Description: COAT-ARM Hastings District Council

 

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East, Hastings

Phone:  (06) 871 5000

Fax:  (06) 871 5100

WWW.hastingsdc.govt.nz

 

 

 

 

Open

 

A G E N D A

 

 

Council MEETING

 

Draft Keirunga Garden Tree Management Plan

 

Meeting Date:

Thursday, 30 May 2019

Time:

9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

 

Council Members

Chair: Mayor Hazlehurst

Councillors Barber, Dixon, Harvey, Heaps, Kerr, Lawson, Lyons, Nixon, O’Keefe, Poulain, Redstone, Schollum, Travers and Watkins

 

Officer Responsible

Chief Executive – Mr N Bickle

Council Secretary

Mrs  C Hunt (Extn 5634)

 


TRIM File No. CG-14-1-01264

 

 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

COUNCIL MEETING

 

Thursday, 30 May 2019

 

VENUE:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

9.00am

 

A G E N D A

 

 

 

1.         Prayer

2.         Apologies & Leave of Absence

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

3.         Seal Register

4.         Conflict of Interest

Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have.  This note is provided as a reminder to Members to scan the agenda and assess their own private interests and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be perceptions of conflict of interest. 

If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the relevant item of business and withdraw from participating in the meeting.  If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the General Counsel or the Democratic Support Manager (preferably before the meeting). 

It is noted that while Members can seek advice and discuss these matters, the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.

5.         Confirmation of Minutes

Minutes of the Council Meeting held Thursday 2 May 2019, including minutes while the public were excluded.

(Previously circulated)

6.         Draft Keirunga Tree Management Plan                                                                 5

7.         Additional Business Items

8.         Extraordinary Business Items 

 

 

     


File Ref: 19/240

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 30 May 2019

FROM:                           Parks Landscape and Projects Officer

Bart Leslie

Parks and Property Services Manager

Colin Hosford

SUBJECT:                    Draft Keirunga Tree Management Plan        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the draft Keirunga Gardens Tree Management Plan for future landscaping of the Arthur’s Path gully area within Keirunga Gardens.

1.2       This proposal arises from the need to manage tree health and safety as well as tree replacement in the Arthur’s Path gully within Keirunga Gardens.

1.3       The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.  That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4       The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to ensure that Council is meeting its duty of care when managing the tree stock in Arthur’s Path gully in Keirunga Gardens.

1.5       This report concludes by recommending that Council adopts any of the four options.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       Arthur’s Path walk in Keirunga Gardens is an area of Recreation Reserve which was donated to the community by George Nelson.  The area contains a large number of trees many of which were planted by George Nelson himself.

2.2       The majority of mature trees in this area have had little or no formative pruning since they were planted 80 odd years and have received only a reactive maintenance approach to limb and tree failure.

2.3       In the last five years there have been a number of tree removals, particularly as a result of autumn-winter storm events, that are presenting gaps in the tree canopy.  Officers identified this pattern of failure and engaged the services of Chris Ryan, a respected and experienced local nurseryman to assist in recommending tree replacement options.  In the first instance, Mr Ryan recommended a selection of replacement trees to officers that could enhance and compliment the Keirunga Gardens environment.

2.4       At the same time as the tree failures were occurring, officers were also increasingly fielding calls from some neighbouring property owners, concerned over the risk posed by limb failure of large trees overhanging their property boundaries.  Incidents of limb failure and property damage were reported and requests to fell trees were raised with Council.

2.5       The initial aim of engaging Mr Ryan’s services was to produce a palette of appropriate tree species that would be appropriate to replace lost trees, especially those close to the neighbouring properties.   Officers wanted to select trees that would avoid the cross boundary issues already faced with large trees located too close to property boundaries.

2.6       After investigations into the age and condition of the tree stock in Arthur’s Path and initial discussions on what the tree replacement list might contain.  It was suggested that Council might also consider a bolder vision for the future of trees in Arthur’s Path.  A draft landscape plan was produced as an initial discussion point.  This was presented to the Landmarks Advisory Group and the vision was supported as a draft proposal to be consulted upon with the wider community.

2.7       A public meeting, attended by approximately 100 people, was held at the Havelock North Community Centre on 31st October 2018.  Positive support led officers to complete the draft plan in readiness for public consultation. 

2.8       The draft plan was opened to public submissions on 18th February 2019.  After a number of time extensions were requested by the public, the submission period closed on 12 April 2019

2.9       A more complete timeline recording historical issues affecting the trees in Arthur’s Path in Keirunga Gardens is included as Attachment 1.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       The Draft Keirunga Tree Management Plan has drawn significant public interest with 210 individual or collective submissions being made.  Council now needs to consider both the written and verbal submissions to make a decision on tree management in the Arthur’s Path gully in Keirunga Gardens.

4.0       OPTIONS

4.1       There are four options for Council to consider;

·     Option 1 – Status Quo – leave trees to nature and maintain for public safety only

·    Option 2  – Adopt the draft plan as consulted upon

·    Option  3  – Adopt one of the alternative plans

·    Option 4 – Commence the formulation of a new community led tree management plan

5.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1       The level of expenditure included in the draft tree management plan is not of a level to trigger any of Council’s financial significance thresholds.  The level of interest in the draft plan has signalled that the care and retention of Keirunga Garden’s tree stock is of significant concern to the community.  While the issue may not trigger any significance thresholds, it is noted that the concept of felling numerous trees with historic significance is a matter of importance to many in the community.

5.2       In terms of consultation, the concept of a new Keirunga Gardens Tree Management plan was first presented to the Landmarks Advisory Group on 6 December 2017.  The group also walked Arthur’s Path with Mr Ryan and heard his account of issues of concern in the wooded area and potential long term solutions.  The Group endorsed his vision to be taken to the wider community for consultation.

5.3       The concept of a new landscape plan was presented to a well-advertised community meeting held at the Havelock North Community Centre in October 2018.  Approximately 180 neighbouring households were delivered an invitational flyer, public notices were inserted in HB Today local as well as a wider notice on Council’s social website and social media.

5.4       After the positive momentum of the public meeting, attendees and local residents were invited to attend a guided walkover with Mr Ryan to discuss the draft tree management plan.  Approximately 35 people attended the walk and talk sessions. 

5.5       The draft plan was then publicly advertised as a consultation document and submissions called for.

5.6       During this time an independent peer review of the draft tree plan was also completed and this document was made publicly available to assist community in making submissions.  Due to the timing of the peer review, and with requests from the public for more time to consider the peer review and to make more informed submissions, officers extended the submission period to close 12th April 2019

5.7       Officers suggest that the level of interest and number of submissions show that the engagement with the community has been thorough.

6.0       ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1       The draft plan drew 210 submissions.  The vast majority of submissions are opposed to the draft plan concept especially in regard to felling the oak trees.  Only 5 submitters support the draft plan. 

6.2       Officers have analysed the submissions and identified the general issues of concern to each submitter.  Attachment 2 contains the Summary of Submissions and issues of concern raised.

6.3       The Issues raised are listed below under the following headings;

1     Retain the Trees – leave the oaks, fell only as necessary for health and safety, replace at end of life, retain woodland character (raised by 181 submitters)

2     Outside Scope of Plan – wider Keirunga Gardens issues (raised by 2 submitters)

3     Improve tree and park maintenance – keep trees healthy, remove weed species, irrigation, under plantings, replace lost trees, improve tracks  (raised by 90 submitters)

4     Remove dangerous Trees – improve safety signage and warnings (raised by 51 submitters)

5     Extend timeframe for tree removal and replacement – slow the removal process (raised by 3 submitters)

6     Modify the planting palette – include other undercover and tree species (raised by 2 submitters)

7     Supports Richie Hill Plan (raised by 12 submitters)

8     Supports Draft Plan (raised by 3 submitters)

9     Supports Arborlab Plan (raised by 14 submitters)

10   Miscellaneous requests – alternate funding options, rodent control, QR codes on (raised by 3 submitters)

11   Supports David Cranwell’s Plan (raised by 3 submitters)

6.4       The following sections discuss and assess the issues raised by the submitters.

6.5       Retain the oaks

6.6       While the submissions raise numerous issues, it is clear that the vast majority of submitters do not support the adoption of a concept that will see the rapid removal of the oak trees.  It is also clear that most submitters treasure the existing woodland and want it retained and enhanced.

6.7       The level of concern is also reflected in the fact that the community of its own volition has committed to the preparation of alternative tree assessments and plans from other respected arborists or similarly qualified and knowledgeable persons. 

6.8       The Arborlab peer review report, which in itself suggests a more restrained approach than the draft plan, has drawn support  But similarly so has the Richie Hill report which is largely tree protection and maintenance focussed.

6.9       This reports seeks to address the need to either adopt the draft plan as consulted upon, or consider other management options that more closely reflect the wider community’s aspirations.  By deciding to not pursue the tree removal aims of the draft plan, Council will not need to commit to the funding stream necessary to carry out the work.  As a first step this is an obvious benefit to the ratepayer.

6.10    Improve Park Maintenance and Remove Dangerous Trees

6.11    Following close behind calls to save the trees, the next biggest concern submitted is the call for improved maintenance, including the removal of dangerous trees.   Some of the submitters have been very strong in their criticism of Council’s past record of tree and park management at Keirunga Gardens.  

6.12    Officers note that the treatment of the historical two oak trees, near Kopanga Road residences, including their subsequent removal has incensed some submitters and called into question Council’s actions in terms of the Reserves Act, the Keirunga Gardens Management Plan, the Resource Management Act and Council’s own Tree Removal Policy.   

6.13    It is fair to say that officers agree the process that led to the work carried out on the two trees was poorly managed and has led to an unsatisfactory outcome.   On investigation it was revealed that our maintenance contractor’s staff had given ambiguous advice on tree care that led to an external arborist undertaking poor quality work.   In trying to rectify the situation Council then heavily pollarded the trees in order to retain the oaks while meeting the requests for making the neighbouring property safe.  After discussions with the directly affected neighbours the majority felt the pollarded trees should be felled and the area replanted with new trees, but further away from the property boundaries.

6.14    While the various parties have been spoken to in regard to the tree trimming actions, the outcome is regrettable and no other tree work has been permitted in Keirunga Gardens unless there has been a clear danger to the public.

6.15    Notwithstanding the pollarding incident, there is a strong call by submitters to improve all tree and park maintenance.   The key issue of concern is that Keirunga Gardens should be regarded as a heritage site and given a higher level of maintenance. 

6.16    While there is plenty of scope to improve all manner of maintenance, such actions will require Council allocating additional resources.  The current LTP has allocated a modest additional spend on natural areas.   However, to meet some of the submitters’ calls for more intensive additional expert arborist assessments, and a much higher level of annual maintenance, significant additional budget would be required.   Before committing to an enhanced regime of care, Council would need to be aware that the calls for similar levels of service will resound across other parks.  The calls for additional funds would therefore need to be balanced against other competing Council priorities.

6.17    Outside the scope of Plan

6.18    Two submissions have sought remedies that are not related to the consultation draft.  Firstly there is a call for more facilities in Flaxmere.  This request is recognised, but it not a matter for debate with regard to Keirunga Gardens. 

6.19    A second submission requested that the neighbouring Prebenson land be acquired to extend the reserve.  This land was not part of the draft plan though Council may wish to consider this as part of a wider Keirunga Gardens reserve management plan review.

6.20    Miscellaneous  Issues

6.21    A variety of miscellaneous issues have been raised by submitters.  They include;

·    Rodent control

·    QR codes on trees

·    Interpretation boards

·    Extending timeframes for tree removals,

·    Modification of the planting palette; and

·    Improvements to boundary fences.

The issues raised are a collection of good ideas that officers believe can be either worked on under current budgets or fed into a collaborative process to create a reviewed wider park management plan.  Officers believe they are all acceptable requests.

6.22    Consideration of other plans

6.23    All of the other submitted plans recommend an alternative way forward.  They all have areas of overlapping agreement and some differing approaches.  However, all agree that most if not all of the oaks should be retained and should be managed at a higher level of service than currently occurs. 

6.24    An assessment of the alternative plans is more thoroughly discussed in section 6.28 below.

6.25    Assessment of the four options;

6.26    Option 1 Status Quo – leave trees to nature and maintain for public safety only

6.26.1 The Arthur’s Path area of Keirunga Gardens has been looked after as a low maintenance parkland for decades.  Typically tree maintenance has only been reactive and this usually occurs after adverse weather events or as safety issues are identified.  This has been the cheapest option for rate payers as it has necessitated modest expenditure.   

6.26.2 During the formulation of the last LTP, officers advised that there is growing community expectation for higher levels of service in our natural area reserves and Council allocated a modest amount of extra funds to help improve the condition of all the district’s natural areas.  This has allowed for the provision of a natural areas’ response team who allocate more time spraying and the control of weed tree species. 

6.26.3 By adopting Option 1, Council would essentially reject the wider direction of the draft tree plan and would signal that Keirunga Gardens will be maintained at its current lower service level, reflective of its basic woodland values.  This option will meet with the vast majority of submitters who seek to retain the trees as they are, but it would not meet the also numerous calls for an improved higher level of care across trees and wider landscape. 

6.27    Option 2 – Adopt the draft plan as consulted upon

6.27.1 The draft plan is arguably a radical vision that would undoubtedly transform the Arthur’s Path area.  Its vision is one of a variety of species giving a variety of colour, food source and a new landscape dynamic.  This vision however does not align kindly with the wider community’s vision and their desire to retain the tree heritage values of Keirunga Gardens.

6.27.2 The draft tree management plan has signalled the need for additional expenditure.  It has been estimated it would cost $200,000 over three years.  Part of the rationale for a short term programme was based on the likely costs savings achieved through carrying out larger trances of tree removal to reduce costs and reduce damage to new plantings.  If Council was supportive of the vision espoused in the plan, this timeframe could be lengthened to help reduce annual costs while retaining the greater vision as a long term project.

6.27.3 However, the large majority of submissions reject the approach presented in the draft consultation document.  There are numerous questions raised on the need to such a radical approach.  The plan was formulated as a vehicle to engage the community and offer a vision of what the gully landscape could look like in the future.  While it struck an early supportive chord, it is now clear the majority of wider community do not share this new vision, but wish to retain the current tree palette, while seeking Council and perhaps the Community, to fund enhance general tree and parkland care and maintenance. 

6.28    Option 3 - Adopt one of the alternative plans

6.28.1 The public submission process has led to the formulation of three new tree plans that have to varying degrees entered into the feedback process. 

6.28.2 The Arborlab Plan was commissioned by Council as a peer review of the draft plan.  Council made it publicly accessible to enable the community to better consider the draft plan’s content and to allow a different perspective or approach to considering the best outcomes the trees in Arthur’s Path.

6.28.3 To summarise, the Arborlab Plan does not support the consulted upon Draft Plan.  It does not support the recommended radical approach of major tree removal and replanting with a range of different trees over a short time frame. 

6.28.4 The Arborlab report recommends that fewer oak trees need to be removed, weed species trees should be removed, existing species should be planted, improved arborist care and maintenance is needed and the change process should be gradual.

6.28.5 The Arborlab report recommendations would reduce expenditure on felling costs but would require additional expenditure on an increased level of service in the care and maintenance of the park and the trees.  

6.28.6 The Richie Hill Plan has been submitted as a critique of the Draft Plan and the Arborlab report, and as an alternative approach for Council to consider. 

6.28.7 In summary, it rejects the findings and challenges the credentials of both the Draft Plan and Arborlab report.

6.28.8 It recommends that;

·      the oaks should stay, though subject to some necessary removals

·      a new plan should be developed with knowledgeable community input

·      some of the weed trees species should be removed

·      there is a need for improved arborist care

·      improve maintenance

·      improved public consultation; and

·      the adoption of a revised planting plan and tree management policies. 

6.28.9 Essentially it recommends that Council should not proceed with any removals without first setting up a new tree committee or group to work on formulating a new plan and appropriate tree management policies for Council to follow.

6.28.10   The adoption of the Richie Hill plan would initially reduce expenditure on felling costs but would require additional expenditure on an increased level of service in the care and maintenance of the trees and the reserve. 

6.28.11   The David Cranwell Plan has been received as a submission but has also drawn support from other submitters. 

6.28.12   As a starting point David Cranwell’s recommended Plan for the Arthur’s Path exotic woodland area seeks to firstly ensure that no trees are felled but also seeks the following goals; 

·    carrying out of rigorous scientific investigation into the health of the trees

·    tree retention through professional arborist management

·    the area be restored and enhanced, including weed eradication

·    the development of walkway extensions

·    the ongoing use of local arborists with local expertise, the need for appropriate storm water management

·    the removal of poor trees

·    the need for a proper community inclusive action plan for weed control, arborist work and planting

·    culturing of community support for a shared Council – Community approach and the installation of history panels to respect the heritage of the area.

6.28.13   The David Cranwell Plan would also initially reduce expenditure on felling costs but would require additional expenditure on an increased level of service in the care and maintenance of weed species and the trees.

6.28.14   Collectively all of the alternative plans attract some level of support above that of the draft plan that was released for consultation.  While it would be easy to support one of the more popular approaches, it should be noted that these reports have not been openly included in wider consultation and therefore there is a risk that by picking one plan over the others, other members of community or even current submitters, may feel marginalised and isolated from the decision making process.

6.28.15   On this basis it would seem prudent to not pick an individual plan from the four choices but rather look to commence a process that brings all parties and plans together to create a more widely accepted solution.  It is also important to note that the likely costs of the alternate plans are unknown so Council should be wary of being tempted to picking a plan without knowing the financial implications on the ratepayer.

6.29         Option 4 – Commence the formulation of a new community led tree management plan

6.29.1      As discussed above, bulk of the submissions and the alternative tree management plans all suggest not progressing with the draft plan and to varying degrees recommend that an alternative approach could be adopted to achieve a sustainable and community supported solution.

6.29.2      The Arborlab peer review recommends saving the oaks and includes other recommended actions including;

·      Slow removal of less significant trees

·      Removal of weed species trees for the good of the wider woodland. 

·      Increase in general maintenance

·      arborist interventions on number of trees

·      Review of replacement tree list to select correct trees for location

6.29.3      Similarly, the Richie Hill report seeks to provide an assessment that would protect and preserve the woodland and historic values of Keirunga Gardens. Key recommendations of this plan include;

·      Protection of the high amenity landscape values of the woodland area

·      Storm water management

·     Arborist interventions including removal and reductions on a number of trees

·     Need for a clear strategy on tree management with sound policies for working on and around trees

·      Public consultation

·      Pest weed destruction

·      Accessing community funding streams

·      Get experts together to form a committee group

·      Review the Reserve Management Plan

6.29.4      Similarly David Cranwell’s recommended Plan for the Arthur’s Path exotic woodland area seeks to firstly ensure that no trees are felled but also seeks the follows goals;

·    Rigorous scientific investigation into the health of the trees

·    Tree retention through professional arborist management

·    The area be restored and enhanced, including weed eradication

·    Walkway extensions

·    local arborists with local expertise

·    Storm water management

·    Removal of poor trees

·    Need for a proper community inclusive action plan for weed control, arborist work and planting

·    Get community support as a Council – Community approach

·    History panels to respect the heritage of the area

6.29.5   The Draft Plan also includes goals and objectives that sit comfortably with many of the alternate plan’s aims including the removal of unsafe trees, improving tree quality, monitoring tree health and the selection of appropriate replacement trees.

6.29.6   There are a number of common threads among the alternative plans that include recommended ways of preserving and enhancing Keirunga Gardens as a historic site and community asset.  It is noted that the Keirunga Gardens Reserve Management Plan is now ten years old and could be considered as a priority for review.  It is also timely that with the 2021-31 Long Term Plan (LTP) review just over the horizon.  If a review was seen as priority, any new actions recommended by the community for Keirunga Gardens, could be included in the LTP mix of actions and priorities.

6.29.7   As discussed in the Option 3 assessments above, all of the alternatives come with recommended additional care which will come at an increased cost.  These financial implications would need to be considered alongside Council’s other competing demands. 

6.29.8   By commencing a Community – Council partnership process, a considered and widely accepted development plan could be formulated over the next twelve months that draws on local expertise, accesses alternate resources and funding streams, while protecting the heritage integrity of Keirunga Gardens as a whole.

6.29.9   It is clear from the interest in the draft tree management plan that there is community support in developing a refreshed vision for Keirunga Gardens.  This would include the treescape, paths, heritage items and the refreshed built facilities on site.  If it is Council’s desire, officers will look to prioritise the Keirunga Gardens Reserve Management Plan programme to start the review process.

6.29.10 By repriortising work streams, the process can start later this year and seek to harness the momentum of those submitters who have shown a clear desire to be part of and contribute to a solution.   A group of community minded leaders can be brought together to start the dialogue and form the nebulous of a steering group that can be key stakeholders on the reviewed plan. 

6.29.11 Assuming Council agrees to undertake the review of the Reserve Management Plan, officers’ note that it will take time to complete the review process.  However, with the stakeholder group’s guidance, and the valuable input suggested in the submissions and alternative plans, fundamental core actions such as weed management can commence immediately utilising the existing maintenance budget.  Once the plan is reviewed and costed, it can be included in the draft 2021-31 LTP for consideration alongside other Council priorities. 

7.0         PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1         Officers note that the draft tree management plan has attracted a great deal of public interest.  This has led to the submitting of quality documents that have gained much public comment.   Officers are clearly cognisant of the fact that the bulk of the submissions are clearly not supportive of the draft plan and its suggested vision for Keirunga Gardens.

7.2         As a general observation, it is also clear that the additional reports and submissions of those experts and those with arboriculture knowledge and experience agree on many areas for improvement, but they also have criticisms of some of the alternative plan approaches.

7.3         On this basis the over 200 submissions disagreeing with some of the more radical suggestions in the draft plan can be allowed.  Furthermore, it would seem that the submissions of P Turley and others supporting the report of Richie Hill (Paper Street Tree Company), and the plan put forward by David Cranwell, offer an opportunity for collaborative Council and Community response, to move forward with a shared vision for Keirunga Gardens going into the next 100 years.  It should also be noted that a number of the goals and objectives the draft plan also shared by the other plans.  While the issue has been very emotive, officers believe the shared areas and with areas of compromise, a joined up approach can be achieved.

7.4         While the submitted reports carry a lot of worthwhile detail, the cost to instigate is unknown but on initial review, is likely to be significant.  In addition to ensure an open and transparent process, these approaches also be consulted upon with the wider community. 

7.5         By bringing forward a review of the Keirunga Gardens Reserve Management Plan, it would seem to be the logical vehicle for sharing all the plans and for formulating a community led new vision for all of Keirunga Gardens. 

7.6         In the interim Council can push on with some of the recommended maintenance tasks within the existing budget.  Any increase in the level of service over and above the current levels will need to be considered along with other community priorities in the next Annual Plan.  Officers have time over the coming months to get estimates together for Council’s consideration. In the drafting of the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

7.7         Officers are aware that Councillors are yet to hear from the submitters. This report has been made available to the submitters including those speaking.  Those choosing to speak to their written submissions, also have the opportunity to comment on the contents of this report as well.

7.8         While officers have a preference for Option 4 - commencing the formulation of a community led tree management plan (via the Reserve Management Plan,) no specific option is recommended.  This is to ensure that Councillors have the opportunity to hear all verbal submissions, before making their decision.  This will also ensure that the consultation process is robust and that any further delays on moving forward on planning for Keirunga Gardens are avoided.

 

8.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Parks Landscape and Projects Officer titled Draft Keirunga Tree Management Plan dated 30/05/2019 be received.

B)        That Council adopts either:

          i)     Option 1 Status Quo – leave trees to nature and maintain for public safety only, or

     ii)    Option 2 - Adopt the draft plan as consulted upon

     iii)   Option 3 - Adopt one of the alternative plans

          iv)   Option 4  - Commence the formulation of a new community led tree management plan

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Consultation timeline

CFM-17-24-3-19-274

2

Feedback analysis on Keirunga Garden Tree Management Plan

CG-14-1-01306

 

Submission No. 1 - Rita Smith

CFM-17-24-3-19-57

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 2 - Karen Cooper

CFM-17-24-3-19-58

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 3 - Alison Hussey

CFM-17-24-3-19-59

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 4 - Ruth Vincent

CFM-17-24-3-19-60

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 5 - Rowan Christopher

CFM-17-24-3-19-61

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 6 - Ngaire Mules nee Bacon

CFM-17-24-3-19-62

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 7 - Mark Walwyn

CFM-17-24-3-19-63

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 8 - Esther Seymour

CFM-17-24-3-19-64

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 9 - Antony Matheson

CFM-17-24-3-19-65

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 10 - Raewyn Towers

CFM-17-24-3-19-66

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 11 - Kathleen Bazzard

CFM-17-24-3-19-67

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 12 - Martin Bothma

CFM-17-24-3-19-68

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 13 - Michael Watson

CFM-17-24-3-19-69

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 14 - Heather Shannon

CFM-17-24-3-19-70

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 15 - Kate Dacre

CFM-17-24-3-19-71

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 16 - Emma Black

CFM-17-24-3-19-72

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 17 - Bob Pearce

CFM-17-24-3-19-73

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 18 - Linda Calder

CFM-17-24-3-19-74

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 19 - Sue Lusher

CFM-17-24-3-19-75

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 20 - Alison Cunningham

CFM-17-24-3-19-76

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 21 - Margaret MacKenzie

CFM-17-24-3-19-77

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 22 - Jessica Noiseux

CFM-17-24-3-19-78

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 23 - Zarihana Pere

CFM-17-24-3-19-79

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 24 - Rachel Smith

CFM-17-24-3-19-80

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 25 - Michelle Evans

CFM-17-24-3-19-81

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 26 - Greg Porcer

CFM-17-24-3-19-82

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 27 - Louise Ward

CFM-17-24-3-19-83

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 28 - John Hoogerburg

CFM-17-24-3-19-84

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 29 - Amy Martin

CFM-17-24-3-19-85

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 30 - Liam Bradbury

CFM-17-24-3-19-86

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 31 - Joseph Caradus

CFM-17-24-3-19-87

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 32 - Michael McLean

CFM-17-24-3-19-88

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 33 - Douglas Helm

CFM-17-24-3-19-89

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 34 - Rebecca Tait

CFM-17-24-3-19-90

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 35 - Tanya Douglas

CFM-17-24-3-19-91

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 36 - Shanon Tait

CFM-17-24-3-19-93

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 37 - Rachel Sedger

CFM-17-24-3-19-94

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 38 - Fiona Francois

CFM-17-24-3-19-95

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 39 - Brad Collett

CFM-17-24-3-19-96

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 40 - Kayleigh Coxon

CFM-17-24-3-19-97

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 41 - Kate Hager

CFM-17-24-3-19-98

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 42 - Warwick Thomson

CFM-17-24-3-19-99

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 43 - Angie Alexander

CFM-17-24-3-19-100

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 44 - Alan Alexander

CFM-17-24-3-19-101

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 45 - Emma Robertson

CFM-17-24-3-19-102

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 46 - Ali Evers-Swindell

CFM-17-24-3-19-103

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 47 - Sajith Muraleedharan

CFM-17-24-3-19-104

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 48 - Bronwyn Fryer

CFM-17-24-3-19-105

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 49 - Gordon Hills

CFM-17-24-3-19-106

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 50 - Samantha Hellyer

CFM-17-24-3-19-107

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 51 - Jane Fisher

CFM-17-24-3-19-108

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 52 - Jessica Robin

CFM-17-24-3-19-109

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 53 - George Mackenzie

CFM-17-24-3-19-110

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 54 - Jo Halstead

CFM-17-24-3-19-111

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 55 - Angela Bauerfeind

CFM-17-24-3-19-112

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 56 - Anne Davison

CFM-17-24-3-19-272

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 57 - Catherine Jauffret

CFM-17-24-3-19-113

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 58 - Sally Fagence

CFM-17-24-3-19-114

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 59 - Tracey Stansfield

CFM-17-24-3-19-115

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 60 - Lynnaire Nugent

CFM-17-24-3-19-116

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 61 - Bonnie Greene

CFM-17-24-3-19-117

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 62 - Kerrie Waby

CFM-17-24-3-19-118

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 63 - Josh Lynch

CFM-17-24-3-19-119

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 64 - Susan McCutcheon

CFM-17-24-3-19-120

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 65 - Mike Halliday

CFM-17-24-3-19-121

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 66 - Terry McGovern

CFM-17-24-3-19-122

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 67 - Stephanie McGovern

CFM-17-24-3-19-123

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 68 - David Allen

CFM-17-24-3-19-124

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 69 - Tina Small

CFM-17-24-3-19-125

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 70 - Shannyn Hansen

CFM-17-24-3-19-126

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 71 - John Cannon

CFM-17-24-3-19-127

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 72 - Natalie McClay

CFM-17-24-3-19-128

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 73 - Daniel Hewko

CFM-17-24-3-19-129

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 74 - Chrissy Harris

CFM-17-24-3-19-130

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 75 - Janet Wurts

CFM-17-24-3-19-131

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 76 - Kathryn Ingram

CFM-17-24-3-19-132

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 77 - Megan Young

CFM-17-24-3-19-133

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 78 - David Blackwell

CFM-17-24-3-19-134

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 79 - John Worden

CFM-17-24-3-19-135

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 80 - Nicola De Jesus

CFM-17-24-3-19-136

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 81 - Jenny Elliott

CFM-17-24-3-19-137

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 82 - Katharine White

CFM-17-24-3-19-138

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 83 - Rick Toner

CFM-17-24-3-19-139

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 84 - Chris Ryan

CFM-17-24-3-19-271

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 85 - Louise Beaumont

CFM-17-24-3-19-140

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 86 - Terrie Reddish

CFM-17-24-3-19-141

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 87 - Sylvia White

CFM-17-24-3-19-142

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 88 - Prue Lowry

CFM-17-24-3-19-143

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 89 - James Lowry

CFM-17-24-3-19-144

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 90 - Rose Wood

CFM-17-24-3-19-145

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 91 - Tatyana Gis

CFM-17-24-3-19-146

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 92 - Nigel Dawes

CFM-17-24-3-19-147

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 93 - Amanda Mickleson

CFM-17-24-3-19-148

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 94 - David Cranwell

CFM-17-24-3-19-54

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 95 - Amanda Mickleson

CFM-17-24-3-19-148

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 96 - Michelle Evans

CFM-17-24-3-19-149

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 97 - Alison Hussey

CFM-17-24-3-19-150

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 98 - No submission

 

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 99 - Sue Boekhorst

CFM-17-24-3-19-151

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 100 - Johanna Bevin

CFM-17-24-3-19-152

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 101 - Andrew Norris

CFM-17-24-3-19-153

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 102 - Libby Warren

CFM-17-24-3-19-154

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 103 - Catherine Mintoft

CFM-17-24-3-19-155

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 104 - Stuart Perry

CFM-17-24-3-19-156

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 105 - Mark Holder

CFM-17-24-3-19-157

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 106 - Dale and Jenny Prebble

CFM-17-24-3-19-158

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 107 - Darryl Judd (109 combined)

CFM-17-24-3-19-159

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 108 - Patricia Frykberk

CFM-17-24-3-19-160

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 109 - Darryl Judd (combined with Submission No. 107)

 

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 110 - Diane Sye

CFM-17-24-3-19-162

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 111 - Raewyn Towers

CFM-17-24-3-19-163

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 112 - Michael Newby

CFM-17-24-3-19-164

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 113 - Michael Nes

CFM-17-24-3-19-166

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 114 - Shanon Tait

CFM-17-24-3-19-167

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 115 - David Youngquest

CFM-17-24-3-19-168

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 116 - Mary MacKenzie

CFM-17-24-3-19-169

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 117 - Jane Mackersey

CFM-17-24-3-19-171

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 118 - David Trubridge

CFM-17-24-3-19-172

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 119 - Johno Ormond

CFM-17-24-3-19-173

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 120 - Ruth Vincent

CFM-17-24-3-19-174

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 121 - Rachel Hudson

CFM-17-24-3-19-175

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 122 - Sue Stewart

CFM-17-24-3-19-176

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 123 - Stephen Brown

CFM-17-24-3-19-177

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 124 - Andrew Stent

CFM-17-24-3-19-178

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 125 - S Hudson

CFM-17-24-3-19-179

Vol 1 of 2

Submission No. 126 - HP

CFM-17-24-3-19-180

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 127 - Alan Franklin

CFM-17-24-3-19-181

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 128 - Alanda Rafferty

CFM-17-24-3-19-183

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 129 - Kylee Dunkerley

CFM-17-24-3-19-184

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 130 - Anita Kleinjan

CFM-17-24-3-19-185

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 131 - Ginny Redwood

CFM-17-24-3-19-186

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 132  - Adrian Cowie

CFM-17-24-3-19-187

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 133 - Anna Cana

CFM-17-24-3-19-188

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 134 - Dorothy Harrison

CFM-17-24-3-19-189

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 135 - Chris Ledword

CFM-17-24-3-19-190

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 136 - Robert Fuller

CFM-17-24-3-19-191

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 137 - David Head

CFM-17-24-3-19-194

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 138 - Linda Schwass

CFM-17-24-3-19-195

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 139 - Max Hurley

CFM-17-24-3-19-196

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 140 - Jane Hibbert

CFM-17-24-3-19-197

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 141 - Doug Bixley

CFM-17-24-3-19-198

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 142 - Bette Davis

CFM-17-24-3-19-199

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 143 - Bronwyn Watkins

CFM-17-24-3-19-200

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 144 - Shane Lagas

CFM-17-24-3-19-201

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 145 - Andy Horne

CFM-17-24-3-19-202

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No, 146 - Mike Head

CFM-17-24-3-19-203

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 147 - Ali Evers

CFM-17-24-3-19-204

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 148 - Kate Hurley

CFM-17-24-3-19-205

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 149 - Rod Searle

CFM-17-24-3-19-206

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 150 - Martin Davis

CFM-17-24-3-19-207

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 151 - Tracey Wilson

CFM-17-24-3-19-208

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 152 - Scott Hansen

CFM-17-24-3-19-209

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 153 - Clare Sambrook

CFM-17-24-3-19-210

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 154 - Penny Triandafilidis

CFM-17-24-3-19-211

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 155 - Monique Weir

CFM-17-24-3-19-212

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 156 - Miriam Sage

CFM-17-24-3-19-213

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 157 - Liam Bergstrom

CFM-17-24-3-19-214

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 158 - Nigel Dawes

CFM-17-24-3-19-215

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 159 - Elaine Prakash

CFM-17-24-3-19-216

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 160 - Ellen Looij

CFM-17-24-3-19-217

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 161 - Catherine Reeves

CFM-17-24-3-19-218

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 162 - Tim Dorward

CFM-17-24-3-19-219

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 163 - Rob Reeves

CFM-17-24-3-19-220

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 164 - John Stace

CFM-17-24-3-19-221

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 165 - Colin Shields

CFM-17-24-3-19-222

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 166 - Jessica Maxwell

CFM-17-24-3-19-223

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 167 - Jan Wilson

CFM-17-24-3-19-224

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 168 - Caroline Rees

CFM-17-24-3-19-225

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 169 - Ngaire Mules (nee Bacon)

CFM-17-24-3-19-226

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 170 - Roger Mulvay

CFM-17-24-3-19-227

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 171 - Peter Egerton

CFM-17-24-3-19-228

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 172 - Angela Cottingham

CFM-17-24-3-19-229

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 173 - Berry Small - Keirunga Garden Heritage Action Society

CFM-17-24-3-19-230

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 174 - Terry and Steph McGovern

CFM-17-24-3-19-231

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 175 - Lyn Fippard

CFM-17-24-3-19-232

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 176 - RT Moorhead

CFM-17-24-3-19-233

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 177 - Stuart and Jenny Sowersby

CFM-17-24-3-19-234

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 178 - Leigh and Grant Whitfield

CFM-17-24-3-19-235

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 179 - Shirley Lammas and Tony Corbett

CFM-17-24-3-19-236

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 180 - Andrew and Cheryl Whitworth

CFM-17-24-3-19-237

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 181 - Sophie Lankovsky

CFM-17-24-3-19-238

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 182 - Darryl Mitchell

CFM-17-24-3-19-239

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 183 - Marion and Keith Carey-Smith

CFM-17-24-3-19-240

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 184 - Keirunga Gardens Heritage Action Group

CFM-17-24-3-19-241

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 185 - Joe Leete

CFM-17-24-3-19-242

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 186 - Anne Crutchley

CFM-17-24-3-19-243

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 187 - Pat Turley

CFM-17-24-3-19-244

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 188 - Jenny Cumberbeach

CFM-17-24-3-19-245

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 189 - Leith Wilson

CFM-17-24-3-19-246

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 190 - Ian Wilson

CFM-17-24-3-19-247

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 191 - Nicky Manning

CFM-17-24-3-19-248

Vol 2 of 2

Submission Nos. 192 and 204 - Jean Hudson

CFM-17-24-3-19-249

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 193 - Brian Pattullo

CFM-17-24-3-19-250

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 194 - Rita and Barry Motley

CFM-17-24-3-19-251

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 195 - Ethne Ainge

CFM-17-24-3-19-252

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 196 - Kim Salamonson

CFM-17-24-3-19-253

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 197 - Paulette Johnston

CFM-17-24-3-19-254

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 198 - Harold Neal

CFM-17-24-3-19-257

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 199 - Kate Tweedie

CFM-17-24-3-19-258

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 200 - Darryl Mitchell

CFM-17-24-3-19-259

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 201 - Guy Wellwood

CFM-17-24-3-19-260

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 202 - Robin Sage

CFM-17-24-3-19-261

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 203 - Kate White, Lux Harvey, Juno and Siiva Harvey

CFM-17-24-3-19-262

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 204 - Jean Hudson (refer 192)

 

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 205 - Michael Broadbent

CFM-17-24-3-19-264

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 206 - Guy Wellwood

CFM-17-24-3-19-265

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 207 - Susan and Darryl Judd

CFM-17-24-3-19-266

Vol 2 of 2

Submission 208 - Peter Marshall

CFM-17-24-3-19-268

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 209 - Yvonne James

CFM-17-24-3-19-269

Vol 2 of 2

Submission No. 210 - V Howles

CFM-17-24-3-19-270

Vol 2 of 2

 

 

 


Consultation timeline

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Feedback analysis on Keirunga Garden Tree Management Plan

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator