additional submissions have been received, affecting approximately 277 of the trees affected by the mediated agreement (MA). This constitutes just over 33% (ca. 34.6%) of the trees covered by the MA and 30% (ca. 29.21%) of the owners that were sent the IHP’s procedural letter.

11 The procedural letter clearly advised property owners that if they were not concerned by their tree or trees being relisted then they need not respond. Of the additional submissions received, therefore, only one was clearly in support of relisting. However, a number of other submitters (21 The Church Property Trustees; 46 The Christian Schools Trust; 73 St John of God Hauora Trust, and 102 St Georges’ Hospital, without being exclusive) have accepted the reinstatement of some trees.

12 Ten late further submissions were also approved by the Panel. Of these 10 late further submissions I am aware that the following have also made additional submissions:

12.1 FS 5093, Wesley Care; 35. Christchurch Methodist Mission

12.2 FS 5094, Westall Trust; 68. Westall Trust

12.3 FS 5095 Baxter; 69. Baxter

12.4 FS 5096 Burgess; 94. Burgess

12.5 FS 5097 S Kelland; 93. Kelland

12.6 FS 5098 R & H Kelland; 10. Kelland

3 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 7 of 31

13 I also note that FS 5095 (69) Baxter, FS 5096 (94) Burgess, FS 5097(93) Kelland, and FS 5098 (10) Kelland all relate to the same tree, the karaka (T965; TS2090) at 62 Nayland Street in Sumner.

14 With respect to the procedural concern that generated the additional submission process, I further note that:

14.1 Submission 11, McCormack addresses a Copper beech (Fagus sylvatica Purpurea), TS 3496, that was included in the pRCDP as notified and is therefore not subject to the mediated agreement.

14.2 Submission 67, Harty addresses a Manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis: TS4838) that Mr Harty previously raised through Submission 3106. At that time, Mr Harty indicated that he did not wish to be heard but subsequently participated in the March 4 mediation. Following mediation I met with Mr Harty on site, accompanied by Mr Cadwallader who inspected the tree. Mr Cadwallader’s report was included in the Trust’s closing legal submissions as Appendix 9. Closing also included a statement from Ms Lucas at Appendix 9a, confirming that in her view the Manna gum is a “distinctive landscape feature on the Mt Pleasant ridgeline” and an “important local landscape feature.”

14.3 Submission 2, Foodstuffs concerns a Horizontal elm, Ulmus glabra Horizontalis (ST4595) that was also raised through the company’s Submission 3695. The circumstances are fully set out in the memorandum (filed in response to Foodstuffs submission 2), lodged with the IHP on 19 July 2016.

14.4 I have not seen an additional submission from W Packard and P Wenlock (5090) but note the observations made at paragraph 59 in closing with respect to the two Tasmanian blue gums (Eucalyptus globulus: TS 2727and 2728; both MA 50/50/50) associated with the heritage property. These trees were also addressed in closing by the Council. I confirm these observations, which accord with my overall support for the Mediated Agreement’s adjusted thresholds.

4 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 8 of 31

PLANNING APPROACH AND SUPPORT FOR THE MEDIATED AGREEMENT

15 In my EiC I address the importance of trees to the overall character of Christchurch, and also the significance of the current schedules of Heritage and Notable trees in the Operative Christchurch and Banks Peninsula District Plan in Section 5. The statutory framework is addressed at Section 6 and the importance of scheduling trees where they are known to be significant, at paragraphs 8.6 to 8.10. I confirm my earlier evidence in respect of all these matters, but particularly note paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7. These refer to Chapters 6 and 13 of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS) with respect to considerations of turangawaewae and the identification and protection of significant historic heritage (Objective 13.2.1.)

16 From a planning perspective, I have been concerned from the outset that the Council’s approach to identifying and scheduling significant trees has confused two distinct matters, both of which are important under the statutory framework.

17 The first is to fairly identify those trees that are significant and exceptional in the Christchurch context for the values and qualities encompassed by Section 2 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and addressed more specifically in proposed Objective 9.4.1 and Policy 9.4.2.1 (a). The second is to determine how those trees and the values they encompass can be most appropriately managed and sustained in the environment.

18 If I may borrow an example from my Historic Places Trust experience, the Register as a record of significance is a cultural resource in its own right. Provision for the appropriate protection and sustainable management of the resource, however, occurs within the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act and the provisions of a District Plan. In Christchurch, although the statutory framework has been expanded to include the instruments of earthquake recovery and the Statement of Expectations, I believe the same essential approach is relevant to Significant and Exceptional trees.

19 My concern, therefore, has always been that the deficiencies in the CTEM method, as set out in the original EiC of Mr Cadwallader and Ms Lucas, meant that the first step had not been properly undertaken and that when seeking to make decisions in terms of the second, the knowledge and therefore weighting able to be given to significance could not be properly undertaken.

5 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 9 of 31

20 For this reason, as set out in Section 7 of my original Evidence in Chief (EiC), I support the Mediated Agreement because I believe it represents a reasonable and pragmatic approach, given the time constraints and expectations of the current pRCDP process, to the deficiencies of the CTEM method.

21 In particular, I note the following concerns (without being exclusive) raised by Mr Cadwallader and Ms Lucas with respect to CTEM:

21.1 That only 17 of the 1623 trees on private land contained on the OCDP and OBPDP schedules were assessed for exceptional landscape contribution1; and

21.2 The method does not include a satisfactory landscape architectural assessment component when assessing a tree or tree group’s significance.

21.3 The assessment of exceptional heritage and/or botanical significance was also very limited. From the data, only 75 of 1623 trees were scored for heritage value2. Of the fifteen Heritage Trees on the OCDP schedule not all received an Exceptional Heritage assessment, including:

21.3.1 TS 1838; the 150 year Wellingtonia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) at 151 Cashmere Road (MA score: 70/70/30);

21.3.2 TS 4595; the 151 year Horizontal elm (Ulmus glabra Horinzontalis) at 300 Stanmore Road (MA score: 50/50/30);

21.4 The method also assesses trees as single specimens that would more appropriately be assessed as groups: for example Burnside High School Cabbage trees and the group of five lime trees at 373 Manchester Street (Graham: 10.19, pg 22, EiC; Lucas, Appendix A, pp 14/15, EiC.) As Mr Cadwallader has indicated in paragraph 17 of his supplementary evidence, where trees occur in a group and therefore grow into each other this will affect their shape—so given context “shape” is not necessarily an appropriate indicator of their

1 Cadwallader, 35, pg 9 2 Cadwallader, 35, pg 9 6 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 10 of 31

significance. Ms Lucas has also addressed why “shape” is a problematic criterion from a landscape architecture perspective.3

21.5 The method also fails native trees at a proportionally higher rate than exotic species. 4

22 I believe it is relevant that in the interval since the February hearing, Ms Lucas and I have continued to work with the Council, on behalf of the Trust, to try and remedy the concerns addressed above. We had achieved an agreement in principle to review these aspects of the method when that process was overtaken by this additional submission and hearing process.

23 In his Supplementary Evidence, Mr Cadwallader has confirmed why he considers the adjusted MA thresholds of Structure: Fair (50); Health: Fair (50); and Shape: Poor (30%) are an appropriate arboricultural threshold to ensure a more robust and arboriculturally appropriate listing of significant trees on private property in the Christchurch context, and one that achieves an outcome more consistent with national best practice. In my view, the examples at 21.3.1 and 21.3.2 above illustrate why this is the case, demonstrating how the adjusted method secures the continued recognition and listing of two of Christchurch’s most important trees.

24 Mr Cadwallader has also set out why raising the threshold for health to 70 (Good) is problematic. The examples he has provided illustrate why the Trust considers the MA’s adjusted thresholds are not struck at too low a level, given the concerns around the CTEM method. From a planning perspective, I believe this is supported by consideration of the trees raised by the additional submissions. In my Appendix 1, I have collated information from publicly available records like the NZ Heritage List, and from arboricultural information supplied by Mr Cadwallader, on approximately 232 of these trees or tree groups in terms of their associations and values. The available information indicates that approximately 162 of these trees (70%):

24.1 Have an association with a recorded historic site or sufficient is known of their setting to suggest that consideration of their historic associations or landscape context should have been undertaken in determining significance;

3 Lucas, 29-33, pp 7-8 4 Cadwallader, 98, pg 22 7 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 11 of 31

24.2 Occur in an avenue or setting that suggests they should have been evaluated as a group;

24.3 Are known to be botanically significant specimens or rare species

25 Mr Cadwallader has included particular examples in his evidence at paragraphs 15. Yet of the ca. 232 trees in Appendix 1, only 28 (12%) have any sort of exceptional value recorded through CTEM. In some cases, too, one tree on a site will have a value recorded, for example +100 years in age, historical association or cultural significance, but its companion trees do not.

26 An example is the four black beeches (arguably a group) at 14 Thorrington Street in Cashmere (TS 2246: 70/70/30; TS 2248: 50/70/30; TS 2250: 70/70/30; and TS2251: 70/70/50) of which only 1 has been rated for exceptional age and 2 of the 4 for cultural value. Yet arguably all four trees share the same values and a full exceptional assessment should have been undertaken. The MA thresholds adjust CTEM for these failings, appropriately in my view. The adjustments proposed by Council on both 22 and 26 July, however, would see only one of these four trees remain on the register.

27 Consideration of these 232 trees, as a sample group, suggests that recorded heritage and landscape associations informed the development of Council’s operative schedule of Heritage and Notable trees. I believe, therefore, that consideration of these elements should have been given far greater prominence in the CTEM assessment method, including undertaking far more exceptional heritage and landscape assessments.

28 Given these concerns, I am perturbed by the Council’s response to the concerns raised by submitters, which has been to immediately propose raising the thresholds. This appears to have been done in the face of clear evidence that shows that the higher thresholds will result in a significant number of trees that are significant or exceptional no longer being protected, with attendant significant adverse effects on the city’s landscape, amenity, historic and cultural heritage values. It also appears to have been done without any corresponding evidence to demonstrate that the continued protection of these particular trees would in any way be inappropriate in terms of “enabling” considerations and preventing the City’s recovery

29 For these reasons, I consider that the MA better meets the statutory framework in terms of fairly identifying significance, than either the Plan as

8 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 12 of 31

notified or the adjustments now proposed by Council – which I also note affect a large number of trees where no change has been requested and no concerns raised.

SUBMISSION 6, THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, AND DESIGNATED SITES

30 The Ministry of Education (MoE) submission 6 and several individual schools made submission: i.e. 31, Fendalton Primary School; 62, Wharenui School; 71, Beckenham School; and 98, Christchurch East School. As these sites are designated, I believe my evidence in respect of recognising significant trees on public land, at Section 8 of my EiC, applies, particularly that s. 176 of the RMA is already highly enabling in terms of the rules in the District Plan.

31 I particularly note my evidence on “The Importance of Scheduling” (EiC paragraphs 8.6 – 8.10, pg 13) and specific consideration with respect to designated sites at paragraphs 8.25, page 16. I also refer to Section 3 of my rebuttal evidence, especially Section 3.3 on page 3. I believe the same considerations apply with respect to schools as to the state highway network and that the benefit of retaining the record of significance should therefore prevail, given the provision of s. 176 RMA, particularly in terms of the assistance it provides to the Ministry, as a requiring authority, to meet its responsibilities under Part 2 and section 17 of the RMA.

SUPPORT FOR POLICY 9.4.2.1 AND A MORE ENABLING APPROACH TO THE MANAGEMENT OF SIGNIFICANT TREES

32 At paragraphs 14 – 17 above, I indicate that the necessary complement to fairly identifying significance is to ensure an appropriate and sustainable management regime through the Plan. This includes consideration of the duty under the statutory framework to identify and sustain significance, while also considering the ability of people to provide for their wellbeing and safety on the site.

33 In my view, this planning evaluation should be made through reference to the Objective and Policy framework within the Plan and not by conflating the planning considerations into the assessment method for significance. For this reason, I support the amendment of Policy 9.4.2.1 (b), which clarifies circumstances where scheduling may not be appropriate. The clause includes consideration of risk in terms of safety and damage to property, the availability of mitigation measures and their costs, and also the need to reinstate earthquake damaged property.

9 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 13 of 31

34 In both cases, however, whether evaluating significance or risk to wellbeing and safety, at either the scheduling or resource consent level, I believe decisions should be made on an evidential basis.

35 In terms of the need for protection where scheduling is considered appropriate, I believe the vulnerability of trees once protection is removed, or believed to be removed, is demonstrated by the number of additional submissions which cite decisions to remove the trees on the basis of delisting. This does not mean a scheduled tree can never be removed, but does suggest that the greater awareness of significance created by scheduling, and the ability of the consent process to promote consideration of alternatives, is important to sustaining their presence in the landscape. Even where a current owner indicates that he or she wishes to retain a tree, a property can change hands at any time and the new owner have a very different approach.

36 For these reasons I believe it is appropriate to have protection for significant and exceptional trees through the pCRDP, including through rules. However, aside from the matters included in Policy 9.4.2.1 (b), I believe the provisions of the pRCDP are now considerably more enabling of tree owners than those under the OCDP. The notified pRCDP saw a significant lowering of the activity standards for scheduled trees, from the OCDP’s Non Complying and Discretionary status for most activities. In addition, the requirements for public notification and written approvals have been significantly reduced.

37 Through the mediation and negotiation that preceded and followed the February hearing, the following changes were also introduced:

37.1 Introduction of a permitted activity category for felling of significant trees where the tree is certified as being dead or having irremedial loss of structural integrity. Given the irreversible nature of such a decision, and with particular consideration of the alteration in arboricultural opinion between 2012 and 2015 for the Stanmore elm, I support the need for a corroborating opinion in such cases.

37.2 A new Controlled Activity (which may not be declined) allowing greater flexibility to prune significant trees, but also allowing for monitoring to occur.

10 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 14 of 31

37.3 Expansion of 9.4.5 Matters of Discretion to encompass concerns relevant to those raised by the additional submitters, including earthquake repairs and residential amenity.

37.4 However, as indicated above and at the February hearing I believe there are still circumstances where major work to or removal of the tree may not be appropriate and so support the retention of some Restricted Discretionary and one Discretionary Activity category, as included at closing, in such cases.

38 Overall, I believe there has already been a considerable shift from the Operative Plan which has resulted in a significant reduction in the number, level, and difficulty of consenting required. This is both considerably more enabling for tree owners and constitutes a reduction in cost in terms of putting together applications.

39 In terms of consent fees, however, I understand that there is currently no consent charge to tree owners for applications concerning safety or where the work is for the benefit of the tree so there is no cost to be reduced.

40 Issue (or question) 3 also asks to what extent the objective and policy provisions in Topic 9.4 should be amended in light of concerns raised by landowners? In considering this question previously, I have been of the view that the Objective did not require change for the following reasons:

40.1 I believe it is important to have an untrammelled objective that articulates the pRCDP’s aspiration with respect to trees.

40.2 I am also of the view that the Plan must be read as a whole and that Objective 9.4.1 both sits within the framework of, and is subordinate to, the Strategic Objectives. For this reason, I believe the Plan as a whole contains a framework of Objectives that encompass the concerns raised by the submitters.

41 With respect to the Policy 9.4.2.1, which I believe is key to the considerations raised by submitters, I accept that it does not at present provide a basis for all the matters set out in the Matters of Discretion, which do, by and large, encompass the range of the submitters’ concerns. I believe it would be desirable for either 9.4.2.1 or another policy to do so.

11 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 15 of 31

42 However, in terms of residential amenity and nuisance aspects of people’s wellbeing, I also believe any policy consideration must recognise that these matters are both far more subjective and also more difficult to determine in evidential terms than safety, risk to property, or earthquake reinstatement. For example, Mr Cadwallader has addressed the way in which the shade provided by trees can have positive amenity benefits as well as causing concern.5 I believe it is also important that the policy be framed in a way that recognises that just as safety risk can in many cases be remedied or mitigated, there are also a wide range of arboricultural and property management tools available to enhance amenity and remedy or mitigate nuisance. Mr Cadwallader has addressed some of these in his supplementary evidence.6]

43 Given these concerns I do not support the wording currently proposed by Council in its redline version. I believe the following is more consistent with the other matters contained in b) and the considerations set out as Matters of Discretion:

9.4.2.1 Policy – Identification and Assessment of Significant Trees, for Scheduling in the District Plan

a. In order to maintain and enhance their contribution to the District's natural and cultural heritage, landscape and amenity values, identify trees, including groups of trees, as either significant or with exceptional values, where they are assessed as having one or more the following significant values: (i) botanical; (ii) heritage; (iii) amenity; (iv) landscape; (v) cultural; and (vi) ecological and/or environment value; and

(b) Schedule significant trees and those with exceptional values, in the District Plan except where it would be inappropriate to schedule the tree, taking into account: (i) the structural soundness and health of the tree; (ii) any unacceptable risk, including likely future risk, from the tree to safety, property, buildings, strategic infrastructure and electricity lines; and (iii) the potential for actual or probable future adverse effects on the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property that cannot be remedied

5 Cadwallader, Supplementary Evidence, paragraph 26.3, pg 7 6 Cadwallader, Supplementary Evidence, paragraphs 31-33, pp 8-9

12 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 16 of 31

or mitigated through recognised arboricultural or property management means; including consideration of potential mitigation measures and their costs with respect to both ii) and iii); and (iii) whether scheduling the tree may unreasonably restrict the reinstatement of buildings and/or property required to remedy damage incurred as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011; …

CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC TREES RAISED BY THE SUBMITTERS

44 Consistent with the approach set out at paragraph 32, I can support the removal of trees from the Mediated Agreement list, as a result of matters raised in the additional submissions, where:

44.1 Arboricultural assessment indicates that the tree no longer meets the adjusted method’s criteria for significance; or

44.2 Reliable evidence provided either by the submitter or through arboricultural reassessment demonstrates that one or more of considerations such as safety, wellbeing, or earthquake recovery, consistent with my proposed amendment to Policy 9.4.2.1(b), apply and do so to an extent that outweighs the significant or exceptional values of the tree.

45 In terms of the reassessment undertaken by Mr Sard of Treetech, the details of which have been made available to the Trust by Council, Mr Cadwallader has reviewed these at paragraphs xxx of his supplementary evidence and I understand accepts Mr Sard’s recommendation that a further seven trees fall below the Mediated Agreement threshold. These seven trees are in addition to the nine trees recorded in Council’s memorandum of 19 July: TS 444; TS 408 – 411; T981; TS 1171 & 1204; and 5228.

46 Although the potential reduction in tree numbers is small compared to that proposed by Council’s adjustment of the method proposed on either 22 or 26 July, I believe this reflects that the Mediated Agreement’s adjusted thresholds are broadly struck at the right level. I also note that although the MA saw approximately 800 trees proposed for reinstatement on the pRCDP schedule, the overall list still now contains approximately 566 fewer trees on private land than on the OCDP.

47 I also note that a number of submitters indicate that they are not so much opposed to their trees being scheduled, but that they seek a more enabling

13 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 17 of 31

process for their management. I believe this accords with the approach I have supported through evidence.

CONCLUSION

48 Overall, I believe that the current version of Section 9.4 Trees, as submitted through closing, represents a very significant shift in the approach to tree protection when compared with the Operative Plans, both in terms of the number of trees on private land that are protected (ca. 1057 as opposed to 1623, an approximately 35% reduction) and in the applicable policy considerations and consenting requirements. This represents a significant improvement in the extent to which the pCRDP enables owners with respect to management of scheduled trees, when compared to the Operative Plan.

49 In my view, this very significant shift both gives effect to the statutory framework, including the Statement of Expectations, while also better achieving the purpose of the RMA with respect to significant trees than either the pCRDP as notified or the adjustments proposed by Council through its Memorandum of 26 July. The latter in particular risks removing protection from trees that are genuinely significant or exception, in many cases where no additional submission has been lodged to suggest their continued scheduling raises a verifiable resource management issue. I believe, therefore, the proposed response goes far further than is required or has been established as necessary.

50 In conclusion, I believe the requirements of the statutory framework are most appropriately given effect by retaining the thresholds for significance as they are, but removing the trees for which other reasons in line with the amended objectives and policies have been established, which outweigh their significant or exceptional qualities.

Dated 29 July 2016

Helen Lowe

14 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Page 18 of 31

Appendix 1:

Appendix lists approximately 232 of the trees raised through submission (including 4 x tree Groups included as one entry each) and includes notes on their significant values and associations.

The colour code is:

 White where a tree’s reinclusion in the Plan is opposed;  Peach where a tree’s reinclusion in the Plan is supported;  Grey where Treetech has undertaken an assessment;  Purple where the tree is not encompassed by the mediated agreement and was publicly notified in 2015  Green for the one submission that was to report an address error but otherwise did not support or oppose.

15 Evidence of Helen Lowe, Christchurch Civic Trust (3700) and Others: Chapter 9.4 Significant Trees – Additional Submissions & Hearing

S/Numbe Address Street No. Tree Location Tree Oppose/s No of Trees Mediated "Exceptional" Note CT & Others Notes r upport3700 Christchurch CivicAgreement Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 46 Christian Schools Trust 30 Acacia Avenue T400: Pseudotsuga menziesii – Douglas Fir (Tree Don't 1 70/50/50 School accepts listing, but note: Page 19 of 31 Specimen 1157) oppose * historic association with former Middleton Grange homestead HPT 1824 Cat 2. * number & significance of trees on site that indicate potential for contribution to wider landscape nd amenity 46 Christian Schools Trust 30 Acacia Avenue T403: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Don't 1 50/70/50 School accepts listing, but note: Specimen 1320) oppose * historic association with former Middleton Grange homestead HPT 1824 Cat 2. * number & significance of trees on site that indicate potential for contribution to wider landscape nd amenity 46 Christian Schools Trust 30 Acacia Avenue T404: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/30 * historic association with former Middleton Grange homestead: HPT 1824 Cat 2. Specimen 1367) * number & significance of trees on site that indicate potential for contribution to wider landscape and amenity 46 Christian Schools Trust 30 Acacia Avenue T401: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/30 * historic association with former Middleton Grange homestead: HPT 1824 Cat 2. Specimen 1158) * number & significance of trees on site that indicate potential for contribution to wider landscape and amenity *Further assessment would be preferable given the above but the locational concenrs are acknowledged. 46 Christian Schools Trust 30 Acacia Avenue T402: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree Don't 1 50/50/30 School accepts listing. Also note: Specimen 1192) oppose * historic association with former Middleton Grange homestead HPT 1824 Cat 2. * number & significance of trees on site that indicate potential for contribution to wider landscape nd amenity 6 St Martins School 22 Albert Terrace T407: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Oppose 1 70/70/50 * a good example Specimen 2672) * could exceed 100 years 20 Canterbury District Health Board 245 Antigua Street T409: Ilex aquifolium – Common Holly (Tree " " 50/70/70 Note consent granted etc Specimen 3295) 20 Canterbury District Health Board 245 Antigua Street T412: Fagus sylvatica Purpurea – Copper Beech Does not 1 50/70/50 * CODB accepts continued listing (Tree Specimen 3310) oppose * retention of significant trees has high public amenity in context of the area 20 Canterbury District Health Board 245 Antigua Street T408: Betula pendula – Silver Birch (Tree Oppose 4 50/70/50 Not worth pursuing if consent to fell granted. Specimen 3292) 20 Canterbury District Health Board 245 Antigua Street T410: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 50/50/30 Consent to fell granted Specimen 3296) 20 Canterbury District Health Board 245 Antigua Street T411: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 50/50/30 Consent to fell granted Specimen 3297) 34 Science Alive Investments Limited 85 Armagh Street T415: Alnus glutinosa – Common Alder (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/30 Condition now appears < fair; do not oppose delisting Specimen 3259) 23 Rohan Dilupa Rajasinghe Rasin 46a Balrudry Street GROUP: TG6: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Oppose 12 oaks 50/70/50 * May be c. 150 years old; information suggests association with the second house Mudiyansel (Noel Rasin) Specimens 1633 - 1636; 975 - 982) built in Canterbury and the Fitzgerald family (Requires corroboration.) * large site and number of trees suggest exceptional heritage and landscape assessment required 85 Kevin and Sue Mahr .2/79 Beachville Road T430: Myoporum laetum – Ngaio (Tree Specimen Oppose 1 50/50/50 Heritage - cultural * a large specimen for the species 88 Annette Chapman 4856) significance 92 Donald Bruce Simpson (note also multiple ownership & submissions from 4 of 8 co-owners ) 64 Georgiana Oborne 12 Bells Road T437: Betula pendula – Silver Birch (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 Specimen 65941) 75 Kate & Michael John Thomas 56 Bristol Street T458: Juglans regia – Common Walnut (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/70 Specimen 3486) 32 Derek Garard-Goring 87 Brockworth Place GROUP: TG7: Pittosporum eugenioides – Oppose 3 50/50/50 Heritage: cultural Unusually large, healthy examples of the species with public amenity in the location Lemonwood (Tree Specimens 132389; 132390; significance 3641) 16 Bruce William Sullivan .3/4 Brockworth Place T462: Arbutus unedo – Irish Strawberry Tree Oppose 1 70/50/50 76 Gregory Ian Molloy (but notes is owned (Tree Specimen 108921) by a Body Corporate) 6 Addington School 22 Brougham Street T464: Quercus cerris – Turkey Oak (Tree Oppose 1 70/70/30 Specimen 2268) 83 Kirsten Marie Disse 4a Bruce Terrace T571: Phoenix canariensis – Canary Island Palm Oppose 1 (but unclear if also 70/70/70 * Good specimen; unclear if is opposing only one tree as are several on the site (Tree Specimen 65809) opposes T569 & (T569 & T570) , which appears to have multiple units & owners. T570; it also appears may be on a property with multiple owners?) 36 Palamino Family Trust (Rob Seddon- 11 Campbell Street T478: Phoenix canariensis – Canary Island Palm Oppose 2 70/70/70 * Longer established tree in Sumner context, ca. 90 years Smith) (Tree Specimen 2085) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 36 Palamino Family Trust 11 Campbell Street T479: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen " " 50/50/50 * ca. 90 years old Page 20 of 31 2086) 4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T489: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree " 70/70/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1850) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees, as well as their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T492: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " 70/70/30 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1853) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T497: Eucalyptus globulus – Tasmanian Blue Gum " 70/50/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John (Tree Specimen 1896) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T488: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree " 70/50/50 * with respect to this elm, B Cadwallader advises that: "at 35m high - this would be Specimen 1849) tallest recorded in the world". Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T491: Quercus cerris – Turkey Oak (Tree " 50/70/70 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1852) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T484: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " (and 9 more cited in 50/70/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1841) submission but not Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping on the Plan? * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T494: Acer pseudoplatanus – Sycamore (Tree " 50/70/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1878) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T490: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen " 50/70/50 Association * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John 1851) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity 4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T496: Eucalyptus globulus – Tasmanian Blue Gum " 50/50/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John (Tree Specimen 1895) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - EvidenceCracroft-Wilson, of Helen so botanical Lowe and including heritage significance Appendix as a site 1 and- 29-07-2016 grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House"Page ; HPT 3104 21 of 31 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T483: Eucalyptus viminalis – Manna Gum (Tree Oppose 18 50/50/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1840) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T486: Eucalyptus viminalis – Manna Gum (Tree " 50/50/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1844) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T498: Chamaecyparis lawsoniana – Lawson " 50/50/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Cypress (Tree Specimen 1897) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T487: Cupressus torulosa – Bhutan Cypress (Tree " 50/50/50 Botanical - * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1848) "threatened" Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T493: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " 50/50/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1854) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T499: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree " 50/50/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1899) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T500: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree " 50/50/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1900) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T495: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " 50/50/50 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Specimen 1892) Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity 4 Canterbury Girl Guides Assoc 151 Cashmere Road T485: Eucalyptus viminalis -- Manna Gum (Tree " 50/50/30 * Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John specimen 1843) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - EvidenceCracroft-Wilson, of Helen so botanical Lowe and including heritage significance Appendix as a site 1 and- 29-07-2016 grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House"Page ; HPT 3104 22 of 31 * Given size of site, the number of trees, as well as their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

151 Cashmere Road 151 Cashmere Road T482: Sequoiadendron giganteum -- Wellingtonia 70/70/30 * T482 currently a Heritage tree under OCDP but no exceptional heritage or (Tree Specimen 1838) landscape evalation recorded.

* Very important site for botanical plantings associated with founding settler John Cracroft-Wilson, so botanical and heritage significance as a site and grouping * Heritage association with Cracroft-Wilson & "Cracroft House" ; HPT 3104 * Given size of site, the number of trees and presence of several landmark trees, together with their heritage significance, trees should be assessed for contribution to landscape and wider amenity

38 Brian James Watson 133 Centaurus Road T503: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree Oppose 1 70/70/50 * Significant landmark in area Specimen 2675) 21 Church Property Trustees 6683 Christchurch Akaroa T518: Dacrycarpus dacrydioides – Kahikatea (Tree Support " 70/70/50 Heritage: cultural * St John of God accepts listing Road Specimen 65954) value * Heritage association with historic St John of God site, ca. 1910 - 1912: Cat 1, No. 4393 * significant native specimen * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to wider landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 6683 Christchurch Akaroa T517: Dacrycarpus dacrydioides – Kahikatea (Tree Support 2 70/70/50 Heritage: cultural * St John of God accepts listing Road Specimen 65953) value * Heritage association with historic St John of God site, ca. 1910 - 1912: Cat 1, No. 4393 * significant native specimen * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to wider landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 24 Church Lane T519: Acer pseudoplatanus – Sycamore (Tree Support 1 70/70/50 * Consider contribution to landscape & amenity Specimen 3764) 47 Stephen John Gacsal 18 Church Square T525: Pseudopanax crassifolium – Lancewood Oppose 1 50/70/70 * Size and age both significant for its species; is among largest in Christchurch (Tree Specimen 2253)

21 Church Property Trustees 30 Church Square T533: Acer pseudoplatanus – Sycamore (Tree Accept " 70/70/70 * Church accepts listing Specimen 2303) * Associated with historic St Mary's Church * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Church Square T527: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 70/70/50 * Church accepts listing Specimen 2280) * Associated with historic St Mary's Church * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Church Square T532: Ulmus hollandica – Dutch Elm (Tree " " 70/70/50 * Church accepts listing Specimen 2286) * Associated with historic St Mary's Church * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Church Square T529: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 70/50/70 * Church accepts listing Specimen 2282) * Associated with historic St Mary's Church * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Church Square T528: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 50/70/70 * Church accepts listing Specimen 2281) * Associated with historic St Mary's Church * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Church Square T530: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 50/70/50 * Church accepts listing Specimen 2283) * Associated with historic St Mary's Church * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Church Square T526: Cupressus torulosa – Bhutan Cypress (Tree " 9 50/70/50 Botanical - * Church accepts listing Specimen 2279) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust andthreatened others - Evidence* Associated of with Helen historic Lowe St Mary's including Church Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contributionPage to23 landscape of 31 & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Church Square T531: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 50/50/50 * Church accepts listing Specimen 2285) * Associated with historic St Mary's Church * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Church Square T534: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 50/50/30 * Church accepts listing Specimen 2305) * Associated with historic St Mary's Church * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T552: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree Undecide 70/70/50 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for Specimen 1403) d but contribution to landscape and amenity consider *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. as 1900) opposed 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T559: Cedrus atlantica Glauca – Blue Atlas Cedar " 70/70/30 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for (Tree Specimen 1417) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T550: Cedrus deodara – Deodar Cedar (Tree " 70/70/30 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for Specimen 1398) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T558: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen " 50/70/70 Commemorative * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for 1416) tree contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T555: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " 50/70/70 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for Specimen 1406) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T547: Juglans regia – Common Walnut (Tree " 50/70/70 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for Specimen 1392) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T546: Nothofagus solandri cliffortioides – " 14 50/70/50 Cultural significance * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for Mountain Beech (Tree Specimen 1391) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) * significant native in urban context 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T548: Dacrycarpus dacrydioides – Kahikatea (Tree " 50/70/50 Cultural significance * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for Specimen 1393) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T553: Aesculus hippocastanum – Horse Chestnut " 50/70/50 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for (Tree Specimen 1404) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T554: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree " 50/50/50 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for Specimen 1405) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T549: Cedrus libani – Cedar of Lebanon (Tree " 50/50/50 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for Specimen 1396) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T557: Cedrus atlantica Glauca – Blue Atlas Cedar " 50/50/30 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for (Tree Specimen 1415) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T556: Platanus acerifolia – London Plane (Tree " 50/50/30 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for Specimen 1407) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidencecontribution of to Helen landscape Lowe and amenity including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that Pagepredated 24 school of 31(ca. 1900) 22 Medbury School Trust Board 109 Clyde Road T551: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree " 50/50/30 * Given number of trees on site should be considered as a potential group & for Specimen 1402) contribution to landscape and amenity *Historical association with former "Ripsford" homestead that predated school (ca. 1900) 31 Fendalton School 168 Clyde Road T565: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 50/70/50 * Given number of trees on site and generally good specimens should be considered Specimen 1376) as a potential group & for contribution to landscape and amenity

31 Fendalton School 168 Clyde Road T566: Juglans regia – Common Walnut (Tree " " 50/70/50 * Given number of trees on site and generally good specimens should be considered Specimen 1377) as a potential group & for contribution to landscape and amenity

31 Ministry Of Education 168 Clyde Road T560: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Oppose 8 50/50/50 * Given number of trees on site and generally good specimens should be considered Specimen 1370) as a potential group & for contribution to landscape and amenity

31 Fendalton School 168 Clyde Road T562: Nothofagus fusca – Red Beech (Tree " " 50/50/50 Heritage: cultural * Given number of trees on site and generally good specimens should be considered Specimen 1372) significance as a potential group & for contribution to landscape and amenity * Good native specimen

31 Fendalton School 168 Clyde Road T564: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 50/50/50 * Given number of trees on site and generally good specimens should be considered Specimen 1374) as a potential group & for contribution to landscape and amenity

31 Fendalton School 168 Clyde Road T561: Nothofagus fusca – Red Beech (Tree " " 50/50/30 Heritage: cultural * Given number of trees on site and generally good specimens should be considered Specimen 1371) significance as a potential group & for contribution to landscape and amenity * Good native specimen

31 Fendalton School 168 Clyde Road T563: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 50/50/30 * Given number of trees on site and generally good specimens should be considered Specimen 1373) as a potential group & for contribution to landscape and amenity

61 Bruce David Smith 88c Clyde Road T568: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/50 * Note sprinkling effective to prevent bird nesting Specimen 1241) 89 Pablo Properties Limited 383 Colombo Street T574: Ilex aquifolium – Common Holly (Tree Oppose 1 70/70/30 Structue & health supposed to be "good" (70) Specimen 2340) 37 Terrence John O'Rawe 876 Colombo Street T575: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Oppose 1 70/70/50 Note: original CTEM = 70 for health Specimen 3274) 43 Phil Wright & Joanna Katharine Steel 7 Daresbury Lane T585: Populus nigra Italica – Lombardy Poplar Oppose 1 50/70/50 > 100 years * Trees associated with HNZ Category I listing 3659 ‘Daresbury’ (Tree Specimen 3689) Feature * Good example of species * Should have exceptional assessment 86 Susan Kay Wilson-Adam 75 DEANS AVENUE (but T462: Arbutus unedo – Irish Strawberry Tree Oppose 1 70/50/50 (see also 6/4 Brockworth submission) believe his may also (Tree Specimen 108921) be the 4 Brockworth Place tree?)

21 Church Property Trustees 243 Durham Street South T593: Acer pseudoplatanus – Sycamore (Tree Support 1 50/70/70 Specimen 3336) 53 Lynley Anne Jenness & Neil Hawkins Jan-77 Edgeware Road T597: Liquidambar styraciflua – Sweet Gum (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 Specimen 3495) 82 Theire & Douglas Alexander Schumacher 163 FENDALTON ROAD T606: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen oppose 1 50/50/50 * Very prominent specimen in the streetscape 1345) 44 Denise Mary Garnier 1/165 Fendalton Road T606: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen 50/50/50 * Very prominent specimen in the streetscape 1345) 84 John Rutherford Mills 263 Gebbies Pass Road T620: Juglans – Walnut (Tree Specimen 65888) Oppose 1 50/50/50 * planting associated with 1885 church * Note two other trees proposed (of 8 previously listed on the site) but not cited by submitter? Both trees opposed or only 1? 21 Church Property Trustees 834 Gebbies Pass Road T621: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Opposes 1 50/70/70 * Very large oak associated with St Cuthbert's Church and Setting Specimen 65955) * significant in landscape 45 Edward John Papprill Cook 27 Glandovey Road T629: Alnus glutinosa – Common Alder (Tree 70/70/70 * Associated plantings Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2 site. Reg # 3805 Specimen 1595) 45 Edward John Papprill Cook 27 Glandovey Road T628: Platanus acerifolia – London Plane (Tree 50/50/50 * A significant avenue & should be assessed as a group? Specimen 1451) * Also significant landscape considerations * Heritage: Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2 site. Reg # 3805 45 Edward John Papprill Cook 27 Glandovey Road T622: Platanus acerifolia – London Plane (Tree Oppose 8 50/50/50 * A significant avenue & should be assessed as a GROUP - not as individual trees Specimen 1443) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence* Also significant of Helen landscape Lowe considerations including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 * Heritage: Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2 site. Reg # 3805Page 25 of 31

45 Edward John Papprill Cook 27 Glandovey Road T623: Platanus acerifolia – London Plane (Tree 50/50/50 * A significant avenue & should be assessed as a GROUP - not as individual trees Specimen 1445) * Also significant landscape considerations * Heritage: Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2 site. Reg # 3805

45 Edward John Papprill Cook 27 Glandovey Road T624: Platanus acerifolia – London Plane (Tree 50/50/30 * A significant avenue & should be assessed as a GROUP - not as individual trees Specimen 1446) * Also significant landscape considerations * Heritage: Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2 site. Reg # 3805

45 Edward John Papprill Cook 27 Glandovey Road T625: Platanus acerifolia – London Plane (Tree 50/50/30 * A significant avenue & should be assessed as a GROUP - not as individual trees Specimen 1447) * Also significant landscape considerations * Heritage: Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2 site. Reg # 3805

45 Edward John Papprill Cook 27 Glandovey Road T626: Platanus acerifolia – London Plane (Tree 50/50/30 * A significant avenue & should be assessed as a GROUP - not as individual trees Specimen 1448) * Also significant landscape considerations * Heritage: Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2 site. Reg # 3805

45 Edward John Papprill Cook 27 Glandovey Road T627: Platanus acerifolia – London Plane (Tree 50/50/30 * A significant avenue & should be assessed as a GROUP - not as individual trees Specimen 1449) * Also significant landscape considerations * Heritage: Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2 site. Reg # 3805

45 Edward John Papprill Cook 27 Glandovey Road T628: Platanus acerifolia – London Plane (Tree 50/30/30 * A significant avenue & should be assessed as a group? Specimen 1450) * Also significant landscape considerations * Heritage: Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2 site. Reg # 3805 68 Anthony James Frank Wilding(Westall 104 Glandovey Road T631: Sequoia sempervirens – Coast Redwood Oppose 3 (2) 50/50/50 * Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2: No. 3802: Greystones. Trust) (Tree Specimen 3727) * Trees are associated planting and the elm is likely 100+ years old * Exceptional heritage? 68 Anthony James Frank Wilding 104 Glandovey Road T632: Ulmus glabra Camperdownii – " 3 (3) 50/50/30 * Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2: No. 3802: Greystones. Camperdown Elm (Tree Specimen 3728) * Trees are associated planting and the elm is likely 100+ years old * Exceptional heritage? 98 East Christchurch School 311 Gloucester Street T635: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Neutral 4 (1) 70/70/50 * part of site with a number of trees; consideration of contribution to wider Specimen 3375) landscape and amenity 6 Christchurch East School 311 Gloucester Street T638: Nothofagus solandri – Black Beech (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/70 Heritage: Cultural * part of site with a number of trees; consideration of contribution to wider Specimen 4565) value landscape and amenity * significant native specimen 98 East Christchurch School 311 Gloucester Street T638: Nothofagus solandri – Black Beech (Tree Seeks 4(4) 50/70/70 Cultural significance * part of site with a number of trees; consideration of contribution to wider (see also Specimen 4565) particular landscape and amenity; 6) considerat * native beech unusual in urban area ion

98 East Christchurch School 311 Gloucester Street T636: Agathis australis – Kauri (Tree Specimen Neutral 4(2) 50/50/70 * native tree & understood to be a good size for Christchurch 4555) * part of site with a number of trees; consideration of contribution to wider landscape and amenity 98 East Christchurch School 311 Gloucester Street T637: Juglans regia – Common Walnut (Tree Neutral 4(3) 50/50/50 * part of site with a number of trees; consideration of contribution to wider Specimen 4560) landscape and amenity 103 21a Gwynfa Avenue 21a Gwynfa Avenue T667: Ulmus procera – English elm (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 specimen 1828) 70 Simon John Abbot 63 Hackthorne Road T670: Araucaria heterophylla – Norfolk Island Oppose 1 50/70/70 Pine (Tree Specimen 1865) 59 James Talbot Baines 53 Harakeke Street T694: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Elm Oppose 1 50/70/70 * this tree is highly significant for height, the third largest recorded of this cultivar in (Tree Specimen 3813) the world 35 Methodist Church 91 Harewood Road T700 Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree Specimen Oppose 1 70/70/70 * Passed original CTEM but not notified? 5292) 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T708: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " 70/70/50 * associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey wooden residence c1870 Specimen 2651) * exceptional heritage evaluation? * exceptional landscape evaluation in context of overall site

33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T709: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 70/70/50 * associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey wooden residence c1870 Specimen 2652) * exceptional heritage evaluation? * exceptional landscape evaluation in context of overall site 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T710: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Elm " " 70/70/50 * Botanically unique avenue of elms associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey (Tree Specimen 2656) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidencewooden residence of Helen c1870 Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 * exceptional landscape evaluation Page 26 of 31 * exceptional heritage evaluation 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T713: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Elm " " 70/70/50 * Botanically unique avenue of elms associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey (Tree Specimen 2659) wooden residence c1870 * exceptional landscape evaluation * exceptional heritage evaluation 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T711: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Elm " " 70/70/50 * Botanically unique avenue of elms associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey (Tree Specimen 2657) wooden residence c1870 * exceptional landscape evaluation * exceptional heritage evaluation 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T712: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Elm " " 70/70/50 * Botanically unique avenue of elms associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey (Tree Specimen 2658) wooden residence c1870 * exceptional landscape evaluation * exceptional heritage evaluation 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T714: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Elm " " 70/50/50 * Botanically unique avenue of elms associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey (Tree Specimen 2660) wooden residence c1870 * exceptional landscape evaluation * exceptional heritage evaluation 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams (Fifeld 14 Hawford Road T705: Magnolia grandiflora – Southern Magnolia Oppose 14 50/70/70 * associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey wooden residence c1870 Estate) (Tree Specimen 2648) * exceptional heritage evaluation? * exceptional landscape evaluation in context of overall site 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T718: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen " " 50/70/30 * associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey wooden residence c1870 2665) * exceptional heritage evaluation? * exceptional landscape evaluation in context of overall site 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T706: Thuja plicata – Western Red Cedar (Tree " " 50/50/50 * associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey wooden residence c1870 Specimen 2649) * exceptional heritage evaluation? * exceptional landscape evaluation in context of overall site 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T707: Thuja plicata – Western Red Cedar (Tree " " 50/50/50 * associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey wooden residence c1870 Specimen 2650) * exceptional heritage evaluation? * exceptional landscape evaluation in context of overall site 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T715: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Elm " " 50/50/50 * Botanically unique avenue of elms associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey (Tree Specimen 2661) wooden residence c1870 * exceptional landscape evaluation * exceptional heritage evaluation 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T716: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Elm " " 50/50/50 * Botanically unique avenue of elms associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey (Tree Specimen 2662) wooden residence c1870 * exceptional landscape evaluation * exceptional heritage evaluation 33 Edward Bryan Dunsterville Adams 14 Hawford Road T717: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Elm " " 50/50/30 * Botanically unique avenue of elms associated with historic 'Fifefield' two storey (Tree Specimen 2664) wooden residence c1870 * exceptional landscape evaluation * exceptional heritage evaluation

9 Horizon Resources Limited 16 Heaton Street T743: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree Oppose " 70/50/30 Specimen 3769) 9 Horizon Resources Limited 16 Heaton Street T742: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree Oppose 2 50/50/30 Specimen 3768) 21 Church Property Trustees 234 Hereford Street T762: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen Supported " 50/50/70 3329) 21 Church Property Trustees 234 Hereford Street T761: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 50/50/70 Specimen 3317) 21 Church Property Trustees 234 Hereford Street T759: Magnolia grandiflora – Southern Magnolia " 3 50/50/50 (Tree Specimen 3313) 100 Peter Arthur Hoskins 30 Holmwood Road T771: Ulmus glabra Camperdownii – Oppose 1 70/70/70 Association with C1920 Cat II Heritage NZ House No. 3808 Camperdown Elm (Tree Specimen 3725) 60 Kevin Ronald Erickson 75 Hoon Hay Road T774: Dacrydium cupressinum – Rimu (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/30 Heritage; cultural Specimen 536) significance 52 McTear Properties Limited (Llyod Thoms 379 Ilam Road T776: Agathis australis – Kauri (Tree Specimen Oppose 1 70/70/50 Good health; good structure Hardee) 5210) 18 Chris Rae 416 Ilam Road T777: Fagus sylvatica – European Beech (Tree oppose 1 50/70/50 * Tree significant in the landscape 28 Graeme John McDonald Specimen 5211) 19 Derek J Hargreaves 43 Innes Road T779: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree not 3 (2) 50/70/70 * Owner accepts tree listing Specimen 5683) opposed3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence* good tree of Helen Lowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 * given proximity of 3 may require assessment as a group. Page 27 of 31 19 Derek J Hargreaves 43 Innes Road T780: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree not 3 (3) 50/70/50 * Owner accepts tree listing Specimen 5684) opposed * good tree * given proximity of 3 may require assessment as a group. 19 Derek J Hargreaves 43 Innes Road T778: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen oppose 3 (1) 50/50/30 * given proximity of 3 may require assessment as a group 5682) 13 Noeline Isabel Halstead 19 Joyce Crescent T782: Fagus sylvatica Purpurea – Copper Beech Oppose 1 70/50/70 (Tree Specimen 1198) 79 Brian Murray Law 4 Kahikatea Lane T783: Ginkgo biloba – Maidenhair Tree (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 Specimen 3597) 21 Church Property Trustees 50 Kirk Road T851: Cedrus atlantica – Atlas Cedar (Tree Accept 50/50/70 * trees associated with Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2; HPT 3075 ca. 1868 - Specimen 189) 1874 * Exceptional heritage? * Exceptional landscape? 21 Church Property Trustees 50 Kirk Road T850: Araucaria araucana – Monkey Puzzle (Tree Accept 4 (5?) 50/50/70 Botanical - * trees also associated with Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2; HPT 3075 ca. Specimen 188) threatened 1868 - 1874 * Exceptional heritage? * Exceptional landscape? 21 Church Property Trustees 50 Kirk Road T853: Cupressus sempervirens – Italian Cypress Oppose 50/50/70 * trees associated with Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2; HPT 3075 ca. 1868 - (Tree Specimen 193) 1874 * Exceptional heritage? * Exceptional landscape? 21 Church Property Trustees 50 Kirk Road T852: Cedrus atlantica – Atlas Cedar (Tree Oppose 50/50/50 * trees associated with Heritage NZ Historic Place Category 2; HPT 3075 ca. 1868 - Specimen 190) 1874 * Exceptional heritage? * Exceptional landscape? 49 Tina Maria Hodgson 80 Lake Terrace Road T858: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen 50/70/50 * But note that long term proximity issues seem likely 6050) 49 Keiry Martin Bennett 80a LAKE TERRACE ROAD T858: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen Oppose 1 50/70/30 * But note that long term proximity issues seem likely 6050) 102 St George's Hospital Inc 137 Leinster Road T864: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree Accept 4 (2) 70/70/70 * Hospital accepts listing; Specimen 5702) * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 102 St George's Hospital Inc 137 Leinster Road T863: Podocarpus totara – Totara (Tree Specimen Accept 4 (1) 50/70/50 Heritage: cultural * Owner accepts listing; 5695) significance * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 102 St George's Hospital Inc 137 Leinster Road T866: Fraxinus excelsior Aurea – Golden Ash (Tree Accept 4 (4) 50/70/50 * Hospital accepts listing; Specimen 5698) * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 102 St George's Hospital Inc 137 Leinster Road T865: Ulmus glabra Camperdownii – Oppose 4 (3) 50/50/70 Camperdown Elm (Tree Specimen 5705) 5 Oceania Village Company Limited 207 Lincoln Road T888: Ulmus glabra – Wych Elm (Tree Specimen Oppose 1 50/70/70 *High landscape value 2273) * Proximity to Resthome building needs to be managed 14 Paddy Snowdon, City Salvage 32 Linwood Avenue T890: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Elm Oppose 3 70/70/50 * On site of Linwood House, established 1857 (Tree Specimen 4582) * Large specimens & likely > 100 years 14 Paddy Snowdon, City Salvage 32 Linwood Avenue T891: Ulmus glabra – Wych Elm (Tree Specimen " " 50/50/70 * On site of Linwood House, established 1857 4583) * Large specimens & likely > 100 years 14 Paddy Snowdon, City Salvage 32 Linwood Avenue T892: Juglans regia – Common Walnut (Tree " " 50/50/50 * On site of Linwood House, established 1857 Specimen 4657) * Large specimens & likely > 100 years 21 Church Property Trustees 20 Lychgate Close T899: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree Support 2 50/50/50 * Given number of specimen trees on site should be considered for contribution to Specimen 4547) landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 20 Lychgate Close T901: Quercus cerris – Turkey Oak (Tree " " 50/50/50 * Given number of specimen trees on site should be considered for contribution to Specimen 4552) landscape & amenity 51 Marguerite Jeanette Vivian 5 Lynfield Avenue T902: Fagus sylvatica Purpurea – Copper Beech Oppose 1 50/70/50 (Tree Specimen 1343) 51 Janine Ann Ogier 5a Lynfield Avenue T902: Fagus sylvatica Purpurea – Copper Beech 50/70/50 (Tree Specimen 1343) 50 The Redwood Hub Limited 340 Main North Road T908: Sequoiadendron giganteum – Wellingtonia Oppose 1 70/50/50 Association - suburb of "Redwood" named for the tree at request of citizens / (Tree Specimen 6126) community? 21 Church Property Trustees 24 Main South Road T910: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree Support 14 50/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1224) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 24 Main South Road T913: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 50/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1418) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence* Given number of Helen of trees Lowe & site should including be considered Appendix for contribution 1 - 29-07-2016 to landscape & amenity Page 28 of 31 21 Church Property Trustees 24 Main South Road T914: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 50/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1419) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 24 Main South Road T909: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " 50/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1223) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 24 Main South Road T911: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree " " 50/70/30 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1226) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 24 Main South Road T912: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree " " 50/70/30 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1227) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 28 Main South Road T916: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 70/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1433) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 28 Main South Road T915: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 50/50/30 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1431) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Main South Road T917: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 70/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1435) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Main South Road T919: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 70/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1439) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 30 Main South Road T918: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 70/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1437) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 26b Main South Road T926: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 70/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1427) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 26b Main South Road T927: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 70/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1429) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 26b Main South Road T925: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree " " 70/70/50 * Associated with historic St Peter's Church 1876-1928 Specimen 1425) * Given number of trees & site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 48 Sun Nam Yee (Steven Jarm) 1 Major Aitken Drive T930: Cedrus deodara – Deodar Cedar (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/70 * Tree has hangers in it currently and has lost multiple limbs, leaving canopy open Specimen 1871) and more likely to lose more branches. * Do not oppose delisting 74 Andrew James Murray 387 Manchester Street T937: Fagus sylvatica Purpurea – Copper Beech " " 70/70/50 * Tree is associated with McLeans mansion, a Cat 1 Historic Place; HPT 300 -- (Tree Specimen 3348) Heritage "Association" noted for its companion tree (TS 3323 ) but not this one * strong probability that > 100 years old * exceptional landscape should also be undertaken

74 Andrew James Murray 387 Manchester Street T936: Fagus sylvatica Purpurea – Copper Beech Oppose 2 50/70/50 Association; * Tree is associated with McLeans mansion, a Cat 1 Historic Place; HPT 300 (Tree Specimen 3323) Commemoration * strong probability that > 100 years old * exceptional landscape should also be undertaken 87 Liane and Kenneth Shields 63 Matai Street West T944: Quercus palustris – Pin Oak (Tree Specimen Oppose in 1 50/50/50 A landmark tree 3596) part; support in part 62 Wharenui School 32 Matipo Street T945: Betula pendula – Silver Birch (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/30 Condition now appears < fair; do not oppose delisting Specimen 1487) 3 Nurse Maude Association 24 McDougall Avenue T947: Cedrus deodara – Deodar Cedar (Tree Oppose 1 70/50/50 Specimen 5841) 91 Turner 17 Memorial Ave 2 x Quercus robur -- English Oaks (Tree specimens Neutral 2 Advises letter sent to wrong address; no other comment. 19 1321; 1322 80 MG Hadfield Family TrustElizabeth Janet 273 Montreal Street T953: Magnolia grandiflora – Southern Magnolia Oppose 1 70/70/50 Hadfield (Tree Specimen 3389) 39 Christchurch Medical School 277 Montreal Street T954: Pseudopanax crassifolium – Lancewood Oppose 1 50/50/50 (Tree Specimen 3352) 73 St John Of God 26 Nash Road T961: Eucalyptus globulus – Tasmanian Blue Gum Oppose 1 70/70/50 * * Note safety a concern (Tree Specimen 697) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence* Note heritage of Helen association Lowe with includinghistoric St John Appendix of God site, ca.1 1910- 29-07-2016 - 1912: Cat 1, No. 4393 Page 29 of 31 * note also consideration of wider landscape & amenity as part of site 73 St John Of God 26 Nash Road T964: Cedrus deodara – Deodar Cedar (Tree Accept 4(4) 70/70/50 * Owner accepts listing; Specimen 702) * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 73 St John Of God 26 Nash Road T962: Cupressus torulosa – Bhutan Cypress (Tree Accept 4(2) 70/70/30 Botanical - * Owner accepts listing; Specimen 699) threatened * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 73 St John Of God 26 Nash Road T960: Pseudotsuga menziesii – Douglas Fir (Tree Accept 4(1) 70/70/30 * Owner accepts listing; Specimen 692) * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 73 St John Of God 26 Nash Road T963: Fagus sylvatica Purpurea – Copper Beech Accept 4(3) 50/70/70 * St John of God accepts listing (Tree Specimen 700) * Heritage association with historic St John of God site, ca. 1910 - 1912: Cat 1, No. 4393 * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 10 R & H Kelland 62 Nayland St, Sumner T965: Corynocarpus laevigatus – Karaka (Tree Oppose 1 70/70/70 Heritage: cultural * Note "exceptional" score in original evaluation 69 Sarah Baxter, co-owner Specimen 2090) value 93 Sarah Kelland 94 Ron & Shirley Burgess

15 Peter Wisner Helms 63 Nayland Street T967: Phoenix canariensis – Canary Island Palm " " 70/70/70 * High amenity examples (Tree Specimen 2084) * located nearer the boundary of the property 15 Peter Wisner Helms 63 Nayland Street T966: Phoenix canariensis – Canary Island Palm Oppose 2 70/70/70 " (Tree Specimen 2083) 7 Ronald Jeffery Pentecost 85 North Avon Road T968: Ulmus glabra Camperdownii – Oppose 1 70/70/70 Camperdown Elm (Tree Specimen 4590) 26 TEL Property Nominees Limited 135 Office Road T970: Fagus sylvatica Purpurea – Copper Beech Oppose 1 50/50/70 * significant specimen (Tree Specimen 5674) * contributes landscape amenity in context of supermarket and adjoining residential amenity * seems well located at periphery of carpark operation 42 Jarrod Marcus Scott Purdue 88 Opawa Road T974: Juglans regia – Common Walnut (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 Specimen 2749) 99 Sandra Patricia Johnson 92 Opawa Road T975: Ulmus glabra Camperdownii – Oppose 1 70/70/50 Note 70 for health original CTEM assessment Camperdown Elm (Tree Specimen 2750) 12 Hamish Liddell Cuthbert (Tilford Trust) 94 Opawa Road T976: Platanus acerifolia – London Plane (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/70 Specimen 2751) 95 Lucy Ragg & Richard Ashby Coulter 76 Palatine Terrace T978: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/70 * Landmark tree Specimen 2726) 77 Christchurch Girl's High School Board of 85 Papanui Road T979: Platanus orientalis – Oriental Plane (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/50 * If drains replaced with plastic as per submission, flooding caused by root intrusion Trustees Specimen 3605) unlikely 17 Isight Properties Limited & ChCh Eye 274 Papanui Road T981: Acer pseudoplatanus – Sycamore (Tree Oppose 1 70/70/50 Council's memorandum in response says report by Ed Sard against retaining this tree Surgey Specimen 5835) B Cadwallader concurs

97 Bupa Care Services NZ Limited 429 Papanui Road T1017: Sequoiadendron giganteum – Wellingtonia Oppose 1 50/50/50 * prominent tree (Tree Specimen 5849) 65 Wayne Anthony Wilson 28 Park Terrace T1020: Ilex aquifolium – Common Holly (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/70 * good health; good shape Specimen 3786) 27 CMD Associates Limited (C Drayton) 90 Park Terrace T1022: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/70 *Located in the 'Park Terrace Historical Area' Heritage New Zealand register number Specimen 3299) 7058. * 100+ years old * A prominent landscape specimen - should have exceptional landscape assessment

FS 4002 William Hugh Packard 6 Peartree Lane T1025: Eucalyptus globulus – Tasmanian Blue Oppose 2 50/50/50 * Part of a heritage setting -- Cat 2 Historic Place, yet no exceptional evaluation Gum (Tree Specimen 2727) done - HPT 3109 * Exceptional landscape probably also appropriate FS 4002 William Hugh Packard 6 Peartree Lane T1026: Eucalyptus globulus – Tasmanian Blue Oppose " 50/50/50 Part of a heritage setting -- Cat 2 Historic Place, yet no exceptional evaluation done - Gum (Tree Specimen 2728) HPT 3109 * Exceptional landscape probably also appropriate 41 Angela Barclay, St Luke's Close Nominee 170 Peterborough Street T938: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/50 Heritage: associated * prominent tree in streetscape Company Limited (angela Barclay) Specimen 3347) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust andwith historic others St - Evidence* potential of exceptional Helen landscapeLowe including Appendix 1 - 29-07-2016 Luke's church * concerns should be manageable via arborilcutural.proeprty managementPage 30 meansof 31

78 Debbie & Jim Harding James Henry 24/15 Peterborough Street T1032: Podocarpus hallii – Hall's Totara (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 Native specimen Harding Specimen 3360) 40 Bert & Annie Govan (Wenqian Sun) 118 Puriri Street T1035: Ulmus procera – English Elm (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 * high visibility Specimen 1479) 29 Thorrington Village Limited 26 Riverview Street T1085: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/70 Specimen 2209) 90 Carol van Hurst Christopher Frank 17 Rossall Street T1087: Liquidambar styraciflua – Sweet Gum Oppose 1 50/50/50 Eglinton (Tree Specimen 3717) 63 Andrea Ruth Cayford 35 Rossall Street T1088: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/70 Specimen 3611) 57 Noeline Alison Fraser .2/140 Rugby Street T1103: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree " " 50/50/50 * Very prominent specimen on the streetscape. Specimen 3699) *Associated with 'Long Cottage' Historic Place Category 2, Heritage NZ reg # 1900

57 James Robin Musgrave Davidson 140a Rugby Street T1103: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 * Very prominent specimen on the streetscape. Specimen 3699) *Associated with 'Long Cottage' Historic Place Category 2, Heritage NZ reg # 1900

71 Beckenham School & MoE 71 Sandwich Road T1107: Cryptomeria japonica – Japanese Cedar " " 70/50/70 * Relatively rare species & also (Tree Specimen 2746) * One of only 3 of 8 previously listed trees on the site proposed for relisting * Important to retain record of significance & amenity for site if possible to do so

71 Beckenham School & MoE 71 Sandwich Road T1106: Platanus orientalis – Oriental Plane (Tree " " 50/50/50 *One of only 3 of 8 previously listed trees on the site proposed for relisting Specimen 2744) * Important to retain record of significance & amenity for site if possible to do so * This tree a large specimen

6 Beckenham School 71 Sandwich Road T1105: Fraxinus excelsior – English Ash (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/30 *One of only 3 of 8 previously listed trees on the site proposed for relisting (see also Specimen 2739) * Important to retain record of significance & amenity for site if possible to do so 71) 71 Beckenham School & MoE 71 Sandwich Road T1105: Fraxinus excelsior – English Ash (Tree Oppose 3 50/50/30 *One of only 3 of 8 previously listed trees on the site proposed for relisting Specimen 2739) * Important to retain record of significance & amenity for site if possible to do so

67 Simon Richard Raymond Harty 28 Seamount Terrace T1108: Eucalyptus viminalis – Manna Gum (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 Assessments by Brad Cadwallader & Di Lucas as part of legal closing 19 April Specimen 4838) 8 Michael Patrick Crum 108 Shortland Street GROUP: TG18: Eucalyptus viminalis – Manna Gum Oppose 4 50/70/50 * prominent trees in an area with few large trees, but (Tree Specimens 4949; 4950; 4951; 4952) * location not ideal re proximity to buildings so likely to require ongoing management.

55 Michael Smail Family Trust No 2 29a Snowdon Road T1113: Fagus sylvatica Purpurea – Copper Beech Oppose 1 70/70/70 (Tree Specimen 1336) 54 Celia Margaret Brown 123a Sparks Road T1114: Eriobotrya japonica – Loquat (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/50 * among largest specimens in Christchurch Specimen 2214) * relatively rare species 56 Garry Francis Minnell 69 Stanleys Road T1117: Cordyline australis – Cabbage Tree (Tree oppose 1 50/70/70 Heritage - Cultural * This tree is 1 of only 15 Heritage trees listed under the OCDP Specimen 5033) significance * pre-European * reputedly a traditional landmark feature used as a waymarker 2 Foodstuffs (South Island) Properties 300 Stanmore Road T1118: Ulmus glabra Horizontalis – Horizontal Oppose 1 50/50/30 Heritage > 150 years old with heritage associations & plaque Limited Elm (Tree Specimen 4595) Landscape * important in streetscape 72 Paul Gerard Stikkelman & Sue 110 Sullivan Avenue T1123: Rhododendron – Rhododendron (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/70 * Size and age both significant for species Specimen 2733) 30 Thomas David Anderson for Julie 23 Thornycroft Street T1127: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree Oppose 1 70/70/50 Anderson Specimen 1340) 25 Punakaiki Trust 14 Thorrington Road T1131: Nothofagus solandri – Black Beech (Tree " 70/70/50 > 100 years old Note - query whether only 1 tree should be assessed by Treetech Specimen 2251) (1 of 4 trees) * 1 of a group of 4 trees that should probably be reassessed as a GROUP * 2 of 4 have been assessed as having exceptional cultural value; 1 of 4 has been assessed as > 100 years old -- likelihood that all are? * large / old natives in a group rare in Christchurch * exceptional heritage * exceptional landscape 25 Punakaiki Trust(Helen & Chris Pfahlert) 14 Thorrington Road T1128: Nothofagus solandri – Black Beech (Tree Oppose 4 total 70/70/30 Cultural value * 1 of a group of 4 trees that should probably be reassessed as a GROUP Specimen 2246) 3700 Christchurch Civic Tust and others - Evidence* 2 of 4 have of been Helen assessed Lowe as having including exceptional Appendix cultural value; 1 - 129-07-2016 of 4 has been assessed as > 100 years old -- likelihood that all are? Page 31 of 31 * large / old natives in a group rare in Christchurch * exceptional heritage * exceptional landscape 25 Punakaiki Trust 14 Thorrington Road T1130: Nothofagus solandri – Black Beech (Tree " 70/70/30 Nil * 1 of a group of 4 trees that should probably be reassessed as a GROUP Specimen 2250) * 2 of 4 have been assessed as having exceptional cultural value; 1 of 4 has been assessed as > 100 years old -- likelihood that all are? * large / old natives in a group rare in Christchurch * exceptional heritage * exceptional landscape 25 Punakaiki Trust 14 Thorrington Road T1129: Nothofagus solandri – Black Beech (Tree Oppose 50/70/30 Cultural value * 1 of a group of 4 trees that should probably be reassessed as a GROUP Specimen 2248) (1 of 4 trees) * 2 of 4 have been assessed as having exceptional cultural value; 1 of 4 has been assessed as > 100 years old -- likelihood that all are? * large / old natives in a group rare in Christchurch * exceptional heritage * exceptional landscape

21 Church Property Trustees 8 Tui Street T1145: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree Support " 50/70/50 * Church accepts listing; Specimen 1348) * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 8 Tui Street T1146: Aesculus hippocastanum – Horse Chestnut Support " 50/70/50 * Church accepts listing; (Tree Specimen 1349) * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 8 Tui Street T1147: Aesculus hippocastanum – Horse Chestnut Accept " 50/70/50 * Church accepts listing; (Tree Specimen 1350) * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 21 Church Property Trustees 8 Tui Street T1144: Tilia europaea – Common Lime (Tree Support 4 50/50/50 * Church accepts listing; Specimen 1346) * Given number of trees on site should be considered for contribution to landscape & amenity 1 Brent Kevin Morrison 30 Wai-Iti Terrace T1151: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Supports 1 50/50/50 Owner supports relisting Specimen 5220) 81 Bruce Watkins Jagbe Limited 32 Wai-Iti Terrace T1152: Quercus robur – English Oak (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 Specimen 5221) 58 Jeremy Robert Knox Buchanan 14 William Street T1169: Morus nigra – Common Mulberry (Tree Oppose 1 70/70/30 Specimen 65870) 24 Murray John Wilkinson 45a Withells Road T1171: Acer pseudoplatanus – Sycamore (Tree Oppose 1 50/70/50 * significant tree in area with relatively few larger species Specimen 887) 11 R. McCormack via Young Hunter Lawyers 1 Wood Lane Copper beech (Tree Specimen 3496) Oppose 1 70/70/70 Copper beech is not covered by the mediated agreement

101 SusanMcCormack 1 Wood Lane GROUP:TG19: Liriodendron tulipifera – Tulip Tree Oppose 1 50/70/50 (see also (Tree Specimens 3627; 3628) 11) 66 Melanie Doris Popham 34 Woodham Road T1172: Cedrus atlantica – Atlas Cedar (Tree Oppose 1 50/50/50 Specimen 4594) 96 Ashvegas Limited (Mark Wells) 53 Woodills Road T1173: Dacrycarpus dacrydioides – Kahikatea Oppose 1 50/50/50 Heritage: cultural * a large specimen; believed to be pre-European (Tree Specimen 65878) value