Q. What is a ‘Significant Tree’ according to the Christchurch City Council?
A. “Trees are a major part of the city’s character and amenity.
Trees are identified as being ‘significant’ because they have particular botanical, heritage, amenity, landscape, cultural, ecological and/or environmental values.”
https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/resource-consents/resource-consent-activities/general-rules-and-information/protected-trees-and-guidelines
“A society grows great, when old men plant trees, whose shade they know, they shall never sit it.” – Greek Proverb
‘Trees to be pruned’, The Press, 18th June 1985
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19850618.2.53
The trees in Emmett Street will not be topped but they will be pruned, the City Council decided last evening. Residents of the Shirley street petitioned the council to have the pin oaks that line the street topped to let in more light, and avoid power and telephone lines.
The council believes that topping the trees would spoil their natural beauty.
Several councillors agreed that the trees did inhibit lighting in the street and some branches did grow over property boundaries. However, they did not want to see the mature trees topped or removed.
The director of parks and recreation reserves, Mr Neiel Drain, said the Emmett Street trees were pruned regularly. Topping would promote bushy growth that would further inhibit light and cause problems with overhead lines.
The council supported the retention of the parks and recreation department’s practice of pruning street trees to retain the natural form and beauty of the trees and approved its adoption for all street trees belonging to the council.
4.0 Rules Special Purpose (Road) Zone
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/City-plan/14-V3-Part-8.pdf
4.5.4 Removal or major pruning of any tree in Road Zone
Updated 14 November 2005
Category B
Street plantings of special historic, landscape and specimen value
Emmett Street: Landscape
Greenspace Traffic Works Committee, 4th March 2009, Meeting Minutes
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/council/agendas/2009/april/spgreenspacetrafficworks1st/shirleypapanuigreenspacetrafficworkscommitteeagenda1april2009.pdf
Pages 3 – 8
Purpose of Report: To recommend that the Board recommend to Council that the request to undertake height reduction pruning (topping) of the protected scarlet oak trees in Emmett Street be declined.
Executive Summary: The trees in Emmett Street are protected through the Christchurch City Plan for their landscape value under Volume 3: Part 8 Special Purpose Zone 4.5.4 Removal or major pruning of any tree in Road Zone as category B trees.
Legal Considerations: The rules for pruning trees protected under Part 8 Special Purpose Zones are :
“In addition to any relevant rules applicable to listed protected trees in Appendix 4, part 10 of the Plan, within any of the streets listed in the SP (Road) Zone listed below:
(a) No tree shall be removed”
The Greenspace Manager has the following delegation with respect to trees:
“In consultation with any other units affected and the relevant Community Board, authorise the planting or removal of trees from any reserve or other property under the Manager’s control.”
Therefore the delegated authority to approve or decline this request lies with the Transport and Greenspace Manager or the Community Board.
Volume 2 : Section 4 City Identity
4.2.1 Policy: Tree Cover
To promote amenity values in the urban area by maintaining and enhancing the tree cover present in the City. Tree cover and vegetation make an important contribution to amenity values in the City. Through the redevelopment of sites, existing vegetation is often lost and not replaced. The City Plan protects those trees identified as “heritage” or “notable” and the subdivision process protects other trees which are considered to be “significant”.
4.2.2 Policy: Garden City
To recognise and promote the “Garden City” identity, heritage and character of Christchurch. A key aspect of achieving this policy will be maintaining and extending environments and vegetation types which compliment this image.
A broad range of matters influence and contribute to this image, including the following:
– tree-lined streets and avenues
– parks and developed areas of open space
14.3.2 Policy: “Garden City” image identity
To acknowledge and promote the “Garden City” identity of the City by protecting, maintaining and extending planting which compliments this image.
Volume 3: Part 8 Special Purpose Zone
14.3.5 Street Trees
Nearly half the length of streets within the city contains street trees, but the presence of very high quality street trees which add considerable presence to streets and neighbourhoods is confined to a relatively small proportion of the road network. These streets add particular character and amenity of the city, either in the form of avenues which form points into the city, or an important part of the local character of particular streets.
Background:
31. The scarlet oak trees in Emmett Street were planted in 1950 and 1970.
There are 115 trees.
32. They are significant to Christchurch City as a landscape feature for size, form and age.
33. It is possible that they also have significance to Christchurch for commemorative purposes as it has been suggested that they were planted to commemorate soldiers in World War II. This has not been confirmed.
34. Topping the trees would have a negative effect on them as a landscape feature and would negate the reason why they were protected.
35. A conservative value of $2.7 million (using STEM Standard Tree Evaluation Method, which is the national aboricultural industry standard for evaluating and valuing amenity trees) has recently been placed on them. Topping them would reduce the value by approximately $900,000.
36. Approving the request may lead to residents with similar requests (e.g. Massey Crescent, Severn Street, Dudley Street etc) expecting the same result.
This would have serious consequences for the Garden City image.
37. Council has declined similar requests from residents in other streets with significant trees.
The Preferred Option:
(a) decline the request to reduce the height of the trees in Emmett Street; and
(b) that the trees in Emmett Street be maintained to internationally recognised and accepted arboricultural standards and practices.
Christchurch City Council Proposed Tree Policy, March 2010
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/Council/agendas/2010/August/ShirleyPapanui18th/Clause7Attachment1ProposedTreePolicy.pdf
– Trees make an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of Christchurch’s residents and to the Garden City image through the quality of the city’s landscape.
– Trees play a vital ecological, environmental, heritage, financial and cultural role. They have an important contribution to make in the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
– Christchurch is internationally recognised as the Garden City and one of the city’s greatest assets is its trees.
– This is a tribute to those people past and present who on public and private land have planted a wide range of trees and other vegetation.
– The rate of development and urban intensification places pressure on privately owned protected trees and those that are not protected through the City Plan.
– Urban intensification places more pressure on public spaces to provide the vegetation amenity that was once provided for on private land.
– Retention of existing juvenile and mature trees, replacing old trees and the planting of new trees in public spaces therefore presents a significant contribution to retaining and enhancing the city’s Garden City image.
– Council considers that it should be seen as taking a proactive stance by retaining trees wherever possible within the environment.
Q. So how did the ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ go from being ‘significant’ to Christchurch City, part of the “Garden City” identity & “an important part of the local character of a particular street”: Emmett Street, to receiving a ‘Start Work Notice’ (SWN) in January 2025, for 17 of Malcolm’s Oak Trees to be removed?
A. “As a result of a process introduced under the Canterbury Earthquake emergency powers legislation (the CER Act), protection is being removed from 80% of Christchurch’s notable trees.
We are a group who has organised to fight this environmental disaster, coming on top of so much other earthquake loss.
So far we have negotiated a deal which would see more than 900 of these trees saved. We need help to save the rest, and to make sure that no one backs out of the agreement that has already been reached.”
https://givealittle.co.nz/fundraiser/chchnotabletrees/
Independent Hearings Panel, March 2015
Christchurch Replacement District Plan
https://chchplan.ihp.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Decision-63-Schedule-1-Chapter-9.4-Trees-Appendix-9.4.7.pdf
– Appendix 9.4.7.1.2 – Schedule of Groups of Trees
Pages 53 – 57
– Appendix 9.4.7.2 – Schedule of Significant Trees in Road Corridors, Parks, Reserves and Public Open Space
Pages 58 – 106
Malcolm’s ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ are not included in either Appendix.
‘Tree Protection Change Rankles Christchurch Residents’
The Press, January 29, 2016
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/76383155/tree-protection-change-rankles-christchurch-residents
– Big beautiful trees are an integral part of Christchurch’s garden city image.
Rules protect thousands of trees on private land, but under the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan protection measures for those trees are in for some radical changes.
– Under the current Christchurch District Plan, the tree is listed as a Protected and Notable tree but under the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan, which is currently the subject of an extensive hearing process…
– The new schedule under the proposed plan cuts the list of about 1600 protected trees on private land to only 400 by using a new assessment method.
Predictably the massive excision of a host of clearly loved trees in the garden city has caused consternation.
– The controversy is partly about the assessment process used to prune the list of trees on the current list of 1600 trees.
– The council used a system called the Christchurch Tree Evaluation Methodology (CTEM) to come up with the new list. The system is designed to overcome the subjectivity of the assessor and the ability of a tree to become listed because of a high score in one category, such as age.
– Submitters opposing the new method and list are worried about the threshold and the lack of importance attached to the landscape values of trees.
– [Arborist Michael] Ontash sees problems with that. He says that could potentially withdraw protection from over 2800 significant trees that might score below the threshold using CTEM but still make a large contribution to the garden city image.
‘Call To Save Christchurch Trees’
RNZ, 7 February 2016
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/regional/295951/call-to-save-christchurch-trees
– Christchurch residents are urging the council to save more than 1500 heritage and notable trees from being delisted and losing protection in the city’s plan.
– A group of advocates for the trees is raising money through a “give a little” campaign for a legal challenge to the proposal.
– Some trees listed as notable under the current Christchurch District Plan, will not be protected under the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan.
– The new law, which is being fast-tracked under earthquake recovery legislation, would change planning rules to make it easier to develop property, reducing the number of protected trees by 80 percent.
– Mark Belton is a professional forester and advocate for heritage trees. He told Radio New Zealand’s Sunday Morning programme that Christchurch had the greatest variety of trees of any city on the planet.
– Another opponent of the rule change, Barbara Stewart, said the council was considering reducing the number of protected trees from 1900 to just 380.
She said after losing so many old buildings to the earthquakes, the city’s trees were one of its few remaining connections to the past.
Ms Stewart described removing the trees’ protection as a man-made disaster.
‘Council Reneges On Deal To Protect Trees’
RNZ, 5 August 2016
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/310195/council-reneges-on-deal-to-protect-trees
– Christchurch City Council is being accused of shameful behaviour in going back on an agreement to protect the city’s notable trees.
– In February, it signed an agreement with heritage advocates to save more than 800 trees that faced losing their protected status because of changes to planning rules.
It has now cancelled that agreement.
– One of those who wants the trees protected, Mark Belton, said some of them dated back to when the city was first settled.
They were one of the few reminders of the past in a city that had lost most of its heritage buildings to the earthquakes, he said.
“This is something the people of Christchurch really expressed a preference for in the Share An Idea exercise where people were given an opportunity to express what sort of city they wanted and the most overwhelming response was about making the city greener and more attractive.
“And then we have these sorts of things happening which are essentially driving the whole process in reverse.”
“On October 7, 2016 the Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) publicly notified its Tree decision – a decision that overall, has delivered a positive outcome.
The key elements of the IHP’s decision are as follows:
1) Our Mediated Agreement with the Christchurch City Council has been upheld, with 80% of the original 1623 trees on private land remaining on the Christchurch Plan schedule;
2) The Panel has also directed that the 724 listed trees on public land be returned to the Plan; and
3) The new Plan still contains a suite of provisions (objective, policies and rules) that continue to provide recognition and some protection for scheduled trees.
Overall, although we have lost some very good trees and still retain misgivings for the future (particularly given the culture within Council that proposed so drastic a reduction (ca. 84%) of the Heritage and Notable tree schedule in the first place) we believe this is a very good result for the Christchurch community and the landscape character of our city.
https://givealittle.co.nz/fundraiser/chchnotabletrees/updates
“2) The Panel has also directed that the 724 listed trees on public land be returned to the Plan”, but the ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ were not returned to the Christchurch District Plan & are no longer classified as ‘significant’ or protected for the future.
Significant Trees Qualifying Matters Technical Report, June 2022
Christchurch City Council Report
– Page 5
17. Varying forms, shapes and textures of trees contributes to the amenity values3 of a place. By providing specific landmarks within an urban landscape, the physical feature of a tree can help identify a specific location. Through physical responses to the environment, trees can add micro-changes to an urban landscape, such as responses to the wind and shading effects. Through their own growth and seasonal
change, trees allow people to mark change over time. Urban structures, in comparison, can be erected within months and then remain unchanging, providing only a very limited sense of change over time.
18. Trees are also valued as they connect with people’s historical associations and memories. In addition, trees within the urban landscapes are easily accessible on a daily basis as they are located in proximity to where people live.
– Page 6
18. Trees are often planted for sentimental or cultural reasons…Public and private trees are also planted as markers, as physical links to sister Cities, or as records of notable events and memorials…Over time, these trees become even more valuable to the community and provide a human connection with history.
– Page 8
3.2 CTEM Criteria for Group Trees
36. Group of Trees means a cluster, grove, or line of trees (including the root systems) that may be the same or variable species, either planted or naturally occurring that:
are located in close geographic proximity to each other and meet at least one of the following criteria: canopies are touching; or canopies are overlapping…
– Page 15
3.4.7 Visibility
Visibility is a measure of the prominence of the tree in the wider landscape…It is a measure of how far the tree can be seen from, and is different from “Location”,
which is a measure as to the frequency of viewing.
3.4.8 Location
Location is a measure of how many people see the tree(s) and is based on site profile e.g. road hierarchy…The tree is assessed based on where it is located. e.g. if the tree is located in an urban park that borders an urban arterial road…
[The ‘Emmett Street Trees’ are off Shirley Road, which is a Minor Arterial Road & the trees are clearly visible at this intersection].
– Page 23
3.6.2 Heritage
Association: There is a recorded association with a major natural or planned event, or an eminent person by the presence of a plaque or other written record.
Commemoration: Well documented planting to commemorate an occasion or occasions of importance in New Zealand’s history such as battles or treaties.
– Page 29
127. Over time, these trees become even more valuable to the community and provide a human connection with history, though they may not be yet listed as Heritage under the District Plan.
128. Recording these historical human connections becomes more important through time.
– Page 31
136. Trees perform very important environmental, social and cultural services within current and future urban landscapes. Trees that are listed in the Schedule of Significant Trees have the highest legal protection afforded to trees in Christchurch.
– See also: 3.4.9 Role, 3.5 Environmental and Ecological, 3.5.1 Services, 3.5.2 Canopy Volume, 3.6 Exceptional Evaluation & 3.6.1 Landscape.
Christchurch District Plan (2025)
Chapter 9 Natural and Cultural Heritage
9.4 Significant and Other Trees
https://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz/?docId=BJN6TOTWF9M%3d
9.4.2.1.1 Objective – Trees
a. Maintain and enhance the contribution of the Christchurch District’s significant trees listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1, and trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space, to community amenity through:
i. landscape character and amenity;
ii. heritage and cultural values;
iii. purification of air and rainwater;
iv. releasing oxygen and storing carbon;
v. cooling of the built environment and waterways;
vi. stormwater and erosion management; and
vii. biodiversity protection and enhancement;
while providing for the reasonable use and enjoyment of property and landowner responsibilities.
9.4.2.2 Policies
9.4.2.2.1 Policy – Identification and assessment of significant trees for scheduling in the District Plan
a. Identify trees, including groups of trees, and assess them for significance and/or exceptional values according to the following:
i. botanical value;
ii. historic heritage value;
iii. amenity value;
iv. landscape value;
v. cultural value; and
vi. ecological and/or environmental value.
9.4.2.2.3 Policy – Tree protection
a. Protect from inappropriate physical works:
i. trees that are listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1, particularly those trees identified as having exceptional values; and
ii. trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space where they provide amenity value and/or collectively contribute to the character and environmental quality of the Christchurch District, to the extent consistent with maintaining the multiple functions of road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space.
9.4.2.2.4 Policy – Tree maintenance
a. To enable the maintenance and management of trees that are listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1 and trees in the road corridors, parks, public open space and reserves in recognition that such works may be necessary to:
i. ensure the continuing health, structural integrity and amenity value of the trees;
ii. enable the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property and surrounds; and
iii. minimise the risk from the trees to public safety, property, buildings, strategic infrastructure and electricity distribution lines.
9.4.2.2.5 Policy – Trees and utilities
a. Where it would not be reasonable to locate outside of the dripline of a significant tree listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1 due to locational, technical or operational requirements, ensure that the utility is appropriately designed, located and installed to maintain as far as practicable the specific values of the tree.
9.4.2.2.6 Policy – Trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space
a. Road corridors, parks, reserves, and public open space are planted with trees to enhance environmental, landscape, cultural, social and economic values.
b. Identify significant trees, including groups of trees, in road corridors, parks, reserves, and public open space and list them in Appendix 9.4.7.2.
9.4.2.2.7 Policy – Felling of trees
a. For trees listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1:
i. limit the felling of significant trees, except where there are no reasonable alternatives enabling retention of the tree due to its condition, or where the use and enjoyment of a property and surrounds is significantly compromised or diminished; and
ii. avoid the felling of significant trees that are identified as having exceptional values, except where there are no reasonable alternatives, or where the use and enjoyment of a property and surrounds is significantly compromised or diminished.
b. Limit the felling of trees in road corridors, parks, public open space and reserves having regard to size, location and species, except where there are no reasonable alternatives.
9.4.3 How to interpret and apply the rules
a. To understand whether a site has a significant tree(s), including groups of trees, listed in the Schedule of Significant Trees, and the nature of this listing, refer to Appendix 9.4.7.1 and the planning maps.
b. The rules that apply to significant trees and trees in parks, road corridors, reserves and public open space are contained in the activity status tables (including activity specific standards) in Rules 9.4.4.1.1 – 9.4.4.1.6. Trees listed in Appendix 9.4.7.2 form part of the wider set of trees referred to as trees in road corridors, parks, public open spaces and reserves.
Chapter 9 Natural and Cultural Heritage
9.4 Significant and Other Trees
9.4.7 Appendices
Appendix 9.4.7.2 Schedule of significant trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space
https://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz/?p=1&docId=Vx15lDOsvwk%3d
George Malcolm’s Emmett Street Oak Trees (located on the north side of Shirley Road) are not included in this Appendix.
But this Appendix does include the following ‘significant’ trees located on the south side of Shirley Road, in North Richmond.
10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve, ‘Significant’ Trees
– PTG51, 6038, Thuja plicata, Western red cedar
– PTG51, 6039, Quercus coccinea, Scarlet oak
– PTG51, 6041, Liriodendron tulipifera, Tulip Tree
– PTG51, 6042, Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweet gum
– PTG51, 6043, Platanus x acerifolia, London plane
– PTG51, 6044, Fagus sylvatica Purpurea, Copper beech
– PTG51, 6046, Tilia x europaea, Common lime
– PTG51, 6047, Quercus robur, English oak
Dudley Street, Dudley Character Area, Road corridor, ‘Significant’ Trees
25 Quercus heterophylla, Bartram’s oak
STG25: 4596, 4597, 4598, 4599, 4601, 4602, 4603, 4604, 4605, 4606, 4607, 4608, 4609, 4610, 4611, 4612, 4613, 4614, 4615, 4616, 4617, 4670, 4671, 4672, 4674
Q. So why are the trees on the south side of Shirley Road in Richmond, classified as ‘Significant’ Trees, whilst George Malcolm’s ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ (located on the north side of Shirley Road in Shirley) are not?
A. Maybe because these trees are located in the Shirley Community Reserve & North Richmond, which is classified as the ‘Dudley Character Area’:
https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consents-and-Licences/resource-consents/Forms/Character-Areas/Dudley-Design-Guide-2019.pdf
George Malcolm’s ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ in Shirley were originally classified & protected as part of the ‘Emmett Character Area’.
But in 2025, this ‘Character Area’ no longer exists in the new Christchurch District Plan.
See: Emmett Character Area
