|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday 18
August 2020
1:00pm
Waitematā
Local Board Office
Ground Floor
52 Swanson Street
Auckland
|
|
Waitematā Local Board
OPEN MINUTE ITEM ATTACHMENTS
|
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
8.4 Deputation
- Gael Baldock: Western Springs Lakeside Te Wai Orea Park Development Plan
A. Western Springs
Lakeside Te Wai Ōrea Park Development Plan 3
8.5 Deputation
- Wendy Gray: Western Springs Lakeside Te Wai Orea Park Development Plan
A. Western Springs
Lakeside Te Wai Ōrea Park Development Plan 33
9.2 Wendy
Gray
A. No Mow Pilot
Project 37
21 Board
member reports
A. Member S Trotman
verbal report attachment Agusut 2020 39
|
Waitematā Local Board
18 August 2020
|
|
Waitemata Local Board
Deputation Tuesday 18 August 2020
Western Springs
Lakeside Te Wai Ōrea Park Development Plan
Deputation by Wendy
Gray
Thank you to David
Barker and the Local Board for the changes that have been made to the Plan over
the last year.
I have some comments
to make about the recommendations and the plan:
1. We are grateful
that the plan has removed the circular track as the proposed pathway through
the Forest. However at paragraph 34 of your recommendation it is noted
that when the question about the paths through the forest is to be raised again
“consultation on route options with relevant stakeholders” only
is to be undertaken. Throughout the Resource Consent process the residents of
West View Road had to fight to be considered as stakeholders. Only
Council’s organisations in Western Springs are considered stakeholders.
Could you please include the residents of West View Road and the local
community as stakeholders to be consulted in this matter? They have fought long
and hard to be considered by this Board and deserve to be consulted about this
matter as it is they who will be most affected by it.
2. The recommendation
at paragraph 35 states that the long term goal for the forest area is to return
it to a native forest. The Forest is already a native forest. At the original
hearing in 2018 of the Resource Consent application by Council Community
Facilities, to clear-fell the Western Springs forest, the vicar of the local St
Columba Church gave oral submissions to the Commissioners. He advised the
Commissioners he was originally from East Cape and that he had grown up with
pine trees and he was no friend of pine trees. However, the Western Springs
forest was different. He said he collected his rongoa herbs from that forest
and he was happy to do that because it was ngahere, it “smells”
like the ngahere he said.
3. Throughout the
plan the Forest is referred to as native forest. Can we stop dancing around
this pin head. The Forest is a native forest that requires specimen planting to
transition from a pine over-canopy to a broad leaf puriri over-canopy native forest.
The over-canopy is the protection for the under-canopy and most importantly the
forest floor. We now know that it is what happens on the forest floor that
determines the success or failure of native plantings. If you clear-fell the
pines and destroy 70+% of the native under-storey the important microbial and
fungal web of life that is currently active on the forest floor will be
destroyed.
4. The climate impact
statement at paragraphs 42 and 43 does not address the obvious issue of the
carbon to be released by the felling of over 200 90+ year old trees and
destruction of native under-storey which will result in significant release of
carbon. The felling of all mature climate managing trees in Auckland daily has
a cumulative affect on the release of carbon and the management of
Auckland’s climate and air cleaning both locally and regionally. There
are obvious knock on health and wellness issues here for future generations of
Auckland residents. Auckland Council, its CCOs, departments, co-governance
organisations and its planning department are significantly responsible for the
clearance of Auckland’s climate managing mature trees and the consequent
substantial release of stored carbon in these mature trees. Yet Council
is not addressing these issues. Auckland Council’s claimed climate
emergency is a sham whilst major tree clearances continue and Council fails to
count the release of carbon in its Low Carbon strategies . Climate change is
made worse by the loss of our mature climate managing trees. Council’s
policies are inconsistent when we have an Urban Ngahere Strategy that talks
about increasing the canopy to 30% whilst continuing to reduce it daily.
Auckland cannot afford to loose any more mature urban canopy trees. Replanting
is a LONG TERM PLAN 30 -50 years before trees reach maturity. What is
biodiversity to do when daily they and their habitat are destroyed and will not
be reproduced for 30-50 years, if years of expensive maintenance is effective.
A forest that plants itself is far more resilient than one that is planted.
5. The recommendation
at paragraph 62 claims “ The management approach to the forest area
mirrors the intent of the old Western Springs Lakeside plan which has been in
effect and unchallenged since 1995.” The intention in the 1995 plan
was to establish a “Pohutukawa-broadleaf forest” – I believe
that the intention in this plan is to establish a Puriri broadleaf forest.
Although at page 41 of the plan currently before you it is stated the intention
is to establish a kauri forest? I believe that may be a mistake?
6. The 1995 plan does
not envisage clear –felling the pines and throughout talks about
maintaining the visual values by under-planting the pines with species which “upon
maturity will be as equally visually dominant upon this skyline.”
Some specimen plantings were done by Council in support of the plan and these
trees are now reaching maturity. The 1995 plan does not envisage clear-felling
the pines at all. I believe it is a stretch to imagine that the current plan
mirrors the intent of the 1995 plan. What is clear both plans envisage a native
forest, although they differ in the detail, but their methodology and
management of that process is quite different. Clarity about what the plan
actually is would be helpful. Meanwhile, nature is getting on with it, and the
regenerating forest is lush, varied and strong having survived the most recent
drought that would have decimated new plantings.
7. During the whole
time I have been involved in the Western Springs Forest Resource Consent
process from beginning to now I have never seen a hydrology report. At page 92
of the plan there is some comment regarding the general hydrology of the whole
park. I draw your attention to this. If the CCF plan to clear-fell the forest
proceeds it is quite clear that there will be hydrology issues for storm water
run off and Motions Creek which have never been considered. These issues may
well compromise the work set out in this plan for cleaning up Motions Creek and
preserving the “ at risk/endangered” long-fin eel.
8. Give yourself some
wriggle room in respect of this plan. Covid has demonstrated that change can
happen quickly and we all need to be able to adapt and change when the
situation requires it. I also work with Save Chamberlain Park. Council has now
registered Chamberlain Park for certification as an eco-sanctuary like Remuera
Golf Course. This will take some time to process however this has knock on
biodiversity dividends for Western Springs. They used to be joined. If we are
to preserve what we currently have in our environment and biodiversity for
future generations we will need to make big changes to the way we do things.
The opportunity still exists for Western Springs and Chamberlain Park to be
joined to create a biodiversity and environmental haven in the middle of
Auckland.
9. The process of the
development of this Western Springs plan has demonstrated that working
with community builds strong outcomes and strong local communities. I ask you
to please let the plan remain a living document.
Wendy Gray (8
min)
18 August 2020
