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