Albert-Eden written feedback volume 2 - Auckland …...4478 Albert-Eden 2 4528 Albert-Eden 2 4585 Albert-Eden 2 Annual Budget 2020/2021 - Hard copy submission Submitter details Date

Date: Tuesday, 28 April 2020

Annual Budget 2020/2021 Albert-Eden Local Board

WRITTEN FEEDBACK Vol. 2 (2443– 4585)

Sub # Organisation Local Board Volume

2443 Marist RLFC Albert-Eden 22473 Albert-Eden 22517 Albert-Eden 22583 Albert-Eden 22584 Albert-Eden 22593 Albert-Eden 22602 Albert-Eden 22603 Albert-Eden 22610 Albert-Eden 22611 Albert-Eden 22618 Albert-Eden 22619 Albert-Eden 22640 Albert-Eden 22664 Albert-Eden 22667 Albert-Eden 22708 Albert-Eden 22723 Albert-Eden 22726 Albert-Eden 22731 Albert-Eden 22740 Albert-Eden 22747 Albert-Eden 22750 Albert-Eden 22755 Albert-Eden 22765 Albert-Eden 22766 Albert-Eden 22779 Albert-Eden 22782 Albert-Eden 22793 Albert-Eden 22873 Albert-Eden 22879 Albert-Eden 22887 Albert-Eden 22890 Albert-Eden 22891 Albert-Eden 22909 Albert-Eden 22951 Albert-Eden 22956 Albert-Eden 22969 Albert-Eden 22970 Albert-Eden 23032 Albert-Eden 23037 Albert-Eden 23064 Albert-Eden 23067 Albert-Eden 23094 Albert-Eden 23157 Albert-Eden 23175 Albert-Eden 23181 Albert-Eden 23184 Albert-Eden 23185 Albert-Eden 23187 Albert-Eden 23192 Albert-Eden 23202 Albert-Eden 23204 Albert-Eden 2


3246 Albert-Eden 23331 Albert-Eden 23358 Friends of Õwairaka Albert-Eden 23368 Albert-Eden 23370 Albert-Eden 23372 Albert-Eden 23374 Albert-Eden 23420 Albert-Eden 23450 Albert-Eden 23492 Albert-Eden 23493 Albert-Eden 23498 Albert-Eden 23543 Albert-Eden 23545 Albert-Eden 23551 Albert-Eden 23558 Albert-Eden 23573 Albert-Eden 23581 Albert-Eden 23600 Albert-Eden 23606 Albert-Eden 23607 Albert-Eden 23609 Honour the Maunga Albert-Eden 23623 Albert-Eden 23631 Albert-Eden 23636 Albert-Eden 23637 Albert-Eden 23638 Albert-Eden 23640 Albert-Eden 23641 Albert-Eden 23650 Albert-Eden 23654 Albert-Eden 23679 Albert-Eden 23685 Albert-Eden 23686 Albert-Eden 23694 Albert-Eden 23722 Albert-Eden 23723 Albert-Eden 23724 Albert-Eden 23727 Albert-Eden 23728 Albert-Eden 23734 Albert-Eden 23735 Albert-Eden 23740 Albert-Eden 23746 Albert-Eden 23760 Albert-Eden 23769 Albert-Eden 23770 Albert-Eden 23773 Albert-Eden 23775 Albert-Eden 23778 Albert-Eden 23790 Albert-Eden 23792 Albert-Eden 2


3800 Albert-Eden 23804 Albert-Eden 23816 Albert-Eden 23821 Albert-Eden 23831 Albert-Eden 23841 Albert-Eden 24412 Albert-Eden 24417 Albert-Eden 24419 Albert-Eden 24429 Albert-Eden 24433 Albert-Eden 24442 Albert-Eden 24447 Albert-Eden 24459 Albert-Eden 24474 Albert-Eden 24477 Albert-Eden 24478 Albert-Eden 24528 Albert-Eden 24585 Albert-Eden 2

Annual Budget 2020/2021 - Hardcopy submission

Submitter detailsDate received: 12 Mar 2020 12:24

Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name: Marist RLFC

Local Board: Albert-Eden

Regional feedback1. Waste management target rate

The cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and plastics) hasincreased due to international market conditions. To pay for this we propose to charge onlythose who use the service by increasing the targeted rate by $20 a year (or $0.38 a week) to$141.03 (incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates for allratepayers, including those who don’t get a kerbside collection service.

What do you think of our proposal?

Support

2. Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a

#2443

targeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residentsalready meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.

To cover this extra cost we propose increasing the targeted rate in these areas by:

$14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93 to$144.16 a year), and20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191.00to $211.91 a year).

If we don't do this, we would have to increase general rates for all ratepayers, including those wholive outside these two areas who would subsidise residents of old Auckland and Manukau Cityareas.


Support

3. Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate

Last year we consulted on removing the septic tank pump-out service funded by a targeted rate.While feedback indicated a willingness to go ahead with the removal in the Henderson-Masseyand Upper Harbour local board areas, residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area want tokeep the service.

The cost of delivering this service is higher than the current targeted rate of $198.43. Ourproposal is to recover the full cost by increasing the targeted rate to between $260 and$320 a year (incl. GST). This increase would apply from July 2021.

If we don't do this, the council could end the service, or continue to subsidise the cost of theservice to septic tank users in the Waitākere Ranges local board area from all general ratepayers.


Support - continue the service

Local prioritiesAre the priorities right for the local board area in 2020/2021?

Albert-Eden

I support all of the priorities

Other feedback5. Do you have feedback on any other issues?

Field allocation for sports- particularly in Albert- Eden LB area. Services in Arondale for ourvulnerable communities & At Risk youth. Whau (Arondale) community facilities- more needed toengage the community.

#2443



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:






Do not support

Council to provide educational workshops for community to be aware and differentiate recycle orrefuse & not

#2473


In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through atargeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residentsalready meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.





Do not support






Do not support - continue the Waitākere septic tank service subsidised by all general ratepayers


Albert-Eden

I support most of the priorities


#2473







Support

Again, we want to encourage families to be more responsible







This service is contributing for families to be more sustainable. Taking more responsibility of meerwaste.


Puketāpapa

I support all of the prioritiesMinority & ethnic groups need to have access to there facilities & services. Therefore, if everyonehas quality services & facilities priorities need to be met


#2517



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#2583






Support







Albert-Eden



Auckland Council

#2583

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/2SkIOpH2iN9iHuBj8naWWA



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#2584






Support







Albert-Eden



Auckland Council

#2584

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/mZ5zEBaDAwsIQrTjehllvA



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support

1. There is a recession in economy. It's hard to make money. Please don't increase the burden onresidents. 2. It's hard to find a job. Many people are unemployed, staying at home or do casualwork. Please have sympathy for people and don't increase general rates or other rates. 3.Grudgingly, I will still support the proposal.

#2593







Support

We should understand each other's difficulty.







Those who use the service pay for it.


Albert-Eden

I support all of the prioritiesThe goals are correct and meet people's expectation.


#2593

I live in Greenlane. Last August when I returned to Auckland, I found that the grass bythe roads in front of my house was only cut after a very long interval. The grass often grew to beas high as a person and the grass cut off was not taken away and was blown to all over the road.This hurt the image of the city. I hope this could be improved.

Auckland Council

#2593

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/w1xMhqt79Iqz3-Npe0Mi5g

1

Annual Budget 2020/2021 - Hard copy submission

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Submitter details

Date received: 17 Mar 2020 13:53

Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:


Regional feedback

1. Waste management target rate

The cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and plastics) has increased due to international market conditions. To pay for this we propose to charge only those who use the service by increasing the targeted rate by $20 a year (or $0.38 a week) to $141.03 (incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates for all ratepayers, including those who don’t get a kerbside collection service.


#2618

2

Support


In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a targeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residents already meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.


$14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93 to $144.16 a year), and

20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191.00 to $211.91 a year).

If we don't do this, we would have to increase general rates for all ratepayers, including those who live outside these two areas who would subsidise residents of old Auckland and Manukau City areas.


Support


Last year we consulted on removing the septic tank pump-out service funded by a targeted rate. While feedback indicated a willingness to go ahead with the removal in the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas, residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area want to keep the service.

The cost of delivering this service is higher than the current targeted rate of $198.43. Our proposal is to recover the full cost by increasing the targeted rate to between $260 and $320 a year (incl. GST). This increase would apply from July 2021.

If we don't do this, the council could end the service, or continue to subsidise the cost of the service to septic tank users in the Waitākere Ranges local board area from all general ratepayers.



Local priorities

Are the priorities right for the local board area in 2020/2021?

Albert-Eden


Other feedback

#2618

3

5. Do you have feedback on any other issues?

#2618

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#2619

2

Support








Support







Local priorities


Albert-Eden


Other feedback

#2619

3


#2619



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Do not support



#2640






Do not support






Do not support - end the service


Albert-Eden

I do not support most of the priorities


#2640

Annual Budget 2020/2021


Attachment:

Organisation name:






Do not support



#2664





Do not support







Local prioritiesAlbert-Eden



Auckland's traffic getting worse rates is too high can not afford

Auckland Council

#2664

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/8tSWwErWNRFQWobMGR_oEw



Attachment:

Organisation name:


feedback1. Waste management target rate




Support



#2708





Support










Auckland Council

#2708

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/Qp6PwDBZ_a2HEe9_2iLBlw



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#2723





Support







I do not support most of the prioritiesThe environment is massively under invested in, we should be focussing heavily on building ourcommunities in the face of resilience. This means local food farms, community solar schemes,local social enterprise support etc. In the face of pandemics and climate change the focus shouldbe on local climate resilience building.


I think the current state of society facing a pandemic shines a light on how a carbon constrainedfuture might look. We need to invest heavily in technology and local solutions that will enablepeople to sustain themselves with power, food and social networks when the global economystarts to fail, as we are seeing now. People have sovereignty if they can meet their basic needsand we need to support our economy moving away from capitalism to resilience. Please investheavily in the new Climate Action Plan as (in my opinion) this lays out all the strategies we needfor a climate-affected future.

#2723



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#2726





Support










Auckland Council

#2726

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/WOq71VaXCfBNuOcNKL-OEw



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support

This is a necessary service for us.



#2731





Support

This is a necessary service and only fair we in the old Council boundaries pay our share of thecost.







I support all of the prioritiesInvestment is required in our community buildings in our area to ensure they are fit for purposeand suitable for community uses. Support the new local reserve at Chamberlain Park - although itneeds to include a toilet for users. The maintenance shed needs to be moved to the other side ofthe park to be located by the club rooms and access off Linwood Ave - this will mean that the newaccessway required to take the loads over the creek will not then be required.


#2731



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support

We need to be incentivising recycling and not sending waste to landfill


In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through atargeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residents

#2740

already meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.





Support








I support most of the prioritiesI beleive less needs to be spent on governance and more spend on environmental issues


#2740

1

To: AKHaveYourSaySubject: Fwd: Submission re Tupunga Maunga Draft Operational Plan 2020/2021

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Subject: Submission re Tupunga Maunga Draft Operational Plan 2020/2021 Date: 2020‐03‐05 12:10 From: To: [email protected]

To Whom It May Concern

I write to express my deep concern and horror both as a citizen and as a ratepayer at the proposal to continue with the wanton and completely senseless destruction of mature healthy trees on Aucklands maunga. I feel the democratic process that we live under was ignored by those responsible. These Maunga are supposed to be held in trust for the common benefit of Nga Mana Whenua and the other people of Auckland. I do not feel as if my wishes have been taken into account in any way. In the face of climate change it is beyond belief that mature healthy trees which are home to many birds and other animals and act as carbon sinks for the environment should be felled. Arent we supposed to be planting trees? No‐one who has seen Mangere and Pigeon mountains before and after the felling could fail to be horrified by what has happened. If trees were planted there today to replace the vandalized ones they would not be mature till long after I and my children were dead. History will not treat these senseless acts kindly. People will look back in horror and ask why was this allowed to happen? Who was in charge? Please reconsider and let the trees and birds be safe from whatever madness has been unleashed upon them.

#2747



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#2747










Local priorities


I am appalled that ACC is wasting millions of ratepayers money to cut down healthy mature treeson the Auckland maunga?! Why? Its mad. Driven by unelected zealots with non transparentagendas and supported by council puppets. We the ratepayers will remember this at election time.History will not treat you kindly. Dont you care about this?

Auckland Council

#2747

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/F-iSObDLz2CRqqYqyyZ5Iw



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Do not support

This puts the general public off recycling



#2750






Support










#2750



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#2755





Do not support

Prefer the $7 flat rate










Auckland Council

#2755

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/HIL4TBG7wgRKjXh8tom4Qw

1

Annual Budget 2020/2021 To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Support

#2765

2








Support







Local priorities

Albert-Eden


Other feedback


#2765

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Support

While cost increases are problematic, recycling is a critical tasking.

#2766

2








Support







Local priorities

Albert-Eden

I support all of the priorities I love the vibe developing in Kingsland/Morningside and I would love to see it get more priority tasking for environmental and community focused development. I would however also like to see some nods to Morningside's community history.

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

I support all of the priorities Ōtāhuhu is a fab place. I would love to see it get more priority tasking for environmental and community focused development.

#2766

3

What activities would you like to better care for our local environment in Māngere-Ōtāhuhu?

Other feedback


The linked image cannot be d isplayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link poin ts to the correct file and location.

#2766



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#2779





Support








I support most of the prioritiesMore investment in environmental initiatives


Auckland Council

#2779

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/IAUkQcm36ILL-kNO2eblbw



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support

Who doesn’t recycle?



#2782






Support










#2782

Auckland Council

#2782

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/QXYj3oKkwIxROyQStv3ZGQ



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support

it seems the most fair, and sustainable plan.



#2793






Other

Our household (5 people) only puts out the rubbish bin every 2 or 3 week, and it is usually not full.It seems unreasonable to charge all properties at the same rate, irrelevant of how much rubbishthey produce.







If the service is ended then people who rent are vulnerable to landlords who don't want to dealwith things / pay for expensive services.




#2793

Auckland Council

#2793

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/aXo95HFf8ywy583gRF0uvg

1

Watching Raymond Tau Henare on “The Project”, TV3 talking about Mt Albert was amusing. If this issue wasn’t serious I’d recommend him for a comedy award. If his behaviour is representative of the attitudes within the TMA, your organisation should be shut down immediately and permanently. Those mountains are of cultural significance to all Aucklanders and are there for all to enjoy.

It would be very interesting to hear how this pending tree destruction got through on Non Notified Consent. I smell a huge rat there.

I have lived in the suburb of Mt Albert since 1998 and chose to live here because of the beautiful tree lined streets and the mountain itself.

The protestors as you call them have huge local support and refer to themselves as protectors which is more appropriate. The 345 trees the TMA want to destroy will have huge impacts on our environment and water tables if removed. Those large trees will collectively soak up 1000’s of litres of water each and every day. Without them what will happen to the properties on the slopes of Mt Albert? How will this effect the quality of water in Oakley Creek and Western Springs. These same trees help clean the air we breath and produce oxygen while absorbing co2. Don’t be a bunch of oxygen thieves TMA. This whole exercise cloaked in various ways is an exercise to do nothing else than decolonise the mountains for the sake of making money for those involved and to gain power and control. Clearing the mountains has no benefit to anyone at all and will destroy the habitats native wildlife enjoy and depend on.

Information provided to a few by TMA is also blatantly misleading. You say you want to remove 345 exotic trees and replace with 13,000 natives. Native what? Not high canopy trees that’s for sure. Most of what you have dropped and left to die are grasses and small shrubs. Be factual in your claims, don’t lie to or attempt to mislead us. I guess you have been taken by surprise that quiet little middle class Mt Albert residents stood up against you and have certainly rattled your cage. Be prepared for a lot more if you don’t wake up and listen. There are more communities gathering to take action against the TMA. You were set up to Co-Govern and not to steam roll over everyone.

My other concern about these 14 Maunga is that the TMA have been granted in VERY loose terms, the authority to carry out “Commercial Activities” on the mountains. I’d like to know exactly what that means?

Forget about political manoeuvring, acting out of spite and your own agendas. Get ALL Aucklanders on your side. There are too many for you to fight.

#2873

1

Subject: Submission on plan for Mt Albert/Ōwairaka

I emailed you some time ago to express my support for your vision for the restoration of this Maunga but wanted to make this a more formal submission.

I completely agree with what you are hoping to achieve and how you are planning to achieve it, and I’m very excited that future generations will be able to experience dense native bush in the centre of Auckland.

I’m especially keen to see all 104 eucalyptus trees removed. With our summers getting hotter and lasting longer their flammability poses a real threat, although two protestors I spoke to refused to believe that they are a fire danger. I can’t understand why Honour the Maunga is campaigning against their removal, thus putting the lives of residents at risk.

I do not wish to make an oral submission.

Best wishes for a successful outcome.

#2879

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#2887

2

Support








Support







Local priorities


Albert-Eden


Other feedback

#2887

3


#2887

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#2890

2

Support

Recycling is good for the whole city environment, for that the service should be delivered to all the residents.








Support

In the future, we expect to see all parts of Auckland City to have the same refuse collection standards.







Local priorities


Albert-Eden


#2890

3

Other feedback


We propose the City Council actively and consistently enforce the regulations against improper parking and big inorganic refuse throw on kerbsides.

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.


#2890

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#2891

2

Support

Recycling can be deemed good for the entire city. Therefore, the service should be delivered to all the city residents.








Support

We expect to see all parts of the city to have the same refuse collection standards in the future.







Local priorities


Albert-Eden


#2891

3

Other feedback


We propose the city council actively enforce regulations against improper parking and inorganic huge refuse throw on kerbsides.

#2891






Support








Albert-Eden

I support all of the prioritiesOpex- can we improve library/community centres to be more clean & safe? Capex- Can we pleaseimprove Melville park facilities? -Develop Merivale Reserve?


Transport- 1. Manukau Road is always very busy and not safe. The Road is narrow, the sidesalong the road gets narrower. Any plan to direct traffic out from Manukau road will be helpful forlocal residents. 2. Roads around Three King's primary school has the same issue. It'll be good tolook at the roads issue for local residents.

#2909



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#2951






Support

It’s fair to directly charge the people that advantage from the service










#2951






Support

Much overdue ... finally a alignment of rates payment across the city, aligning old Auckland andManukau to ensure all areas are equally sharing the costs. Next to ensure, there is equal and fairinvestments across the city with services and facilities (maintenance and supply).








I support most of the prioritiesThriving town centres - facelift in terms of physical appearance of town centres and sidewalksaround town centres with better lighting, paint old (tired) building to facelift / physical presentationsof buildings around towncentres. Well painted and repair broken/ cracked side walks, improvelandscaping - plant colourful flowers and natives to beautify spaces around and within towncentres. Encourage business owners to sponsor sections of towncentre as contribution to localcommunity which they operate in.

Other feedback

#2956



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#2969





Support







Local priorities


Auckland Council

#2969

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/baA65o-j1PggdCuxzBjWjg



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support

Seems like the fair way of doing rather than charging rate payers who don't get a kerbsidecollection.



#2970






Support

Seems like the fair way of doing rather than charging rate payers who don't live in the affectedareas.







I support most of the prioritiesWould love to see more spending on environmental services.


Combatting the climate emergency is the single most important issue to me and accordingly wouldlove to see more resources and plans in this area.

#2970



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#3032






Support

I support Pay As You Throw.








RE: draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2020/2021 I greatly appreciate the work of the TūpunaMaunga Authority. The progress made over the past five years has been remarkable. I support theDraft Operational Plan 2020/21 and especially commend: • protection and restoration of tihi andcultural features • development and upgrade of track networks • restoration of native ecosystems,removal of inappropriate exotic vegetation, revegetation of suitable areas • encouragement ofmana whenua to reconnect with the Tūpuna Maunga and exercise their rights as kaitiaki andknowledge holders • development of plans for individual Tūpuna Maunga. I believe individualmaunga plans need to be drafted before exotic tree removals, ecosystem restoration, and

#3032

rehabilitation of cultural features take place. • establishment of a full-time officer to managecompliance activities under the Reserves Act. I would like more detail about the scope andpurpose. i.e. whether "compliance" extends to illegal occupation, encroachments, fire risk, off-track travel, off-leash dogs, etc. I would like to see: • More money allocated for track networks onall maunga (p.82) • More emphasis on volunteer programmes, including connecting volunteersworking on different maunga, connecting volunteers with mana whenua, sharing knowledge andlearning Mātauranga Māori • Greater communication with the public. e.g. notices on Maungawhauto inform local people about the timeline of the tihi boardwalk construction, and greater advancenotice to the public of all major work such as exotic tree removals • Closer liaison with Friends ofMaungawhau who are going through a difficult transition In regard to specific Tūpuna Maunga Ihave the following comments: Matukutūruru: I commend budget allocation for an entrance andtracks. Maungarei: I commend budget allocation for tracks, but query why there is no allocation formaintaining and progressing the quarry revegetation. Maungawhau: I commend budget allocationof $600,000 for the track network and $100,000 for wayfinding in 2020/21. Ōhuiarangi: Is there abudget to maintain plantings? I would like to see a volunteer programme to maintain and weed the2019 wetland planting. I believe that several Friends of Maungawhau volunteers would willinglyrespond to invitations to assist. Ōwairaka: Is there a budget to maintain and weed 2019 plantings?As a suggestion, a tap and hoses could be installed so that plantings can be watered dbyvolunteers during the summer, as we do on Maungawhau. Māngere: I commend budget allocationfor crater rim track and visitor infrastructure. Te Kōpuke: I commend budget allocation for craterrim track.

Auckland Council

#3032

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/-8xgn5wfTfz5Ft8SLi1Tcg



Attachment:

Organisation name:









#3037









Local priorities


Regarding domestic pool fencing charges for inspections. We prefer to use an independentqualified pool inspector (IQPI) We have used one in the past, and the Auckland City Councilshould have records to show this. I'm interested in "How the Council will apply the correct increasein Annual Rating to our property", since the proposed increase is different for those who usecouncil inspectors from those who use IQPI. Will they base their increased charges on the type ofinspector used in the last round of inspections? The Council keeps a register of those withdomestic pools and spa pools. In order to keep the Will there be a rebate for the use of IQPI? Willthis be an extra cost to the council

Auckland Council

#3037

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/dEdv6XjiQ0Z87DIuhH-v-g

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Other

#3064

2

I feel those of us who take the extra care and responsibility to reduce our waste should have a chance to have our charges reduced. It'd be great if there were incentives for people to do this.








Do not support

As for the recycling, what incentives are there for those of us who actively limit the amount of waste we produce? Perhaps we could have the option to have pay as you throw even though we are in the kerbside collection area.






Local priorities

Albert-Eden

I support most of the priorities I am not happy that the golf course remains as is when is belongs to us all and most of us can't use it if don't play golf. Golf courses also require a lot of spray on the grass. Let it become a wonderful forested park which creates more oxygen and diversity. Lets be bold in how we can use it for community and not build more on it.

#3064

3

Other feedback


I cycle to work in the city from Royal Oak and there is no cycle lanes available to use. I am thankful for the T3 lanes on Manukau Rd however. I feel we need more cycle lanes, especially now we have more alternative transport options. How about we make some back streets one lane for cars and the other lanes can be for bikes, scooters etc. Another area I think is increasingly important are the community centres like libraries and halls. I think we will have more need for them in future for more various people connections. Parks are also critical and I feel we need more with the ever increasing population. Of course right now we need more personal space in the parks we have due to Cover-19. And more trees for oxygen shade, and reducing the heat. Trees are proven to reduce temperatures. Thanks Local board for looking after our wellbeing :-) I think we need to be more radical in making sure the amenities will server future needs.

#3064

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Other

#3067

2

I only support if it is compulsory and people don’t get the option to opt out as then some people will choose to just throw their recycling in the general rubbish.








Other

Let’s have pay as you throw everywhere! That would incentivise less waste and would also mean that households like ours who make a big effort to minimise waste and therefore only generate about a supermarket shopping bag of waste a week don’t subsidise those who aren’t trying so hard. And also the rubbish truck would be more efficient if it wasn’t picking up mostly-empty bins.







Local priorities

Albert-Eden

I support most of the priorities I do not support prioritising upgrading community centres, libraries and halls. I would rather see

#3067

3

that money spent on removing on-street parking to make better public spaces, implementing more mode separation and making walking and cycling safer.

Other feedback


#3067



Attachment:

Organisation name:









#3094









Local priorities


I have already put in a submission around the Tupuna Maunga Authority's draft operational plan. Iwould like to add that - given the Corona Virus situation - it would be even more outrageous forAuckland Council to waste ratepayer money on voting to allow funding for the Authority toneedlessly fell nearly 2000 trees off Auckland's volcanic cones when we are in an economicrecession. Also, not related to Tupuna Maunga Authority, I have noticed that Auckland Councilwastes a lot of money on planting native vegetation in places that are not well suited to some ofthe species planted. It's not helped by failing to water recently planted vegetation in dry weather. Ibelieve the council's tree related consultants and contractors are not providing a cost-effectivesolution and believe an in-depth investigation into all aspects of arbrourial procurement is needed.

Auckland Council

#3094

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/6Lg1d9I3ZkNpj2_IKV-dmA



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:






Other

You may increase fees for a short amount of time a long as you come with a solution ASP with aperiod of a year. You don't want to be a financial bruden on families through the fees.

#3157







Other

I think that Auckland council should increase but it depends on how long they do this for, as thismay affect other family livelyhoods.







Albert-Eden

I support most of the prioritiesWhat are you planning to do at Windmill?


Facilities/centers/hall in Auckland/owned by the council NEED to be cheaper to the public and alsoneed to be mainted better, at current they are very old and gross. Permits should should becheaper.

#3157



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:






Other

Given the large proportion of all rate-payers who do get their rubbish collected perhaps a splitincrease on rate and rubbish collections. Or perhaps a less significant rise. For most families 0.38should appear reasonable.

#3175







Support

Generally supported given described neccesity . That being said, a split cost across allAucklander's would be a lot less significant and more manageable.







It seems only right given the influence that a decision like this would have on resident in theWaitakere Ranges Local Board, to offer residents the option between terminating the service orincreasing rates.


Albert-Eden

I support most of the prioritiesI agree the most part but it is difficult to comment on these priorities without other, more detailedinformation on how we might expect tese investment to be spent.

#3175


Scooter licensing cost make sense - I'd be curious about how this money would be spent. Eventpermit pricing -agree with the increase perhaps subsidised. For non-profit hosted events? BotanicGarden Entry Fee - perhaps a lower fee? Generally though I wouldn't agree with this priceincrease.

Auckland Council

#3175

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/ULD2I9NB5vN1LlmQB1MRMw







Support

This seems like a more reasonable and definite fixed-term rates hike.







Somewhat concerned that if these properties are entitled to sewage mains connection subsidiesfrom council that stopping the service would push people to request connections, costing councilmuch more than cleaning.


Albert-Eden

I support most of the prioritiesSeem like generally good ideas - whilst unsure about golf course - if possible this should bemaintained by a fee charged to those who use it.

#3181







Other

Despite the fact it seems unfair to charge more for those not using the system, I don't believe theincrease cost to change providers should be soley put on central, south and East Auckland.Unifying a company shouldn't require select groups to pay for it.







I may not understand enough on why it is logical to only continue the service in the Waitakerearea, but it seems unfair to cancel the service in two places instead an all or nothing approach, butcharging everyone seems counter intuative, leaving only a nothing approach.


Albert-Eden

I support most of the prioritiesDespite being quite broad and non specific, general ideas of improving community centres andfacilities I see as important.

#3184







Other

I understand the need here and hope that it is temporary as with before.







I think people affected by the proposed change should still get support from Auckland Council insome forms but I am unsure of the details.


Albert-Eden

I support all of the prioritiesI think culture and community projects in our is fantastic. I would love to learn more detailshowever, it is difficult for many to be in full support without more information.

Other feedback

#3185






Do not support

I do not support the increased rates. You need to figure out a solution first. You have to decreasethe fee when the rubbish and recycling is picked up by the same company.







It would be cheaper to continue to subsidise this then stopping otherwise they could want to like tothe main system. They are entitled to a good waste system.


Albert-Eden

I do not support most of the prioritiesSupport upgrading community centres, libraries and halls. Support local businesses. We do notneed a golf course.


#3187







Support

Waste is running 30 years behind and sister cities. We need to do this and use the funds to investin more recycling and composting facilities, as well as introduce incentives for firms to be recycledmaterials.







Everyone should compost to support our neighbours as that burdens them with additional costs


Albert-Eden

I support all of the prioritiesIt is crucial to restore open spaces from provide clubs - golf courses must be disestablished toensure everyones mental wellbeing

Other feedback

#3192



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Do not support



#3202






Do not support








Albert-Eden



#3202



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Support



#3204






Support








Albert-Eden



#3204



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support

It is fair, and we should dispose of our rubbish in a responsible manner.


In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through atargeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residents

#3331

already meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.





Support

Again that's a fair approach, the charge should represent the cost of the service. I wonder if in thelonger term it would be more resonsible to move to a "pay as you throw" approach for all ofAuckland - paying for each bin collection might make many more thoughtful about the rubbish theyproduce.







That's a fair approach but we should also work with them to arrange for the service to be takenover by a private company as it most probably doesn't make sense for the Council to continue thislong-term.


I support all of the prioritiesThe focus on connecting the community and providing good community facilities is the right one. Iam very glad to see a sensible proposal for the Chamberlain Park golf course - this providesaccess to a golf facility for the less well-off, supporting the Council's second challenge.

Other feedback

#3331


It would have been good to see (or maybe I missed it) the proposals tied back to the challengesthey most realte to. In particular it is difficult to see the connection of key challenge 2 - sharingprosperity with all - to many of the proposals.

Auckland Council

#3331

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/H2NbSzToBhZM0Bb5IN0RcQ

1


Submitter details


Attachment: Submission on Tu¯puna Maunga Authority.pdf

Organisation name: Friends of Õwairaka


Regional feedback






#3358

2












Local priorities

Other feedback


Submission on Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s 2020 / 21 Operational Plan and budget Friends of Õwairaka 22 March 2020 Submission made by: (on behalf of Friends of Õwairaka) Please find attached our submission on the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Draft Operation Plan 2020/2021.

#3358

About Friends of Õwairaka Friends of Õwairaka was set up as a group of locals to support the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Tūpuna Maunga Authority) plans for Õwairaka with a view to helping as best we can, to ensure the vision is realised as best it can be. We support the Authority’s long-term vision of cloaking the maunga in native vegetation and wish to address both the right of TMA to be the managers of the Maunga and to create their own process for achieving this vision. Background The Tūpuna Maunga are sacred to Mana Whenua as taonga tuku iho (treasures handed down the generations). The Maunga are wahi tapu: a place sacred to Maori in the traditional, spiritual, religious, ritual, or mythological sense commensurate with a cathedral to a Catholic or Mosque to a Muslim. Just as followers of these religions react to desecrations within their holy sites, Maori must surely have been similarly horrified at the desecration of their Maunga over the past century and a half. Concern for the preservation of the Maunga, from Europeans, at least, date back as far as 1928 and this support has grown, so it’s no wonder the passion people are bringing to this topic, however, the irony is that the TMA put its Integrated Management Plan out for submission in 2016 and it was adopted soon after, so while there is passion for the Maunga, clearly the level of that passion is tempered by any direct impact on someone’s backyard, as opposed to a desire for a greater vision for the city. There are three considerations at play with the TMA plan:

1. The first consideration concerns the rights of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority to enact these plans.

2. The second is with the TMA responsibility to tikanga maori and responsibilities in the

TMA Charter to the wider Auckland population, and whether there is a conflict here or not.

3. The third is the scale of any negative environmental impact in removing existing

vegetation, especially given the climate crisis we’re facing.

#3358

1. Rights of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 (the Act) came into effect on 29 August 2014.

The Act vested the Crown-owned land in 14 Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains/volcanic cones) in 13 iwi/hapū groups with interests in Auckland (Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau).

The Act also established the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (a co-governance body between the council and Ngā Mana Whenua) to administer the Tūpuna Maunga.

As part of this Treaty of Waitangi settlement, 14 Tūpuna Maunga were returned to the 13 mana whenua iwi and hapū of Auckland, marking an important milestone in the restoration of these iconic taonga (treasures). And please note, this settlement is with the mana whenua iwi of Auckland, not iwi of other regions. In action, what does this mean? It is our view that the TMA has sole discretion on how the Maunga are to be managed and developed, aided by Auckland Council in implementing these plans. We therefore fully support the TMA rights to create their own plan without second guessing from third parties. On 23 June 2016, the Tūpuna Maunga Authority adopted the inaugural Tūpuna Maunga Integrated Management Plan3 (“IMP”). The IMP provides the strategic direction for the management of the 14 Tūpuna Maunga, setting out the foundations for how the Tūpuna Maunga will be valued, protected, restored, enhanced and managed in the future. The narrative woven throughout the IMP gives tangible visibility to Mana Whenua values and world views as well as reflecting the connections and public access our diverse communities have with these special places. The Integrated Management Plan (IMP) was put together as far back as 2016 and extensive public consultation was done. As always, many of these plans are created and submissions are sought from the public, but it’s often not until activity begins in a location that directly affects them do the public take notice of what the plan is. In this case, for instance, trees were removed from Mangere Mountain (Te Ara Pueru / Te Pane-o-Mataaho) but it was when work was about to begin on Õwairaka (Mt Albert) that many opponents of the plan came to realise what was about to happen. This demonstrates that concern for these plans is largely restricted to a direct negative impact on people’s backyards, rather than a wider vision of the potential benefits (or otherwise, as it may be) of a plan on the city itself, and in this case the Maunga specifically.

#3358

2. Reconciling Maori and the Wider Auckland Peoples’ histories and cultures with respect to the Maunga

In its Integrated Management Plan for the Tūpuna Maunga, the Tūpuna Maunga Authority has articulated a set of values of the Tūpuna Maunga. The values promote the statutory purpose of the Tūpuna Maunga under section 109 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014, where in exercising its powers and functions the Authority must have regard to the spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary and historical significance of the Tūpuna Maunga to Ngā Mana Whenua and the other people of Auckland. Let’s address this specifically, because this issue lies at the heart of the issue. Those opposing the TMA plan cite two things. One is the environmental impact (addressed later), and the second is the requirement to regard for the “spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary and historical significance of the Tūpuna Maunga to … the other people of Auckland.” Their point is that the Maunga are as important spiritually and culturally to non-mana whenua as it is to mana whenua. An examination of history shows this is a laughable proposition. Maori left the Maunga around the time of the arrival of Europeans around 1850 for a number of reasons, but this departure did not diminish their spiritual significance for mana whenua. Since then the Maunga were quarried, used for water storage and stock grazing – initially sheep, then cattle. As recently as 2007/8, the spiritual consideration for the Maunga was at a level where it was felt appropriate to slice a large chunk off Puketāpapa (Mt Roskill) for a motorway. Can we equate this level of exploitation with that of Maori who lived on the Maunga? Obviously modern technologies have meant more recent exploitations have had a much greater physical impact simply by virtue of their greater power, but European approaches can be seen to have been fully exploitative – even using Maunga as recreational reserves is a form of exploitation – the Maunga are there for us to use. Maori, on the other hand, lived on the Maunga, gave birth here and died here. They grew food here, played there and fought there. Their history and culture is inextricably linked to the Maunga in ways no New Zealander of European ancestry can claim. While they used the Maunga for their living, their blood, sweat and souls are in the soil. So how can the TMA “recognise European and other histories and interaction with the Maunga”?

#3358

Does removing exotic trees from the Maunga clash with this principle? Those opposed vehemently contend that it does. But what histories and interactions with the Maunga are we recognising here? The planting of exotic trees, beyond the pest trees that have either self-seeded or those where recognition has taken place that certain varieties are detrimental, are an attempt at making a foreign land more like the home European colonisers came from. It’s an attempt to impose a foreign culture onto an existing one. Is this something we should recognise? We say no and we contend there are other ways European and other histories and interactions with the Maunga can be recognised.

#3358

3. How significant will be the removal of trees from Maunga?

As far back as 2013, there were calls for a return to native vegetation on the Maunga.

A 2013 Royal Society report on the vegetation of the Maunga, “Auckland's green volcanic heart: groundcover vegetation and soils of the Auckland volcanic cone reserve network” by BR Burns,MB Dodd &T Hartnett, had this to say:

Ground cover is dominated by Ryegrass, clover, kikuyu; Microlaena grass. Soil analyses indicate that soils are nutrient-rich with high soil carbon and phosphorus. Future management should restore some native forest and introduce more herbaceous native species where low groundcover vegetation is desirable. Decreasing soil nutrient levels through strategies such as cessation of fertilizer application may assist these processes. The vegetation of Auckland is notable globally for its high number of naturalized species (Esler 1987). Consistent with this, the plant composition on the cone reserves is clearly dominated by introduced species, many of which are recognized weeds (Esler 1988). Apart from Rangitoto Island (forested), the large majority of the volcanic reserves support open grassland with relatively rare patches of native and exotic trees. The few exceptions are the 0.7 ha Withiel Thomas Reserve (Smale & Gardner 1999), a 0.15 ha stand of native trees on the Otuataua Stonefields reserve (Cameron 1999), approximately 4 ha of restored forest planted in the 1940s at Mt Smart Domain (Auckland Regional Council 2010), areas of regenerating scrub and weedy forest on the perimeter reserves of Orakei Basin (approximately 9.8 ha) and Tuff Crater (approximately 10.4 ha), and scrub on the Wiri Lava Cave Scientific Reserve (1.5 ha). These mean that only approximately 2% of the area within these reserves (excluding Rangitoto) has some form of woody cover. …the area of the reserves that represented the primeval lava forest cover of the Auckland volcanic field was particularly low, approximately 2% (Smale & Gardner 1999; Cameron 1999), and ‘not sufficient representation of this once more widespread unusual forest type on the Auckland isthmus’ (Cameron 1999). Increasing the area of such forest on these reserves by ecological restoration techniques on sites that would least compromise archaeological values would undoubtedly increase the biodiversity and historic values of these reserves. [emphasis is ours] Monitoring of erosion of experimental earthworks and sedimentation in ditches on earthworks constructed in modern times indicate that, although earthwork form becomes muted in only a few years, the quantity and quality of the vegetative cover can have strong effects in slowing feature degradation such as by erosion (Bell et al. 1996). As expected, the plant composition of the volcanic cone reserve groundcover was strongly dominated by exotic species. Although only seven (8%) native species were encountered, out of a total of 89, two were still abundant and widespread (M. stipoides and A. novae-zelandiae; Table 1) and offer possible opportunities for augmentation. Increasing the abundance of other uncommon native species on the cones (e.g. Muehlenbeckia

#3358

complexa, Pteridium esculentum, Paesia scaberula and Dichondra repens) or introducing currently absent low-growing native species on to the volcanic cones (e.g. Phormium cookianum and Metrosideros perforata [Jones 2007]) should be considered to increase the biodiversity values of the groundcover. Managing the Auckland volcanic field reserves as a combined entity would allow particular reserves to be dedicated to achieving certain values rather than requiring each reserve to successfully meet the full range of management goals. In this way, and with creative management, the volcanic cone reserves of Auckland have further potential to provide increased natural, historic and cultural values. This report in 2013 and the IMP from the TMA in 2016 clearly signpost the plan to return the Maunga to native vegetation. Even those opposing the implementation of the plan itself largely support this vision. So, the vision is supported, but the path to realise it is contentious. The objections break down to three parts:

1. Removing any trees at a time of climate emergency is madness 2. Planting saplings under the existing tree canopy will protect the new plants until

they are sufficiently robust enough to survive without protection 3. Removal of the exotic trees will have a seriously detrimental effect on the birdlife on

the Maunga Effects on Climate Mitigation Efforts While it is proposed to remove 2000 exotic trees from across Auckland’s Maunga, replacement plantings far outweigh this loss. Õwairaka alone is slotted to receive 13,000 replacement plants: hardwood forest trees, ground cover and other native trees. At the same time, Auckland council intends planting 2.5 million trees (1 million last term and 1.5 million this term) across the city. These 2000 trees represent just 0.08% of the trees being planted. At the same time, Auckland’s tree canopy is estimated to have dropped by over 30% due to provisions in the Resource Management Act to protect large trees being removed. Those opposing the removal of trees on the Maunga would be better placed to fight this as there are many more thousands being removed at far greater cost and without any plan for replacement of any sort at all. As it is, many of these 2000 trees on the Maunga are pests. Eucalypti, Crab Apples, Pines and yes, even Olive Trees (which are mentioned in the Auckland Council Pest tree plan), are spreading and seen as detrimental. Removing these should be a matter of course and not contentious in any way. There is also an argument that mature trees sequester minimal amounts of new CO2 whereas new plantings do as they grow.

#3358

In the fight to mitigate climate change, removing these trees will have negligible effects, whereas planting thousands of new trees will have significant benefits. The final and most pertinent point, however, is that those opposed to the proposed plan object to its implementation, not the end result. We have to ask the question – in terms of climate change where the effects will be felt across decades, does removing the trees now or in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time make any difference to the fight against climate change, since they’re to be removed anyway? Protection from the Existing Tree Canopy While those proposed to be removed make up a significant proportion of the trees on Õwairaka, many other Maunga have few trees at all, and those on Mangere mountain, for instance, were almost exclusively pine, and those sparsely planted, so leaving them would have provided little protection for new plantings in any case. Furthermore, as anyone with a pine in their yard or a neighbour’s, growing new vegetation under one is difficult. So for the Maunga where there is significant existing tree canopy, do they protect saplings, and is it better to remove them now, or later. There is disagreement here amongst the experts. There are those who agree that they provide protection and point to the saplings growing under the trees now, and those dying in the worst drought Auckland has seen in decades as evidence of this wisdom. There are other ecologists and arborists who argue that mature trees will ‘steal’ nutrients from saplings and create shade, making it harder for them to grow. In the situation where there is disagreement between experts, our position is that the owners of the land should be allowed to make the decision. In this case, it is the Tūpuna Maunga Authority. Effects on Birdlife The effects on native fauna one of the most contentious issues. There is no doubt that removal of trees will have an impact here. The question is to what degree. Birds are mobile. When one food source is removed, they find other sources. When food sources are returned, so do they. So removal of these exotics will have, at worst, a temporary impact on birdlife. Impacts on other fauna are unknown. Native lizards and insects will still have an environment free of herbicides and pesticides, and there will still be vegetation for them. Populations may drop in the short term, but long term they will thrive. Will the birds themselves cease to exist? Unlikely. They will move to where there is habitat and food, and the Council plantings will have a significant beneficial impact here, creating new environments for bird life to flourish. In time, as the new plantings grow, birds will return.

#3358

Auckland Council Role in Managing Maunga The TMA Draft Operational Plan stats: Auckland Council: Routine management of Tūpuna Maunga (day to day operations). We cannot help but wonder at the effectiveness of Council efforts on the management of the Maunga and both the communications and the implementation of the IMP. We realise the efforts Council makes to engage with the public to ensure there’s dissemination of knowledge and opportunities for input into plans. We acknowledge that it’s both substantial and genuine. However, we feel that there’s a need to improve this aspect of council operations. There is widespread anecdotal feedback on Council activities impacting on local communities and those communities being unaware of Council plans. This is a an issue bigger than the TMA plans for the Maung,a but there is clearly a gap between Council activities and public awareness, as highlighted by the protestors to the TMA plan. The routine management of the Maunga is in the hands of the Council. If new plantings are dying, it would seem that Council is failing in its duty to manage the Maunga on behalf of the TMA. Conclusion Our position is that the TMA has the authority and right to make the decisions over land it governs on behalf of mana whenua. We strongly endorse the vision of the TMA. We believe the TMA has the moral right to make decisions around the management on its own land without being second guessed by those who have shown little interest in that management until now, and who represent interests that have failed in protecting the Maunga to date. We have shown that the effects on climate change are negligible and the wider environmental impacts are temporary and will ultimately be an improvement. In view of this, it is our position that the Tūpuna Maunga Authority 2020/2021 Operational Plan be implemented forthwith.

#3358

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Other

The waste strategy is underwhelming and not yet forming part of a circular economy. We need to do far more. Industrial waste hasn't had sufficient focus, nor has there been sufficient focus on

#3368

2

waste minimisation. Like Barcelona, Auckland needs to acknowledge that consumerism creates the waste problem, and get off the growth merry-go-round. I support much larger rates increases to deal responsibly with waste, including investment in reduction, reuse programmes and full recycling or waste to energy processes within New Zealand. We must halt the use of landfills now, as they are simply putting our problems onto future generations.








Other

See above. I support rates rises. I don't support poor practice that involves any shipping of waste overseas nor any landfilling.







If that's what Waiheke wants, fine. I'm happy to pay. However, Council needs to allow composting toilets. Many on Waiheke would be keen on this.

Local priorities

Albert-Eden

#3368

3

I support most of the priorities The priorities seem fine, but the overarching goal must be transformation of our city to reduce carbon emissions and to implement low carbon systems. That means the local board should be working to: - transform our neighbourhoods into low traffic, low speed places with no ratruns, - build community, and - allow intensification.

Other feedback


Council's budget is not realistic. The Supporting Future Growth programme must halt. ATAP needs a full rewrite, with the road expansion and motorway extension projects halted. Penlink and Mill Rd must not go ahead. These projects and programmes are utterly irresponsible, because they work against our compact city strategy which is our best shot at meeting our climate targets. We have committed to C40. Our targets for emissions under our emissions trajectory for C40 means we must reduce our carbon emissions to slightly less than 50% of what they were in 1990. Depending on what our emissions are currently, this would be at least a 60% decrease. Maybe a 75% decrease or even more. This myth that reducing them BY 50% from what they are now is a myth which Council should not be repeating. Please advise all Councillors and Council Officers of this. Nothing that Council has proposed will meet these emissions reductions targets. The transport transformation and the intensification measures that Council needs to undertake are massive, and cannot be achieved with this budget. It needs a total rewrite.

#3368

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Support

#3370

2








Support







Local priorities

Albert-Eden

I support all of the priorities I appreciate the upgrade to the library.

Other feedback


#3370

3

I would like to express my concern about the closure of the Leys Institute, particularly the library. Although i live in Mt. Albert, I could easily travel to Three Lamps by bus and enjoy the beautiful, peaceful building that is the Leys Institute. I understand that the buildings were gifted to the city, together with money for their maintenance and upkeep, and it would be a huge pity if the building was sold to a private owner and became yet another place with offices/clothing shops/coffee shops. There are already plenty of these! As a citizen of this beautiful city, I would like to think that we cherish, protect and above all use our historic buildings for the benefit of all. 115 years of history need to be respected.

#3370

1


Submitter details


Attachment: Submission on Draft Tupuna Maunga Operational Plan 2020-2021-MC.doc

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Support

#3372

2








Support







Local priorities

Albert-Eden


Other feedback


RE: draft Tupuna Maunga Operational Plan 2020/2031

#3372

Submission: Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2020/2021 22 March 2020

1. I have lived in for many years in Point Chevalier where the lava flows from Owairaka Maunga reach the sea, and been active in preserving and enhancing the natural and physical qualities of the area. I have worked for 39 years as a resource management advisor to central and local government, and business and communities, in New Zealand. Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission.

2. I have long been supportive of the vision and direction for a new era for management of Auckland’s maunga by the Tupuna Management Authority as outlined in the Integrated Management Plan (IMP) for the Tipuna Maunga. However as I have seen the actual implementation of the IMP through the 2018/19 Operational Plan, I, along with many others, have become increasingly dismayed at the brutal desecration of these maunga by the TMA. Its operations so far have denuded the maunga of many magnificent large mature exotic trees, destroying established vibrant ecosystems, and eradicating indigenous wildlife that once lived there. The damage has left barren landscapes deprived of sufficient shade, with unsightly stumps as tokens of the destruction inflicted, and poor ground for replanting. Furthermore, the replanting activity undertaken has been inept, with a very high failure rate as a result of poor setting, placement and nurturing (kaitiakitanga).

3. In this world, it is easy to misunderstand intentions. From experience we know that implementation of policies is always more challenging than the development of policy. That is why clear communication is necessary. Unfortunately the TMA has squandered its promise of leadership that inspires and engenders trust and support in the wider community, both for its maunga aspirations and as a successful example of co-management in practice. In doing so, it has done a terrible disservice to Maoridom and the nation as a whole. The authority it has exercised has been in the form of a wily and arrogant exercise of power rather than an authentic authority that has been earned.

#3372

This needs to be urgently remedied, or the damage will become deeper and longer lasting.

4. Furthermore, contextual matters that need to be considered in the Operational Plan, and the access to funding, are Climate Change, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the looming recession. Taken together, they signal a loud call to taihoa, and think more carefully through what we are trying to do here, and how that can be best achieved in a way that brings people together in harmony, and achieves desirable enduring results for the maunga and the country that we can all be proud of.

5. My submission points that flow from the above are: i) The TMA needs to acknowledge in the Operational Plan the unfortunate poor outcomes it has created, both on the maunga and within the community, and display the wisdom, maturity and humility to change its approach from the destruction of large numbers of mature exotic trees, and to better replanting practices. ii) Funding for the TMA should not be provided for tree-felling (other than for true weed species, and trees that are a real threat to public safety). The revegetation process should acknowledge both the benefits that some exotics provide, and the process of nurturing new plantings required to deliver success. iii) The Operational Plan needs to state more clearly the implementation approach to be taken, and not be couched in vague language such as that which hides the apparent real intentions to remove all exotics en masse. iv) Stumps from previous felling should be removed. v) In response to the overwhelming economic, health and climate crises we face, funding for TMA should be limited to undertaking only essential maintainance of the natural and community assets on the maunga, until such time as a suitable broadly supported comprehensive operational plan is developed, supported by best practice communications and accountability mechanisms.

#3372

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Support

Fairness.

#3374

2








Support

Fairness







Fairness

Local priorities

Albert-Eden

I support most of the priorities Most proposals seem reasonable. Maunga proposal somewhat worrying as it opens the possibility for racial discrimination.

Waitematā

#3374

3

I support most of the priorities See Albert/Eden

Other feedback


Do not close the Leys Institute. Just use the funds put aside by the gift to repair the building. The last thing Auckland needs is for that building to pass into the hands of the alcohol industry or to become another expensive restaurant (eg Three Lamps Post Office).


#3374






Support

Refuse collection is an important weekly service provided to rate payers.






Local priorities


I am very concerned at the use of ratepayers money to remove healthy exotic trees from Ōwairaka/ Te Ahi-kā-a-Rakataura / Mt Albert. I note that in the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki MakaurauAuthority (TMA) Draft Operational Plan for 2020/21 a total of $510,000 is earmarked in 2020/21 (increasing to $2.5m and $1.2m in the subsequent two years) for a Network-wide programme toremove vegetation and reinstate and/or re-vegetate the Tūpuna Maunga. The examples to date ofthis type of activity on Ōhuiarangi /Pigeon Mountain, Maungarei/Mt Wellington and Te Pane-o-Mataaho /Te Ara Pueru / Māngere Mountain indicate the destruction of trees, habitat and naturewhich is in direct conflict with the stated values of the TMA which are to "tread gently", to"recognize European and other histories and interaction with the Maunga", and acknowledgeecology and biodiversity such that "if the Maunga are well, Auckland is well". I have lived in MountAlbert for 30 years and appreciate the immeasurable value that the Mountain has for the local

#3420

#3450

#3450

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#3492

2

Do not support

The cost is quite high already








Do not support

The cost is already high enough






Local priorities


Albert-Eden


#3492

3

Other feedback


#3492



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#3493

2

Support

That's I support because increasing all plastic and condition and clean in the sea as well. That's responsibility all recycling for rubbish things








Support

Yes I'm support that that's the good things can increase general rates for all ratepayers. If they not put in rubbish properly and city council can do thats







Local priorities


Albert-Eden


#3493

3

Other feedback


#3493

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#3498

2

Do not support

Because by recycling in NZ we can generate more revenue if we invest one time in setting up recycling factories by the money that we save by fees for other country to take on garbage








Do not support






Local priorities


Albert-Eden


Other feedback

#3498

3


It would be great to see more exercise equipment in the park just like other asian countries

#3498

Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 2020 5:31 p.m.To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>Subject: Submission to Tupuna Maunga Works Programme relating to Mt Albert/Owairaka tihi.

Dear Sir/Madam,I provide below my submission relating to the above. Please note that I request to be heard atthe hearing.

Name: Postal address: Email address:Phone number:

SUBMISSION OF TO THE TUPUNA MAUNGA HEARING RELATING TO THEPROPOSED WORKS PROGRAMME FOR MT ALBERT/OWAIRAKA TIHI

My name is I am a practising civil engineer. I am a CPEng and a fellow ofEngineering NZ. I reside in Mt Eden and walk my dog on the Mt Albert tihi about five times aweek. on te Owairaka tihi toprotect against the threatened destruction of the summit ecosystem by the proposed suddenfelling of 345 mature trees.

Table 1 of the Works Programme under Wairuatanga states the objective to “restore andrecognise the relationship between the maunga and its people”. I was at the summit gate on theevening of Monday 2 March during 6pm to 8pm and if we accept that the current people of themaunga are we the Auckland hoi polloi, then I am certain that the objective stated has alreadybeen met and I congratulate the TMA for their fine efforts. In the cool of the evening there was asteady flow of people, a mixture of Aucklanders of many ages and ethnicities, strolling, walking,running, enjoying the pleasure of being on the mountain summit. I put it to you that these arethe people of the maunga, not the stone age people now gone whose relationship with themountain cannot now be restored. It is our good fortune and that of our children and our grandchildren to be able to enjoy the tihi that the Mount Albert Borough Council, the Auckland Counciland now the TMA has preserved for us all. I consider that is our duty to stay vigilant to see that itcontinues to be preserved for us all in the future.

Table 1 also notes the following Prioritised Project – vegetation management – removeinappropriate exotics. I strongly submit that this proposed removal of more than 300 so called“inappropriate” mature trees should not be permitted to occur. When I walk the summit of themountain I see those beautiful non-native, some deciduous, trees which change with theseasons. I can confirm by my observation that the diverse bird life of the summit thrive in all thetrees including the exotics. The bird life that I observe include tui, kereru, rosella, piwaiwaka,

#3545

waxeye, blackbird, thrush and others. This is one of the particular pleasures of walking thesummit. I submit that none of the exotics are inappropriate. It can be clearly seen that the birdsdo not think so. It is unnecessary to cut them down and certainly not worth spending about $1mof ratepayers money to do so. I submit that this is a seriously ill conceived idea which with dogreat harm to the ecosystem of the mountain and cannot be justified. I urge that it be stoppednow so that the Honour the Maunga group can pack up their tents and go home. I wish toemphasise that I speak not as a protester but as a protector of the maunga.

#3545

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find attached my submission with regards to the TMA's Operational plan for2020/2021. I hope that you take the time to read it and consider the consequences oftheir actions.

Cheers

#3551

Submission Form Draft Tupuna Maunga Operational Plan 2020/2021

9 March 2020

I am a resident of Auckland for the entire of my life! I grew up on the side of Mt Eden (Maungawhau) where I spent a big part of my life as a child playing all over the Maunga amongst the trees with my friends. My fondest childhood memories where created there and are still talked about today.

I didn’t move far in my adult life settling in Mt Albert (Ōwairaka) where I have spent a lot of time walking all around and over Mt Albert (Owairaka) with visitors, friends and my dogs. I also spent a fair bit of time on the tihi after my husband passed away. It was a place that gave me a sense of peace amongst the rustling trees and bird song. I love this Maunga, it is especially special to me and leaves me feeling grounded in times of distress.

The Auckland City Council and Government has declared a “climate emergency” 2030 is D-day for us, so it beggars belief that the TMA would want to chop down in excess of 2,000trees across Auckland, 345 on Mt Albert (Owairaka) Maunga alone. These very trees notonly provide life and homes for the numerous birds and insects, but also play an importantrole in helping to clean our air, giving the people of Auckland the oxygen that we need tosurvive and providing a sanctuary away from the stresses and bustle of daily life. I ask thatyou respect your Papatūānuku. She’s the one that gave birth to all things; people, trees,birds. She must be respected!

Observing what has happened on Pigeon Mountain (Ōhuiarangi), Mangere Mountain (Te Pane o Mataaho) and Mt Wellington (Maungarei), I am stunned to witness the devastation and destruction of the many mature trees that have been chopped down on these Maunga. The replanting is woeful to say the least, with the mainly grasses and shrubs used as replacements having perished due to neglect and not being suited to the environment in which they were planted. It angers me that my rates are being used to pay for this disaster.

I am very much against the TMA’s plan to chop down 345 exotic trees from Mt Albert (Owairaka). These very trees play a vital role, in providing food and shelter to the many birds, both exotic and native and the numerous insects and reptiles that call Mt Albert (Owairaka) home.

#3551

I am totally in favour of the TMA planting the grasses and shrubs under the canopy of the mature exotics. But under law and the Integrated Management Plan as the TMA you are obliged to take account of the other peoples of Auckland's interests as well. I do not oppose the replacement of the exotics with natives over time. A fifty year time frame for example, would allow replacement natives to become established prior to the removal of any exotic tree no longer safe to stay growing and proving to be a health and safety issue. A long term, sustainable management plan is needed not a slash and burn policy of destruction. I ask that the TMA please respect and consider Auckland’s rich history and along with presenting Mana Whenua, the TMA should have due respect for other iwi and all other peoples of Auckland regardless of their ethnicities. I also ask the TMA to show respect for the bird life, insects and reptiles that call this Maunga’s trees, flora and fauna their home regardless of the tree. Be it, exotic or native.

#3551

To whom it may concernI have lived in Mt Albert for over 10 years and before that in Avondale for 10 years andover this period I have walked around Owairaka several times a week with my dogs.There is an amazing sense of community up the mountain and am protesting the cutting ofthe trees.Apart from the greenhouse/environmental damage this will cause it will remove the areasof shade when walking around.It is a destructive plan with little fore thought to the future impact.I also object to the monetary costs of this from my rates.Kind regards

#3558

Hello,My name is . I live at , very close to Mt StJohn.

I am concerned about developments and proposed developments for the mountain ,particularly as outlined below on text taken from your annual plan proposal.

Takotoranga / Landscape Protection and restoration of integrity of the Tūpuna Maunga

Network-wide programme to remove vegetation and revegetate

actions and staging to be confirmed.

Protection and restoration of integrity of the Tūpuna Maunga Network-wideprogramme to remove redundant infrastructure

- actions and staging to be confirmedThese are vague and hide what could become quite a drastic change for those of us whohave been enjoying the mountain for many years.

The attitude towards chopping down existing trees and replanting natives is illogical forthree reasons that I can think of.

1. There is plenty of clear space on the mountain for native planting.2. In nature the trees of the native forests need shelter from existing growth to grow

anyway.(This would include protection from smothering by the excessive grass growth thathas come about as a consequence of the decision not to graze the mountain withcattle. As has been publicly pointed out the fire risk is very high in droughtconditions. your workers with their mowers have really made minimal difference tothis.)

3. It seems like an unnecessary slight to the many residents who enjoy the existingtrees. Certainly in time when a native forest is established this could be reviewed.

Now your document does not say that you intend to chop down every exotic tree in sight ,some of your aims elsewhere talk about "treading gently" and respecting the sensitivitiesof all groups (as well as the Tangata Whenua). From what I recall of what was attemptedon Mt Albert there is a significant chance that there will be some pressure to take out

#3573

every exotic tree.I would ask you to tread gently and respect the interests of other groups in this regard.

The attitude towards removing redundant infrastructure.

The only manifestation I have seen of this on Mt St John is the removal of seats on themountain that have been there for decades (and been extensively used by those of us whoare 60+ but enjoy walking on the mountain for recreational pleasure.)My first reaction to the removal was that it seemed to be a spiteful act and unnecessary. How can it possibly be in the interest of Aucklanders to remove facilities that help oneenjoy our environment?This type of action hardens attitudes in an environment where we should all becooperating for the benefit of all.again I would ask you to live up to your own ideals : Tread gently and respect the interests of other groups in this regard.it would be nice to see the seats replaced.

Please dont forget that you have responsibilities to every Aucklander, not just particulargroups.I would appreciate an acknowledgement of this submission.

Regards

#3573

I am writing to express my view regarding the proposed felling of more tress on themountains around Auckland City.

I am vehemently opposed to the felling of any tress exotic or otherwise.

In a time of global warming I find I cannot support any unnecessary felling of trees. Icannot support the felling of healthy trees. I am a local on Mt Albert mountain, havinglived by and enjoyed the mountain for many decades with my family.

I too have formed a bond with my local mountain and others as an Auckland resident andsee this act as vandalism. I also cannot support the use of Auckland ratepayer money tocut down a vast number of healthy trees when there are many pressing issues inside ourcity such as water quality. The earth belongs to us all.

Please consider your actions and consider the welfare of the earth first before your ownagenda.

#3581

This email or attachment(s) may contain confidential or legally privileged information intended for the sole useof the addressee(s). Any use, redistribution, disclosure, or reproduction of this message, except as intended, isprohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and remove all copies of the message,including any attachments. Any views or opinions expressed in this email (unless otherwise stated) may notrepresent those of ProMed Technologies Ltd.

#3581



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Support



#3600






Support








Henderson-Massey

I do not support all of the prioritiesI'm not clear.


#3600

SirI am

I live on the side of the mountain and have done for over 30 years

I find the intention to remove any trees that are healthy and not a risk as absurdWhy would anyone in their ‘Right Mind ‘ carry out such an ActIt is simply desecration of nature.

What is the reason for the intended Action?

To me it suggests intolerance of trees other than Native.The Cultural and Heritage value of our community insists on Recognizing the Europeaninteraction with the Maunga as equally important.

The resultant removal of Trees and Vegetation will have an immediate detrimental effect on theBirds and wildlife that call this Maunga home

I walk there regularly and have done for years...It is a beautiful spot I love as my neighbourhood

I regard the intended removal of the trees as Civic Vandalism

Director

This email message and any attachments contain information that is confidential and may be subject to legalprivilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, use, pass on or copy this message or anyattachments. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by return email and erase all copies of

#3606

It is about time we listen to the wishes of the general public over seven thousand peoplehave signed a petition to save the 345 matured exotic trees in our Maunga.We are veryconcerned about soil erosion, birds have no where to build their nests and the fate of wildlife and natural habitat of bees and worms .Local communities weren't consulted and were given little or no warning last year as a result Mangere, Mt Wellington and Pigeonmanunga were stripped of hundreds of healthy , matured trees.I hope and pray TMA will come to their senses and prune some of the matured trees andallow them to grow side by side of native species. It takes time for a tree to mature aprocess that will take many decades.Best practise vegetation succession should happenover a life-time not weeks.

#3607

1

Hi

In reviewing submissions on Tupuna Maunga Authority's Draft Operational Plan 2020/21, please take account of the 9074 signatures we have received on our petition to save Owairaka / Mt Albert's 345 exotic trees from being felled by Tupuna Maunga Authority. We have collected signatures via Change.org and also in hard-copy format.

At the time of writing this email, 5486 people had signed the Change.org version and 3588 had signed the hard copy version, bringing the total to 9074 people who have signed the petition against the trees being felled.

Most (but not quite all) of the hard copy petition details have been entered into a spreadsheet, which can be provided upon request should you wish to verify the hard copy numbers.

Regards

Honour the Maunga

#3609

Submission on Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s 2020 / 21 Operational Plan and budget

Honour the Maunga

9 March 2020 Submission made by:

I wish to make an oral submission and request that my written and oral submissions are minuted

About Honour the Maunga Honour the Maunga is a grassroots community group that has occupied Ōwairaka / Mt Albert around the clock since 11 November 2019 in protest at Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s plans to fell 345 healthy, mature exotic trees. Our members are drawn from all ethnicities (including Māori) and walks of life, and range in age from 16 to 98 years. We support the Authority’s long-term vision of cloaking the maunga in native vegetation but are deeply concerned about the environmentally destructive process for achieving this vision – a process that also undermines amenity values on the maunga. Despite how we have been portrayed by some, our concerns are not founded by racial or anti-Treaty settlement sentiments. We are questioning flawed processes; we are not questioning a people. Furthermore, we are questioning decisions made by the Authority’s Auckland Council members, as much as anybody. Under Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s co-governance structure, the Auckland Council members are there to represent the interests of “the other people” of Auckland – as well as the interests of all ratepayers, including Ngā Mana Whenua citizens who are ratepayers. We note that “the other people” include Māori who are not members of the 13 iwi / hapu who directly benefited from the Treaty settlement. Honour the Maunga makes no apology for questioning highly inappropriate aspects of the Operational Plan – actions that represent significant misuse of ratepayers’ money and significant waste of money that could be put to far more constructive uses such as increased funding for education programmes that help share the Tūpuna Maunga values and increase Ngā Mana Whenua and the other peoples of Auckland’s support for and engagement in the protection and restoration of these values. As the pioneering politician Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan so wisely said: “Race differences shouldn’t be divisive, but enriching”.

A condemned Japanese cherry (ribboned) intertwined with a totara at Ōwairaka, creating a visual metaphor of the intent behind the Tūpuna Maunga

values

#3609

Our submission on the specific details of the 2020/21 operational plan is as follows: A disconnect between the Operational Plan and the Tūpuna Maunga values As page 26 of the plan notes: “The values weave together and give expression to mana whenua and other world views, and the connections and histories in a manner that highlights the way in which these views complement each other and create a richness to the relationship that people have with the Tūpuna Maunga and multiple ways in which these relationships are thought of and expressed.” Although the Plan does give effect to many of the stated values and associated meanings, Honour the Maunga is concerned about the following disconnects between the values and the Draft Operational Plan. Tūpuna value: Waituatanga / Spiritual – tread lightly Native revegetation should involve a transitional approach that takes many decades. This will ensure the Authority treads lightly upon the maunga environments as well as the wider environment. Auckland has already lost more than 30% of its tree cover since Resource Management Act changes in 2015 removed tree protection. Auckland Council has declared a climate emergency so removing nearly 2000 healthy mature trees from Auckland’s maunga in a short period of time is completely counter to the value of treading lightly.

Kākā is a native parrot that is not commonly seen in Auckland. These birds have been seen at Ōwairaka on a

number of occasions – usually in exotic trees. Trees also provide habitats for innumerable lifeforms – including rare native birds. This year’s operational plan’s wording appears to be the same as last years’ so we would assume the Authority still plans to remove fell all exotic trees. Using Ōwairaka as an example, we fail to see how removing nearly half of the maunga’s tree cover could in any way be construed as treading lightly in terms of the effect it will have on birds and other biota – not to mention the many thousands people who love the maunga and its flourishing environment. An experienced arbourist has advised us that mass removal of exotic trees will likely result in mature native trees dying as well, because the environment in which they are currently co-existing with exotics will become far more exposed and far drier. Tūpuna value: Mana Aotūroa / Cultural Heritage Honour the Maunga notes the past four month’s tree-related events have revealed a significant disconnect between the Operational Plan’s action items, and the plan’s imperative to “recognise European and other histories and interaction with the Maunga”. At the TMA hui held on Ōwairaka, some attendees made it clear they felt exotic trees represented symbols of European colonisation, and that their removal would have a restorative effect on their personal mana (Zane Wedding, public statement, 27/11/19). Furthermore, we recently received a first-hand report of a statement to similar effect being expressed by an Authority staff member. We acknowledge that both statements were made by private individuals but in the absence of any clear ecological or biosecurity justification for removing 46% of the mature trees on Ōwairaka and hundreds of

#3609

exotic trees from all maunga, we wonder if in fact a symbolic cleansing is indeed the underlying motivation? If so, then this is at significant variance with the Authority’s stated values and pathways. While we acknowledge that the grievances and intergenerational trauma caused by colonisation must be addressed, this should be done in a constructive rather than destructive way. Aggressively and rapidly destroying urban forests on the Tūpuna Maunga in the name of symbolic redress for past wrongs is contrary to the Collective Redress Act’s intention, the Integrated Management Plan and also the Tūpuna Maunga values. We strongly urge the Authority – especially its Auckland Council members who are there to represent “the other people of Auckland” – to reconsider the plan to remove the exotic trees from Ōwairaka and all other maunga. Tūpuna value: Mauri Pūana Hauropi / Ecology and Biodiversity Removing all of the exotic trees in a short timeframe also undermines all aspects of this value (i.e. strengthen ecological linkages between the maunga / restore the biodiversity of the maunga). But most significantly of all, it undermines the values meaning: Maunga tū mauri ora, maunga tu Makaurau ora / If the Maunga are well, Auckland is well Refer to the ecological and environmental discussions throughout this submission that support our concerns about how removing all exotic trees will undermine this intent. We note that Ōwariraka is a significant ecological area (SEA). Removing nearly half the canopy will negatively affect the maunga’s biodiversity and its SEA status when these trees are known habitat trees. We also note that the healthy mix of native and exotic trees on Ōwairaka, with many of the mature exotic trees sheltering a flourishing understory of 99.9% native seedlings demonstrates biodiversity in action. The transition from exotic to 100% native vegetation is already happening naturally and in an environmentally sound manner. Felling all non-native trees will set back this process by many decades.

Native seedlings planted in the open at Ōwairaka last winter are struggling, with many having died. This was always bare ground, so we acknowledge only the hardiest of plants will survive here. However, this type of inhospitable environment will be created throughout the maunga if 345 healthy, mature trees are felled.

Despite months of drought, many native self-seeded species such as kawa kawa, karamu, karaka and totara can be see flourishing at Ōwairaka under the protective canopy of the (ribboned) exotic tree to rear. They are lush and healthy. Note the thick leaf-litter mulch helps to trap moisture, and dappled light protects the seedlings from harsh sun. Given that the TMA considers there to be a huge number of exotic “pest” species on Ōwairaka, it is ironic that 99.9% of the self-seeded plants are native species and not exotics.

#3609

Tūpuna value: Mana Hononga Tangata / Living Connection The operational plan’s tree removal actions undermine this value’s intention to “actively nurture positive relationships”. Opposition to the tree felling continues to grow – not only within Auckland but throughout New Zealand - and the world. As has been found over the past four months, the exotic tree felling issue has proven to be extremely divisive. The Treaty settlement for Auckland’s maunga was designed to foster a spirit of partnership and positive relationships between Mana Whenua and the other people of Auckland, which is why the Authority was established as a bespoke co-governance organisation. Sadly, some aspects of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s operational plan undermine this intent, as evidenced by the exotic tree issue. People from communities adjacent to maunga where trees have already been felled tell us they feel a strong sense of antipathy towards the Authority as a result – hardly the sense of partnership this value is striving for. It is evident that Ngā Mana Whenua and the other people of Auckland love Auckland’s maunga and their environments; the Authority is losing a valuable opportunity to nurture positive relationships by taking such unpopular and destructive action. Tūpuna value: Mana Whai a Rehia / Recreational Destroying the natural environment is counter to this value’s desire to “promote health and wellbeing”. Immense health and amenity values will be lost by removing such a large proportion of the maungas’ vegetation, given that it will take many decades for the young native plantings (only a small proportion of which are trees) to reach maturity. Concerns about the work programme overview / work programme Deceptively vague wording At the 12 February 2020 Auckland Council Governing Body meeting, Cr Christine Fletcher expressed concern that the wording in last year’s operational plan gave no hint that the Authority planned to remove all exotic trees off all maunga under its control. She questioned how she could be certain that other unpalatable actions were not hidden in this year’s plan. Honour the Maunga shares her concerns. An example of the disconnect between the Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s Integrated Management Plan, operational plans and subsequent actions can be seen Treescape’s Ōwairaka-Mt. Albert Aboricultural Operations Plan Report, under ‘Provenence’, which refers to a “tree’s place of origin”. On page 5, it states: “An objective of this project is [to] remove any species not originating in NZ (exotics) from the maunga. Identifying exotics is a key function of the tree survey.” Tūpuna Maunga Authority commissioned the report in September 2018 but the intention to remove all exotic trees was not stated, nor even implied, in the Authority’s Draft Operational Plan 2019 or the Integrated Management Plan. Nor do the Authority’s hui minutes contain any evidence of discussions that prompted such a major shift from removing some selected exotic trees, to removing them all. Yet the reports and big budgets to do so were ratified by Tūpuna Maunga Authority and Auckland Council alike. We question how a budget for the major, contentious, policy to remove all exotic trees could have been approved with no evidence of any debate about it. As discussed later on in this submission, we also question the extent to which past and current operational plans are sufficiently clear in expressing the Authority’s true intentions. We note, with disappointment, that this year’s plan’s wording is almost identical to last year’s one.

#3609

Such deliberately vague wording does not engender a sense of trust in the Authority’s intentions. An uninformed reader of this year’s draft operational plan – or the Integrated Management Plan - would be forgiven for having no clue that it proposed the needless destruction of nearly 2000 healthy, mature trees from Auckland’s volcanic cones. History has shown the Authority and Auckland Council have tried to undertake this programme by stealth. For example, a non-notified resource consent for the Ōwairaka trees removal was issued in February 2019 yet nobody in the local community was informed until late October – two weeks before the felling was due to begin. Such actions are counter to the Authority’s values and generate distrust and antipathy towards the Authority and Auckland Council alike. It also does not engender positive relationships and partnerships between Ngā Mana Whenua and the other people of Auckland. While on one hand we wish to express support for many aspects of this year’s Operational Plan, we wonder what other controversial intentions are hidden within. We encourage the Authority to reword the plan in a way that makes its intentions crystal clear. Restoration of indigenous native ecosystems / reintroducing native plants and attracting native animal species / removing inappropriate exotic trees and weeds / pest control We would like to draw to the Auckland Council and Tupuna Maunga Authority’s attention a number of inaccuracies around the Authority’s public statements in relation to Ōwairaka, which are as follows: Pest species: Despite the Authority repeatedly and inaccurately claiming over half of Ōwairaka’s non-native trees are “pests” and also claiming that olives are pests, only 7 individual trees on the maunga are listed as pests in the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy. Olives are not listed as a pest. In the reference to “control of cherry, privet” on page 73 of the Draft Operational Plan, we note that there is only one privet on Ōwairaka / Mt Albert. We question the reference to controlling cherry trees. There are no cherries on the ARPMS pest list. However, Taiwanese cherry (Prunus Campanulata) is listed as a weed. The cherry trees on Ōwairaka / Mt Albert are Japanese cherry (Prunus Serralata) which is not a pest or a weed. There is no reason to fell any cherry trees on the maunga. Health and safety risk: The Authority regularly shows a photo of a fallen tree on Ōwairaka as “proof” of there being a health and safety risk. What it fails to point out is that tree fell during the 2017 storm where hurricane-force winds toppled trees all over the region. That only one fell on the maunga, given its exposed location, is testament to the stability and health of its trees. Furthermore, we can find no evidence of any independent health and safety report relating to Ōwairaka’s trees. Several arbourists have visited the maunga and have told us that, apart from some trees in need of routine light maintenance such as pruning, there is no obvious evidence that any pose a significant health and safety risk. “Inappropriate” exotic trees: As discussed above, it is evident that the Authority considers all non-native trees to be “inappropriate”. With a very few minor exceptions, it is Honour the Maunga’s view that there is absolutely no reason to fell non-native trees on Auckland’s maunga. Maintaining ecological biodiversity during the succession to 100% native vegetation: As can be seen in the flourishing native seedling understory at Ōwairaka, and the abundant native birdlife, ecological biodiversity is naturally working well and supporting long-term succession to native flora and fauna. The Operational Plan’s approach undermines ecological biodiversity in many ways.

#3609

Planting methodology a failure: There are numerous examples of failed plantings on maunga whose exotic trees have already been felled, as can be seen in these photos taken on Mangere and Pigeon mountains. Plantings cannot survive if left unattended in plastic pots sitting on the ground. We can only but assume this was a failed attempt at mound planting. This planting technique is not suitable on sites that are very dry or have a high risk of summer drought. This is because mounds will typically dry out and the plants growing on them may not survive. For this reason, mounding should also be avoided on sunny, exposed or north-facing slopes and ridges. Continuing to use this technique will not only doom those plantings to inevitable failure but also waste money. Poor maintenance: Even where native seedlings have been planted (e.g. Ōwairaka) in the ground, a huge proportion have died because of neglect and / or because they are not species whose juvenile forms do not do well in harsh open environments. In fact, so many native plantings died at Ōwairaka that public complaints resulted in the Authority sending in a water truck.

Removing all exotic trees, rather than mitigating risks through appropriate maintenance, is an extremely aggressive and financially costly response to an issue that is not a major problem. Only seven of the 345 exotic trees on Ōwairaka mountain are classified as pests under the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy. Furthermore, the significant ecological impacts likely to occur would create significant harm to the forest as a whole, the wildlife it supports, and the mountain itself, which would suffer further erosion.

Two out of three native saplings planted by the car park at Ōwairaka have died. Note the largely dead row of native grasses at the base of the retaining wall.

Volunteer programmes to connect communities to the Tūpuna Maunga / Programmes and community events that celebrate the living connection that all communities have with the Tūpuna Maunga Many of the volunteers at last winter’s native tree planting session at Ōwairaka have told us they felt betrayed when they later learned of the plans to get rid of all the non-native trees. Going ahead with such destructive and divisive action will undermine future volunteer programmes to connect local communities with the Tūpuna Maunga. Honour the Maunga’s members and members of the wider Mt Albert and Auckland communities are united in caring deeply about the maunga. We may not be Ngā Mana Whenua, but we still have deeply held spiritual and historical links to the maunga. We also care so deeply about the maunga itself, and its

#3609

environment and ecology, that we have been able to maintain a 24/7 tree protection occupation for the past four months. Other maunga communities are telling us they feel similar connections and we are aware of plans to occupy other maunga should felling begin there. We encourage the Authority to harness those community energies in a positive way so that future volunteer programmes and public activities on the maunga are cause for unity and celebration, not division and discord. Sharing European and other histories and geological significance The Draft Operational Plan refers to sharing and encouraging collective stewardship of existing historical heritage. Trees form an enormous part of that heritage, with many of Ōwairaka’s trees having been planted by community members and/or their families. Destroying exotic trees destroys that expression of non-Mana Whenua heritage. European heritage may be the predominantly expressed in those trees, but other heritages are expressed too. For example, the many olive trees on Auckland’s maunga are deeply significant for people from middle-Eastern and African cultures, including Naima pictured here. While Mana Whenua histories must of course be show-cased, it is important that all histories – of other iwi and other ethnicities – are acknowledged on Auckland’s maunga.

“All projects are designed to deliver outcomes for the 13 iwi / hapū of the Tāmaki Collective and all the people of Auckland…” and that the will also “enable a compelling case for a future UNESCO World Heritage bid for the Tūpuna Maunga”. We note that “Communities” are a core pillar in the UNESCO World Heritage’s Strategic Objectives, which states:

“This is necessary because: a) Heritage protection without community involvement and commitment is an invitation to failure; b) Coupling community to the conservation of heritage is consistent with international best practice, as evidenced by comparable international regimes; c) Conservation, capacity building, credibility and communication are all intrinsically linked to the idea of community. d) Heritage protection, should, wherever possible, reconcile the needs of human communities, as humanity needs to be at the heart of conservation.”

Honour the Maunga’s members, and the many supporters we have engaged with over the months, support Ngā Mana Whenua (and other) histories and culture being expressed on Auckland’s maunga and see the opportunity for positive – and healing – engagement with local communities in a positive Treaty partnership. However, in any transformative change the best approach is to work by the Tupuna Maunga Wiatuatanga / Spiritual’s imperative to “tread lightly”. Doing so will bring “the other people of Auckland” with you, and it will also mitigate the risk of the World Heritage bid failing because of growing community concerns and protests over the Authority’s actions.

#3609

Budgetary concerns As an Authority, the TMA can to an extent require Auckland Council to follow its directions. However, the Authority’s Auckland Council members are there to represent “the other people of Auckland”. As elected Auckland Council members, they are also obliged to ensure that fiscal prudence in the way the ratepayer funded operational plan is implemented. Furthermore, Auckland Council’s Governing Body is responsible for approving Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s Operational Plan budgets so also have a responsibility to all ratepayers. We note that there is significant discrepancy between the operational / capital expenditure budgets / vegetation-related budgets and what we know to be the true costs involve in felling all exotic trees of Auckland’s maunga. For example, we know that tree felling on Maungarei / Mt Wellington and proposed tree felling on Ōwairaka / Mt Albert comes to around $2 million for tree felling and removal, reports, admin, etc.). Allowing for an average of $1 million per maunga, that would equate to around $14 million in total – an amount that would suggest that Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s opex / capex budgets comprise only part of the ratepayer funding picture. Apart from more transparency being needed, this places even greater onus on the Authority and the Council to exercise prudence with expenditure. It has been suggested by various Authority members that the best cost efficiencies are to be gained by removing all exotic trees at once. We refute that suggestion given that they don’t need to be removed in the first place. Decades-long succession would enable any necessary removals to be absorbed into ongoing general maintenance budgets, with no special budget being required. An unfortunate “welcome” Much is made of the desire to restore Mana Whenua mana to the maunga, yet the first thing visitors to Ōwairaka see is a toilet block and two ugly gates in the Soviet Brutalist Architecture style. We encourage the Authority to re-allocate its Ōwairaka tree felling budget to remedying these eyesores in a manner that does indeed restore mana to this beautiful maunga.

#3609

Submission to the Tupuna Maunga Authority regarding the Draft Operational Plan 2020/2021. Date: March 9, 2020.

Firstly, I would like to thank the Authority for the improvements made to the Owairaka/Mt Albert maunga domain. As someone who enjoys the maunga on a regular basis the limited vehicle access and improved facilities have greatly enhanced this valuable public space. Secondly, I believe that wherever possible, non-New Zealand native trees that need to be removed from public areas due to disease or health & safety reasons should be replaced with natives. However, my understanding is that the Authority plans to remove 345 trees for the Owairaka/Mt Albert maunga over a number of weeks. I am concerned that this will have a significant impact on the environment of the maunga, particularly in relation to bird and insect habitat and land stability. Thirdly, while I understand and respect the Authority’s desire to restore Auckland’s volcanic cones to their pre-colonial state, we don’t only live in a city or a county but on a planet, and right now that planet needs all the trees it can get. David Attenborough was quoted as saying the most important thing we can do for climate change is to plant more trees. It will take years, if not decades for the planned native plantings to absorb the amount of the carbon currently being guzzled up by the trees earmarked for removal. I believe, as members of a global community, we have a responsibility to the planet which should underpin all decisions impacting the environment. This includes not removing healthy, mature trees whenever possible. I am asking that the Tupuna Maunga Authority, with the support of Auckland City Council, develop a long-term strategy that sees the exotic trees on Owairaka/Mt Albert remain in place while the newly planted natives are given an opportunity to mature. If this were a ten to 20 year process, with a designated number of tree replaced each year, the impact on the habitat, environment and planet would be minimized.

#3623

1

Hello. For over 100 years now, that is, about 4 generations, the people of Mt Albert have created and maintained a beautiful park, a sanctuary for native birds, on the mountain. Like so many parks and reserves in New Zealand - it belongs to everybody, and nobody. I, with my friends, countless others played rugby, flew kites, skinned our knees, smoked our first cigarettes up there. Through local taxes, local government, participation at a bureaucratic and at a human level, we made it what it is today. No chest banging about our pride, heritage, ancestors - but yes, we love it and our proud of it. An entity we've only recently heard of, the TMA then come into the picture. They tell us it actually is all theirs, this piece of land they have not shown any interest in since about the year 1800, you probably know why. Also that, mysteriously, they have a 'deeper connection' with the land and fauna, for reasons that we can never fully grasp, but basically because we're white. And then, that this 'deeper connection' is best expressed by the chopping down of 345 trees because they are not native trees, and that this will 'restore the mana' of our mountain. Apparently it is not a valid point that Maoris themselves are not native, that they arrived here like everybody else from elsewhere. It is a slippery slope, when we start basing law, social/public actions on something as woolly as 'mana.' Again, Maoris understand it, we do not, but from what I've seen, they are always all to ready to trade it off, convert into hard cash. The money to be gained by cutting down these trees, then from the following mountains is considerable, and let's face it please, the main motivator here. The TMA are trying to mask this as a race, heritage issue, but it really is about the money they see in destroying what will amount to 1000s of trees. In a tree and oxygen starved world... Another thing we here about is how the mountains are 'holy ground,' to the Maori. I have never seen, in all my years, any Maori perform any kind of spiritual/religious rite on Mt Albert. Probably because it would be pretty damn silly, really - they are just hills. No more or less sacred than any other piece of land. And are we really going to chained to archaic, irrelevant constructs such as this? That these people don't actually believe in themselves? That we all know is a pose to generate the necessary awe and wonder? As I said - we've made Mt Albert, over all these years. No constant reminders of our deep, spiritual power and glory, no preaching, no superiority. Do we really want to repeat the mistakes of the past by chopping down perfectly healthy, air-giving trees - some over 120 years old, for a very suspicious, money-driven agenda? Stupid ideas abound right now in New Zealand. I really hope that this will be one less.

Mt Albert resident.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

To help protect you r privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented au tomatic download of this pictu re from the Internet.Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

#3631

1 0 M A R C H 2 0 2 0

S U B M I S S I O N O N T U P U N A M A U N G A A U T H O R I T Y D R A F TO P E R A T I O N A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 / 2 0 2 1

Please note – I wish present an oral submission to the Authority.

Prepared by

This submission is made with particular reference to Owairaka/Mt Albert.

I, of Mt Eden, being a respectful and frequent visitor tothis amazing Maunga, as well as to many others within Auckland, would liketo present the following submission.

I understand that the Maunga in Auckland are held in trust by the TupunaMaunga Authority for the common benefit of the people of Auckland(termed other) as well as the iwi/hapū of Ngā Mana Whenua o TāmakiMakaurau. I submit that, while the Draft Operational Plan indicates a properrespect for iwi and hapu of Auckland, it does not respect or recognise thecultural heritage of these “other” people, neither of their histories nor theircontribution to this multi-cultural city of Auckland. It is not certain whethertheir wishes are respected either. I understand it is clearly stated in the draftplan for all the Maunga, that the Authority is purposefully intending theremoval of “all exotic vegetation”. The term “exotic”, I presume covers anyvegetation that is a direct result of the arrival of “other” people in NewZealand, people who have lived in New Zealand now for hundreds of years,yet, while residents and users of the Maunga of Auckland, may not bemembers of those iwi/hapu recognised above.

I understand that the Authority states it needs to restore the biodiversity ofthe Tūpuna Maunga. It is not clear to me what this means and I wouldappreciate an explanation by the Maunga in their Plan. A Maunga such asOwairaka is living proof that within Auckland there can be a vibrant andbiodiverse ecology. Those of us who love this mountain are constantlyaware of the birds, the magnificent trees, the insects, the peace andspiritual nature of Owairaka, this amazing central city forest. The MaungaAuthority, in its Draft plan states it plans to create a “Living connection - aplace to host people” a place to “actively nurture positive relationships” to

#3636

“give expression to the history and cultural values of the Maunga”, to“rekindle the sense of living connection between the Maunga and thepeople”. I understand this is already a part of Owairaka, as those who loveand walk on it can attest. This is a Maunga that is “well”, and in this wayOwairaka contributes magnificently to the stated intention of ensuring“Auckland is well”.

I submit that the intention of the Tupuna Authority to remove 345 treesfrom Owairaka, as well as almost 2000 other trees in other public places inAuckland is a contradiction of the stated spiritual value of treading “gently”and creating wellness in Auckland. In particular, I submit that the intent toremove of 345 trees at the beginning of Spring in 2019, while the diversepopulation of birds were building nests, raising their young and feeding inthis forest was environmentally completely unsound and shows a lack ofjudgement or care for this “sacred place” and that this type of practiceneeds to be re-evaluated by the Authority. Those of us, mostly locals, whofeel we have a stake in, and responsibility for this mountain we walk on, whocare for this place, know that numerous indigenous birds as well as those ofother ethnicities come here for food, shade and shelter. We also know thatthese birds do not reject the food they find on “exotic” trees, for instance,the small stand of Banksia, planted by the Kerr-Taylor family many yearsago, were inundated in Spring with Tui who gorged on the prolific berriesand nectar, finding necessary food there to support their population. Isubmit that there are a few trees that need to be removed in anenvironmentally sound and appropriate way, as well as some branches ofother trees. I also submit, that those of us who walk on and love thismountain would have no problem with a sound program of management ofthe forest canopy while the young native trees grow up under them. In theend, the mature trees on Owairaka will get old and be removed, leaving alegacy of young, mostly native trees behind them. This will take time. Isubmit that removing a large portion of the canopy of mature trees all atonce, will not allow young trees or populations of animals and birds tosurvive. Forests do not grow that way. I understand that most of the“natives” that were said to be going to be planted on Owairaka will not betrees, although the Authority’s representative clearly said, in an interview onMorning Report last year that 1200 “trees” were to be planted once thehundreds of “pest trees” were removed. I understand that the term, “pestvegetation” covers a very small amount of vegetation on the maunga. Inaddition, it is a very small percentage of these proposed plants that were tobe trees. I observe that the grasses and flaxes that have been planted, byvolunteers, without shelter on slopes, are dying rapidly and it is only thosereceiving some shelter from the surrounding trees on the edges of theplanted area, that show any sign that they may survive. Again, I believe thisis an example of ecologically and environmentally unsound practice that willnot support the ecology of Owairaka.

I understand that two hundred years ago, the indigenous vegetation ofOwairaka was mostly grasses, any native trees having already beenremoved. I am uncertain as to how the proposed “biodiversity programme”,

#3636

which will denude the tops of the Maunga today, will enhance the statedintent of “restoration of indigenous native ecosystems; reintroducing nativeplants and attracting native animal species” indigenous species such as“microorganisms, invertebrates, lizards and birds”. Owairaka is already ahabitat for these species. However, it is not certain that within thisstatement, after the destruction of their habitat, that there is there is anythe intention to provide more shelter for any of those species which fly. Iftrees don’t grow, birds will leave.

I submit that the stated intent to “actively nurture positive relationships” isnot apparent at Owairaka, nor at other Maunga where people of Aucklandhave resisted the felling of mature trees. As one of those who choose toprevent the wholesale destruction of habitats on Owairaka I submit I amdisconcerted at the lack of transparency in the obtuse wording of much ofthe Draft Plan. The authority states that its intention is to “undertake animaland pest plant control”. I understand only 7 of the trees to be removed areclassed as pest plants in the Regional Pest Management Strategy (ARPMS).and am uncertain what “animals” are to be controlled. One of the beautifulthings about the Maunga of Auckland is that family dogs are able to bewalked off leash. Dogs may not be “people” but they are of great benefit tothose who choose to invite dogs into their families. I submit that clarity onwhich “animals’ are to be controlled, would have been of value to thoseattempting to understand the intentions enshrined within the draft. Is it theintention of the Authority that dogs will no longer be allowed to walk on theMaunga?

I submit that the Authority’s intent to build tracks and put up signage, willnot necessarily improve the Maunga unless some wilderness aspect of theseplaces is retained. In addition, the intention of improving “open spaces” isconfusing, as all the Maunga already have open spaces used by allethnicities of the people of Auckland. Some Maunga have areas forrecreation, others have local sports grounds, Owairaka has an excellentArchery facility. People use these spaces already and make them their own.It is unclear what “improvements” are intended. Again, the Draft Plan doesnot make clear what it means by “recreational activities consistent withtikanga Māori”, and whether the way the open places are already in use byAucklanders are not consistent with those mentioned within the statementabove from the Draft..

The Authority states it will communicate and collaborate with neighboursand local communities. It is clear from the Draft Plan how this will beimplemented, whether this will be a matter of telling stakeholders what willhappen or whether the Authority intends to consult and maybe be preparedto change its plan where necessary. Of particular interest to localcommunities will be the stated intention of the Authority to acquire and ortransfer adjoining land that comprises “the true extent of the TūpunaMaunga”.

#3636

Finally, I submit that the Authority’s intention to put “a compelling case in afuture UNESCO World Heritage bid for the Tūpuna Maunga” in order to“contribute to a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in theworld” is commendable and quite exciting. However, if it means that thenatural environment is to be permanently damaged, this initiative may notbe in the best interests of the people of Auckland who already use and lovethese maunga,.

#3636

To whom it may concern, I am prepared to give provide an oral presentation re my submission.However the timing may not suit me as I am not available until after 12pm.Please contact me about whether this option will be available for me.Thanks,

#3637

Submission re Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s proposed changes to Ōwairaka 09.03.20

My name is . I was born in in and I have lived in central Auckland all my life. I am currently a tutor in social sciences and have worked as a clinician in this field for the past twenty years. I am active in bringing the treaty to life through my work in health and education. I have been involved in supporting initiatives to increase understanding and application in these fields. This has enriched and enhanced all aspects of my life.

It is with great sadness that I have seen many mature trees cut down in the name of developments or improvements to our city including Maungawhau and Mangere and I am opposed to the proposed tree felling on Ōwairaka. It has been an important part of my family life over generations. My father, brother and husband attended MAGS and my children have been visiting and enjoying Ōwairaka all their lives.

I value and appreciate trees and I believe we need to preserve established trees. They are important as they filter our air, providing oxygen, welcome adjustments to the microclimate with shade and coolness in summer, shelter and buffering in winter as well as environments for many different species of birds and insects. I do not agree with arbitrary distinctions between native and exotic trees.

New Zealand is the home of many different races and ethnic groups for both humans, animals and plants. This needs to be acknowledged, respected and appreciated. All have their place. The treaty is a partnership and there needs to be a solution that honours the joint heritage. I believe that better solutions can be found for the management of Ōwairaka, enhancing important cultural consideration without reducing the current environmental assets.

This would include ongoing preservation of all mature trees alongside planting and nurturing more native trees. Cutting out mature trees is not only unnecessary and expensive but also counterproductive to nurturing small natives. They need the shelter of the older trees to get established. This is what occurs naturally in established bush. Otherwise the new plants dry out and die. I have seen many examples of this in Auckland due to ignorant planting practices and neglect of basic plant needs.

Please do not cut down mature, established, appreciated trees. This would add needless expense, lay bare park areas for extended lengths of time and damage the highly valued forest environment. Cultural information, symbols and more native trees can be added to enhance what is already there. Please change the plans to preserve what we have and add to it without destruction.

Name: Cell:

Address:

Email:

#3637

10th March 2020To Auckland City Council and Tepuna Maunga Authority re : budget draft presented toCouncil to sign off for 2020.

I would like my submission to be read and recorded in the minutes on the 17th Match2020.

I have been a resident in Sandringham for the past 20 years, I was originally excited andbehind the TMAs proposal for planting more natives on all the mountains, great idea, butthen the reality hit once I saw Mangere mountain, after the chainsaws had finished and thebirds were gone, the loss of those magnificent trees and the bird life is too great a pricepay! You cannot justify such destruction! So I went and tried to read the draft proposal andupon doing so realised that it is a misleading representation of intent, as the actions takento date go against what is implied in the draft, I feel totally betrayed and lied to!

The birds that were driven out of Mangere came to Mt Albert where they live, feed, roostand raise their young, there are more Tuis and native birds flying through my garden thanthere was 6 years ago and they are a joy to behold, especially in the Spring.

My concerns :

1) the true intentions for ALL the non pest classified trees on all Mountains and what isplanned for the Mountains infra structure wise, as in the way that we the people ofAuckland can enjoy our mountains on a daily basis, as the current wording is such that it isvague, misleading and open to interpretation.

The trees identified for eradication number 2000 approx across the 14 Mountains. The implementation of clear felling goes against the original policy outlined by the TMAwhich stated that this was to be a gradual process, and also it would be non invasive norwould the tree removal work be undertaken during the months of August through toJanuary( as per Forest and Bird recommendation) reason being that this is the nestingseason, yet the works on Mt Albert were scheduled to be carried out at this very time.There is no mention that the number of healthy non pest species were to be removed aswell. There is also a discrepancy over what constitutes a Pest species, how and why, butmore so, the false identification of wrongly including trees to be felled, 1)a memorialgrove of Japanese cherry trees, and then 2) A Memorial grove of Olive trees planted inmemory of fallen NZ soldiers, this is a huge concern to me as there are still livingdescendants of those who planted these groves, it’s disrespectful and a desecration oftheir memory.This clearly shows that there was no research done, no enquires as to why these groveswere planted and by whom and in whose memory. Also shows a lack of care and respectthe people’s of Auckland, especially to those living descendants!

That anyone in their right mind would willingly and knowingly cut healthy, strong,

#3638

beautiful trees down because they are not a Native, yet they hold an abundance of bird life.What is worse, is a local Council, and an organisation that has taken on the task ofguardianship/co-management would even consider clear felling this vast number of trees isabhorrent, SHAME on every single one of you!

1)With Global warming and Climate change a reality, our Government and our Councilsall acknowledge this, and we are all trying to do our part to save our planet, but if you keepcutting mature trees down, this shows that Climate change is not a priority. It should be important for everyones to acknowledge and recognise their responsibly toprotect mature trees wether exotic or native now. They help to counter climate change,global warming, pollution plant the smaller native plants and saplings under these largetrees to shelter them from the harsh elements and allow them to get established and matureand then they can take over from the exotics (in 10-20 or so years ).This could maintain a balance and continuity of large trees as long as there has had carefulthought put into executing and the maintaining the older non natives. Just because thesetrees don’t fall into the native category and are deemed unacceptable is ludicrous, EVERYtree counts, no matter what genus it falls under!

What I have witnessed regarding the TMA’s planting of native vegetation on Mangeremountain and Pidgeon mountain was soul destroying for me, the landscape has been turnedinto a desolate and barren wasteland, and an abysmal failure, no wonder the the birds left. There use to be so many more Tuis in the trees that were cut down, but not now, I can’teven recall one Tui when I was there last. I was horrified to see the planting practice used to regenerate the natives, it dooms allthese native plants and saplings to certain death! What a waste of these precious plants,time and money.To peg black pots to the top of grass, (that to me looked as if it had had roundup sprayedon it) and cross your fingers that they’ll take root and survive, and then leave them withoutwater or clearing the weeds around them so that they at least had a chance to survive andthrive. What is worse is the hypocrisy behind the proposal ‘to tread lightly’, the use ofhelicopters, chainsaws, mulching machines is not treading lightly! That is not treadinglightly! That’s three ways to massacre and pollute the mountains and drive the birds away. Question: Why have you (TMA) not had the mountains blessed by the heads of theIWI’s? Bless the ground as they did many years ago to ensure your vision of revegetationis successful. I recall this was also done years ago when we raised money yearly to plantthe trees, shrubs etc that flourish on our Mountains, Rangitoto, Motatapu, Motahi islandsand in our regional parks today. These were planted by us (Auckland volunteers) on ArborDay, (I know, I planted many a tree along with my class mates and other volunteers over anumber of years) as a celebration of life and nature. The trees that we planted, have grownto be for the most part healthy and strong and have attracted native birds back to theMountains and into the suburbs and to the city.2) The financial cost to the rate payers in the City who now must contribute to the TMA’splan via rate payments to our Council is not is proving not to be great investment. It’sactually antagonistic and is causing a lot of discord in the community.3)The noise pollution from the chainsaws, helicopters, the mulching machines are enoughto drive all the birds away and off the mountains.4) The lack of empathy or concern shown to the local community, the eco system, thecreatures that live around and in these exotic trees that raise their young, that roost in thesetrees in the evening is a form of animal abuse!5)You may can counter with all the studies and professional services you paid for to justifywhat you are doing, but you know what, it’s not your habitat, you don’t live there nor canyou call it home! 6)You can call it ancestral land for sure. But guardians don’t destroy, they guard, they

#3638

nurture and they ensure the continuity of all life without wantonly destroying what is therenow, because as a developer these trees don’t fall into line for you, you must also honourand nurture those who are here now not just the historical element.

Summing up: Hopefully you, the Council and the TMA will listen to our concerns and work with all thepeople and communities who hold these mountains in their hearts as special spiritualplaces where we all can connect with nature and find an amicable solution that works forEVERYONE as this is a very emotive issue to many and its not just about restoringhistorical sites.

a)There are memorial groves of trees that matter especially to the living descendants. b)Then there are the ashes of loved ones scattered on the mountains and buried in andaround the trees.

Lastly:All memorials, wether Maori or from other cultures MUST be honoured equally andtreated respectfully ‘as we are one’ we are ALL NZ ‘ders. As are all the birds and wildlifewho live, breed and feed on the Mountains and in the trees, and in our back yards ensuringthey aren’t disturbed, or evicted from their habitat. This should be the task for each andeveryone of us!

So I ask the Council Not to endorse the draft, if you have had to sign off on thisthen at least make stipulations to halt any and All planned works until there is clearand transparent explanation of intentions for each Maunga, also to clarify theVISION that is outlined for each mountain. By clarifying, I do mean, that the average person can read it in plain simple English(as not all of us are lawyers) that everyone can understand fully the intent, the visionin it’s entirety of what is being proposed, without the flourish of unnecessary wordsthat have no useful meaning other than to deceive an to confuse!

Yours sincerely

Sent from my iPhone

#3638

I write as a person who has long cherished the trees and birdlife on our beautiful domainof Mt Albert.I have lived in for 10 years and have visited the maunga almost everyday during that decade - either running or walking with my dog. I have made many like-minded friends up there. Together we have listened to the native birds and, sometimes, ifwe are lucky enough , we have seen them flying and playing right in our midst.Many of these beautiful creatures make their homes in the ancient trees that cover themountain.I have been shocked and in tearsso often since I heard in early November that these treesare no longer safe, and may no longer live among us to be enjoyed. What is even moreunbelievable is that their only crime is that they are not native to this country.

I have watched as new native plantings were made, and I have witnessed the slow death ofmany of these baby seedlings due to lack of water and general care.

I have looked at the photos of the desolation on Pigeon Mountain and Mangere Mountain,and cannot believe that this ugly, scarred landscape is what some people want for our ownmaunga.

Where will we find shelter on a hot summer's day, or on a windy rainy day in winter? If thetrees are gone, we cannot expect any help from the small native grasses and shrubs youplan in their place. Many of them are already dead.

Plase re-consider the decision to remove well over 200 precious trees from our maunga inMt Albert. Once they are gone, we will never get them back.

Attention:The information contained in this message and/or attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed andmay contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of anyaction in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this inerror, please contact the sender, and delete the material from any system and destroy any copies.Thank you.

#3640

1

Subject: Draft Tupuna Maunga Operational Plan 2020/2021

Dear Sir

We are writing to express our grave concerns about elements of the above plan.

I am aware of some of the work already carried out on Maungarei/Mt Wellington & Ohuiarangi/ Pigeon Mountain which has destroyed bird life & a lot of insect life which relied on the trees & the cover they provided. The ‘slash & burn’ approach with the clearance of all the exotic trees goes against some of the key values expoused in this draft plan. Where do they ‘tread gently’? Where do they recognise European & other histories & interaction with the Maunga? Certainly, as far as bird life is concerned, their linkages between the Maunga have been lost. I would suggest these & the actions at Owairaka/ Te Ahi‐ka‐a‐Rakatura/Mt Albert have nurtured negative relationships instead of the positive ones that were spoken about in the plan.

I am a resident of Epsom, living close to Maungawhau/ Mt Eden & my wife & I walk regularly around & over this & we will limit our observations to this. To date, a lot of the work done here has been positive, closing the summit access road to traffic, up‐grading the track ‐ work which is going on at present, & also getting the Whau Café up & running which hopefully will prove popular. However, trees that have grown up around the lower slopes of the maunga are now an integral part of the area & should be protected. Sure, if natives are to be introduced, then plant them between some of the existing trees & allow them to grow & provide cover for birds, etc before removing or trimming SOME of those trees. I would add that on an ecological basis, removal of all the trees at once will increase the carbon footprint & it will take many years growth of the native replacements to offset this. The oak trees that are here, however, should not been touched – they are not inappropriate exotic trees as they have a historical presence..

In the 25 years we have been walking the mountain, there has been little success in getting rid of privet & tradescantia – the more obvious of the noxious weeds around, in spite of the efforts of The Friends of Maungawhau. These two are particularly unpleasant for humans & dogs respectively & a greater effort needs to be made to get rid of these.

I was pleased to see that pest control will be carried out. Judging by the number of traps, this has declined in recent years & this has coincided with an increased number of rodents visiting properties around the mountain.

Like many documents of this nature, the draft plan talks in very general terms & avoids mentioning some of the real intentions of Tupuna Maunga. No‐one expected the total removal of trees that has occurred & it is to be hoped that further actions of this nature are not repeated elsewhere.

#3641

We are completely against the Maunga Authority permitting the removal of exotic trees on manyof our volcanic cones in Auckland. In the current times of NZ where there is a shortage ofgreenery and large trees that support our biosphere and the removal of carbon from ouratmosphere particularly in Auckland where there is intensification throughout the city, there isan even greater reason to keep all large trees regardless of whether they are native or exotictrees.You just need to look at Mt St John where a resident has removed substantial trees borderingthe mountain and serious erosion has occurred even during a drought. This will be magnifiedwhen the rain or winter arrives.If this crazy idea was perpetuated throughout NZ every tree that was introduced would need tobe removed and the damage to the environment would be astronomical. Will this process beextended to all trees throughout NZ including private land?Every large tree contributes far more to absorbing Co2 than multiple small trees. In addition thedamage is compounded by the loss of native bird life that are dependent on these trees. Thenative birds will lose their habitat and the erosion that occurs will be significant while thereplacement trees grow which in most cases means native trees will not reach maturity in lessthan 100 years. We are also angry that the council has removed seats on the mountainsincluding Mt St John.We would like to give an oral submission to the panel

#3650

Submission on Tupuna Maunga Authority Draft Operational Plan 2020/21

21 March 2020

My submission is based on observation of one particular site works on Mangere Mountain. Of my repeated visits in

the past 4 month to various maunga I have chosen this one to examine a sample of the work undertaken by Tupuna

Maunga Authority (TMA). There are key values that TMA list in their strategic framework, they include spiritual,

cultural, ecological and biodiversity. I review the site work completed, including the native planting and the

alignment with the operational plans. Importantly what ecological, spiritual and cultural values that Tupuna Maunga

Authority has upheld and how those values are reflected in the execution of their plans to date. To quote from the

2020/21 TMA draft operational; plan – page 8;

“… the values are the key driver of the Tupuna Maunga work programme…”.

My submission asks;

How have Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau and the other people of Auckland have not been served as rate

payers who fund Tupuna Maunga Authority and of the values espoused in the operational plan, to what extent does

the completed work uphold those values?

Statistics on Tupuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan Outcomes to Date

• 180 exotic trees felled on Mount Wellington - May 2018

• 152 exotic trees felled on Mangere Mountain - March 2019

• 112 exotic trees felled on Pigeon Mountain – April 2019

• 345 exotic trees scheduled to be felled on Mt Albert - December 2019

Mangere Mountain

I have visited Mangere Mountain three times in the past 4 months. On commencing ascent to the summit, the stark

silhouette of felled macrocarpa is your to a macabre vista that unfolds as you head to the summit. Below the path

are the stumps of a row of felled flame trees that once provided food for birds; both now gone.

The effect sort by TMA in felling these exotics, according to para 8.5 of TMA submission for resource consent

application, is to overcome “…the pattern of existing exotic vegetation cover contrasting with the natural landform

of the volcanic cone…” The result is as pictured in Image 1, according to the landscape values in the TMA operational

plan is in keeping with the need to “preserve the visual and physical integrity of the maunga as landmarks of

Tamaki”.

#3654

IMAGE 1

On reaching the summit, the abject failure to establish native plantings and the desecration of established exotic

trees is evident. According to the TMA report provided to the public (IMAGE 2) outlining the exotic trees to be

removed the one yellow dot as arrowed, is an instance of a ‘cluster of trees’ to be removed.

IMAGE 2 – TMA report to public pending Mangere Mountain tree removal, yellow dots represent trees or clusters of

trees.

#3654

The actual ‘cluster of trees’ referred to, is in reality a major group of exotic trees now felled (IMAGE 3), exposing the

slopes to wind and baking sun of a recent summer.The same environment in which the establishment of native

planting is an abject failure through ineptitude and neglect , refer IMAGE 4. The landscape advice given in support

refers to “… particularly on the upper flanks and tihi where the presence of exotic species diminishes the legibility of

the landform.”. The work performed as displayed here, presumably satisfies the TMA requirement in restoring the

‘legibility’ referred to.

IMAGE 3 – Exotic tree decimation on the tihi

IMAGE 4 – Residue of native plantings on the tihi .

#3654

When is a yellow dot a tree and when is it a cluster of trees?

Counting the yellow dots, the ‘Exotic trees to be removed’ in IMAGE 2, there are 50 in total. The actual number of

trees removed from Mangere Mountain is 152. To the casual observer the report to the public seeks to mislead. It

misrepresents the scale of the felling, attempting to visually diminish the actual number of exotic trees to be

removed.

Conclusion:

There is nothing pleasant about the landscape ‘improvements’, made in felling 152 exotic trees.

• The works as carried out here is in direct contrast to the spiritual aspiration of ‘treading gently’,

without credibility.

• Planting on the tihi is a total failure.

• The ecology has been set back immeasurably.

• ‘Active restoration’ referred to as a value doesn’t exist, planting abandoned.

• Restoration of biodiversity on Mangere Mountain is absent.

• Attracting native animal species will never be achieved through this decimation.

Sadly, Mangere Mountain is testament to the failure of Tupuna Maunga Authority to uphold the values that they

espouse. It fails to serve those who fund it, the ratepayers of Auckland. Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau and

the other people of Auckland have not been served

#3654



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Do not support

Strictly restrict or reduce general rates to lower the living costs.


#3679






Do not support

Residents' living costs are too high, already unable to afford








Albert-Eden

I do not support all of the prioritiesNot clear about any of the priorities.


#3679

Good afternoonPlease find attached the submission for feedback on TMA OPERATIONAL PLAN2020/21I would like to speak to my submission at the TMA public hu commensing 11am 17March 2020 at the town hallMany thanks

#3685

Submission to Tupuna Maunga Authority

March 11 2020

Auckland

My approach is to respond to important values as espoused by the TMA document as referenced by the TMA Draft Operational Plan 2020/21

Value: Mana Aoturoa/cultural Heritage Tupuna Maunga O Tamaki Makaurau Authority Draft Operational Plan Page 11

• Recognise European and other histories and interaction

Neighbours and local communities

“Communicate and collaborate with neighbours and local communities to enhance the Tupuna Maunga and developing interpretation that honours the multiple narratives’ page 11

Communication with local community about the proposal to fell felling of 345 mature exotic trees at Owairaka was negligible. Warning was a leaflet to some houses adjacent to the Maunga a couple of weeks before the felling was to begin. The decision had been made. There was scant/no consultation or chance for local communities to make submissions or discuss alternatives.

Among the trees to be felled are trees of significance to local community members. For instance, the olive trees were planted by local community members post WW1 remain of significance to those families.

Value Mauri Punaha Hauropi Ecology and Biodiversity Tupuna Maunga O Tamaki Makaurau Authority Draft Operational Plan page 11

#3685

• I am in full support of ‘’restoring the indigenous biodiversity of the maunga’’ and cloaking the maunga in native species/trees

1. Yes, restore the biodiversity of the maunga but in a way that does not compromise the ecosystem that the maunga supports. This means preserve the exotic trees that, alongside the current native trees, currently maintain and sustain a variety of insect and bird life through diverse food sources.

2. Restore the biodiversity of the maunga by planting native trees under the exotic trees so are nurtured to maturity over decades Value:Waituatanga/Spiritual “Tread Gently’’ page 7 Tupuna Maunga O Tamaki Makaurau Authority Draft Operational Plan The intent to fell some 2000 trees over the 14 Maunga is not ‘’treading gently. ‘’ Auckland city has declared a climate emergency. It is wrong and an act of wanton destruction to fell these environmental this matter guardians who serve to mitigate our exposure to dangerously spiralling levels of CO2 The lack of transparency and public consultation over the planned felling of healthy, mature trees is unacceptable. The absence of bird life and scarred landscapes seen on the maunga where trees have already been destroyed, separate to the environmental impacts, is heart breaking Value Manawhai a Rehia /recreational Tupuna Maunga O Tamaki Makaurau Authority Draft Operational Plan Page 12 Promote Health and well being As stated,’’ The Tupuna Maunga Authority ‘s bespoke co – governance structure recognises not only the important relationship of Nga Mana Whenua with these sacred places but

#3685

also their importance and connection with, all peoples of Auckland’’ Tupuna Maunga O Tamaki Makaurau Authority Draft Operational Plan page 5 The maunga are special places of natural beauty, providing relaxation / recreation providing and amenity for all Aucklanders. In a city where many properties have very little green spaces the maunga with their beautiful trees, prolific bird live and provide much needed respite and healing for many Aucklanders. If these trees are felled these unique beautiful environments will be destroyed and will no longer be places that promote health and well being for many Aucklanders.

#3685

The document with this email is my submission on the draft Operational Plan 2020/21 forthe Tupuna Maunga Authority. I would like it to be considered along with all the othersubmissions.

Regards,

#3686

March 12th, 2020

Submission on the Tupuna Maunga Authority’s Draft Operational Plan for 2020/21. I am an Aucklander and have lived most of my life in central Auckland. I was born here and have always had an appreciation of green spaces in and around the city and especially the unique volcanic cones. I studied Biology for a Degree and have loved NZ native plants all my life. I and my family visit Owairaka/Mt Albert often – up to two or three times a week. I would like to see the exotic, mature trees remain on the maunga until such time as an understorey of thriving native plants are ready to succeed them. I believe it is in the best interests of all visitors to the maunga, that the mature trees, whether indigenous or not, should remain for the foreseeable future and until younger, healthy native plants, that are several years old, are ready to take over. I hope that the Draft Tupuna Maunga Operational Plan for 2020/21 will be amended to clearly state that existing trees and mature shrubs remain on the maunga until such time as native plants are mature enough to replace them. This process will take several years (I would say at least ten or twenty). Pest species should be clearly identified, so it is clear to all who read the Operational Plan, which trees it is intended to remove and why. The Maunga Authority’s own stated values include: treading gently, recognising biodiversity, recognising Maori, European and other histories as they interact with the maunga, embracing the idea that if the maunga are well, Auckland is well, and finally, the Maunga Authority has the stated value of Mana Hononga Tangata – positive relationships. In my visits to Owairaka/Mt Albert I frequently notice that a range of birds, especially native birds, use the mature “bush” on the maunga. I have seen tui, kaka, piwakawaka, riroriro(mostly heard), kereru, kotare, tauhou and pipiwharauroa. In summer, the shade of all the large trees is really welcome and provides a cooler sanctuary for people, birds and dogs. Much of the best shade is under the introduced trees. To remove these suddenly would be very harmful to the local environment. This summer has shown how hot and dry the maunga can get.

#3686

Friday 13 March 2020

Kia ora

I would like to congratulate the TMA on achieving their goal of cutting down non nativetrees on 3 Maunga (Mt Wellington, Pigeon, and in Tamaki Makaurau already. The TMAhas succeeded in desecrating the natural environment, destroying native bird habitat,depleting the soil, destabilising the land, removing the water retention-flood protection, removing carbon sinks.

It is my understanding that all trees, in particular, large, mature trees, have immense value,environmentally, and psychologically for people who live near them. The birds do notdiscriminate, Ruru are nesting in great Macrocarpa trees on Owairaka, Tui in greatEucalyptus.

In regards to the Draft operational plan 20/21

I believe the plan does not adhere to important values of the TMA

In order to maintain Waituatanga, no healthy trees should be cut down ( with the exceptionof pest species, of which there are very few, 1 privet on Owairaka).

I request that all healthy trees are protected, on our Maunga across Tamaki Makarau. Nonnative trees have great value to me, and the environment as a whole, as do the currentlysafe natives.

Currently on Owairaka there are many native tree species growing up underneath the tallcanopy of protection the nonnative mature trees such as Eucalyptus, and other largespecies are providing. These large trees are true kaitiaki of the Maunga, as they nurturelittle trees, and provide habitat for many bird and insect life

I support the planting of native trees, and developing the urban Ngahere.

Nga mihi

--

#3694



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Support



#3722






Support








Albert-Eden



At present many Chinese people need to learn how to protect the environment. We need moreenvironment-related talks and events. Reduce natural disasters.

#3722



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Support



#3723






Support









We had an event in a cafe where people could sew and repair things. This is a good event. Pleasecontinue.

Auckland Council

#3723

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/HknZkTz8WVdJJuWgXDWqcw



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Support



#3724






Support








Albert-Eden



At present many Chinese need to learn how to protect the environment. We need moreenvironmental protection talks and events. Reduce natural disasters.

#3724

1

, this is my submission opposing the removal of the exotic trees at One Tree hill. I am a year old New Zealand born citizen who has lived right next to One Tree Hill for the past years. I am a

and I love living in Auckland because of the balance of both nature and concrete. When I heard the news of Tupuna Maunga Authority’s plan to fell all the exotic trees in Cornwall Park, I was so disturbed. The first thing that came to my mind was WHY? Look I understand that the aim is to plant native trees, which is a great initiative to replenish New Zealand’s native fauna and Flora for the future, but to cut down the current trees just because they aren’t native? Sounds discrimatory to me. Do you know what trees do – they are a beautiful existence on Earth that make it possible for us and the majority of living things to exist – they take years and years to grow so big and strong, they are the backbone of a sustainable and diverse ecosystem. I thought the Tupuna Maunga Authority always had good intentions to preserve the nature we already have, which is what conservation is. How can you disregard the nature we already have in One tree Hill so easily? These trees are important too. Why are you only thinking about the future instead of thinking about NOW? What do you think will happen to all the native birds that reside in these huge exotic trees – these trees are their homes, they thrive with such an amazing environment available to them. Would you like it if someone came along and cut down your home, without any consideration for your well‐being, for your livelihood? I don’t think so. Please don’t be so selfish! I don’t want to ever wake up to an empty park, barren land and tree stumps. I don’t ever want to wake up to still noise, to no birds singing. If you go forward with this plan, you will be confirming to me and a lot of Aucklanders that our authorities aren’t any different from other countries, because you are in a position of power and control – you think you can do whatever you want, instead of being grateful for what we already have. While other organizations in NZ and around the world are trying to protect the few tree’s this Earth has, you want to cut them down? What a slap to their faces! I hope you strongly consider my opinion and everyone else’s submissions, we are the people that visit these parks and extinct volcanoes on a frequent basis they are part of our daily routines, weekend plans and festivities, they provide a form of relaxation and peace to people, away from their stressful lives and heartbreaks. They are an inspiration to many – allowing us to look up from our devices and screens and connect with our planet Earth. The people of Aotearoa want to be close to nature, that is why we live here, that is why people come to New Zealand. If you cut down these trees you will be removing a huge part of our lives! Do you really want to be that mean? Kind Regards

I hope you can regain my trust

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

#3727

Submission re Draft Plan Tūpuna Maunga Authority 2020-21

I have lived under Owairaka/Mt Albert for the past years, initially as a child in the area and for the past maunga. I played on the mountain frequently during my childhood as did my children and now my grandchildren. Currently I visit the maunga frequently, often several times a week either walking or playing with my grandchildren. It is a very peaceful place, great for unwinding from the stresses of life. Clearly I have a deep emotional connection with this maunga.

I have become very concerned by the intentions of the prioritised projects of the TMA under the heading Takotoranga/Landscape and in particular “vegetation removal – weed species, health and safety risks and inappropriate exotics”. In the past year we have seen what this has meant for Pigeon Mountain, Mt Wellington and Mangere Mountain. There we have seen the wholesale removal of exotic species leaving behind unsightly stumps, replaced by a few grasses which are have either died or are in a poor state of health.

I am completely opposed to the wholesale removal of exotics (trees in particular) for the following reasons:

(a) Climate Change … we all know the impact of tree removal on our climate and we have aworld-wide climate emergency. We are very critical of events overseas such as deforestationin Indonesia and the Amazon Basin. We should not be cutting down trees here as it is quitesimply the wrong thing to do for our environment.

(b) Destruction of Natural Beauty … at present our maunga (and others in Auckland) arepeaceful places and are used by many for recreational purposes. I do not wish to see ourexotic trees replaced by hundreds of ugly tree stumps. There are 345 exotic trees onOwairaka alone. Just imagine these replaced by 345 stumps. It is unthinkable and I cannotunderstand why the TMA has this goal of replacing beauty with ugliness. It is evident fromwhat is seen elsewhere that there is no intention of replacing these trees with similar-sizednative specimens but mostly with grasses and shrubs of dubious natural beauty.

(c) Economic Wastefulness … as a ratepayer I am appalled that my rates are wasted on such anon-productive activity. Surely we have more deserving uses for these funds. I, for onewould like to see this money diverted to providing some form of information centre on eachmaunga outlining the history and cultural significance of the maunga (from the viewpoint ofboth Iwi and other citizens of Auckland) or maybe intensifying the fight against Kauri die-back disease in the Waitakeres.

(d) Support for Birdlife and other Fauna … over more recent years I have witnessed the return ofmany birds, both native and exotic, to the Owairaka Maunga. They obviously thrive on thetrees both indigenous and exotic. These days with our plans focussing on more intensivehousing methods there are fewer and fewer opportunities for planting trees in our suburbanneighbourhoods. Let’s not remove the mature trees we already have. It just makes no sense.

#3728

(e) Focus on Improvement … I have seen a painting of Owairaka as it existed in the 19th century, It was a bare lump of rock devoid of any natural beauty. We do not want to return to that. Today it is a wonderful green space that survived relentless quarrying to be a resource to be enjoyed by all. Why destroy that? I would much rather have the beauty, grandeur and environmental advantages of 345 trees (exotic or otherwise) than what is proposed under the plan of the TMA.

While I have the opportunity I would like to comment on another objective within the draft plan under Takotoranga/Landscape. In particular “to ensure that new structures, services, areas of planting and facilities are appropriately located and designed to complement the landform, reduce or minimise visual distractions and respect cultural, historical and spiritual values”. On Owairaka Maunga there are two glaring bad examples that do not comply with this goal. Firstly, the very obtrusive gates which are more reflective of a German concentration camp and hardly in keeping with a place of peace and recreation. Secondly, at the entrance to the Maunga not only are we confronted by these unwelcoming gates but a massive toilet block which is incompatible with its natural surroundings. I wish that a better place could have been found for it (the right-hand end of the carpark would have been far better), Visually distracting? Undeniably. Complementary? Definitely not. I am hopeful that your future efforts will be more supportive of this goal. Thank you for the opportunity to make submissions on the TMA 2020/21 Draft Plan. Kind regards

#3728

1

Dear Sirs, As a resident of Auckland living at the base of One Tree Hill I wish to add my protest at the felling of all exotic trees on Aucklands volcanic cones. I have numerous times walked Mangere Mountain and seen the destruction of all the exotic non native trees with the obvious destruction of bird, insect life and the effect of the beautification of the volcanoe. This is absolute destruction of an Auckland gem without consultation with the general public. I do not want to see this happen to other volcanic cones in Auckland. It is madness. I live in and have had the privilege of enjoying and observing the current bird life population. There is always excitement when we can see and observe New Zealands native tui, kereru, white eye, morepork, and kingfisher, We also enjoy the birdsong of the different species. It does make a difference. Also in the last 2 weeks I have witnessed 20 Quail in my back garden. Beautiful birds. Although not a native we also enjoyed 10 pheasant in a group feeding under the Oak Trees opposite our house. What a pleasure. There only seems to be one left. Have they been culled for being exotic? What a shame. I would encourage the Tupuna Maunga to revisit their Draft Operational Plan and consult with Aucklanders and make the obvious changes which are agreed on. Kind Regards

#3734

Submission on the Tupuna Maunga Authority’s Draft Operational Plan 2020/21

19 March 2020

While I am aware of the issues surrounding the various maunga my submission focuses particularly on Maungakiekie/One Tree Hill. However the essence of what I have to say I feel applies to them all.

For the past of Maungakiekie/One Tree Hill. From my front windows I look out on a mix of trees and bushes – holly, magnolia, cabbage trees, kowhai, oaks, punga, nikau, cherry, totara, rimu, kawakawa, kiekie, king ferns, phoenix palm, kentia palm, karaka, Douglas fir, tarata, kauri.

Many of these are mine, some are on neighbouring properties. This collection is not just a delight to look at but is valued and valuable in so many ways. Some of the trees are about 100 years old, most more than 50 years old. One value is, of course, the bird life. Tui, kereru and thrushes have a favourite perch on the tip of the Douglas fir. There are, at various times, fantails, parakeets, blackbirds, moreporks, ringtail doves, quail, silver eyes, riro riro, pheasants. And, many years ago, kaka would arrive in the summer and prance around in the oaks, digging out decaying bark on the oak branches to find grubs.

Right now when I look out the back windows of my house I look straight on to the hillside, fringed by some beautiful oaks and topped by some huge macrocarpa cypresses. The hillside is covered in long dry grass and weeds. It is the first time in all these years there have been no sheep and lambs on the hillside keeping the grass down and enjoying the shelter of the trees when it rains or their shade in the summer heat. The grass is so long that it also discourages walking. Previously I’ve watched families enjoying the hillside at weekends. No more. It’s as if the hillside is being denied life.

The grass and weeds may be ugly and the hillside neglected but my most immediate concern has been that the long very dry grass has presented a fire hazard over summer.

I would very humbly suggest that the function of the Maunga Authority is to administer the maunga for all of us – not just to try to create some mythical pre-European ideal. Back in the day, as a fortified pa, Maungakiekie most probably was covered in bracken and kiekie and not lush bush.

Modern Auckland is a mix of races and cultures and to attempt to negate the last 180 years and symbolically obliterate our recent history does not do justice to our city and nor does it fairly respect the many maunga and all that they mean to Aucklanders. These hills are very special in different ways to many of us. My cultural view of Maungakiekie will not be the same as another’s but it does not make my view invalid nor worth consideration.

My forebears arrived in Auckland in and I am of this place, nowhere else. One of my pleasures used to be taking visitors to the top of Maungakiekie and showing the incredible view of our

#3735

isthmus. When it was announced that the authority was closing the road up to the summit I wept for a whole day. It has been a long time since I was able to walk to the top and the thought of having to request some special dispensation to drive to the top was just too distressing. I managed to drive my oldest grandson to the top before the road was closed. I won’t be able to do the same with my two youngest grandchildren. Ironically while they are Maori they are not of an Auckland iwi. Their strongest links to this place are through me. But I will not have the occasion, when they old enough, to stand on the summit and share the experience with them with all the implications that would involve. I would hope that the authority would preserve what is best of our joint past, respecting both the pre-European importance and the significant features of the recent past. These are very special places in more ways than one.

#3735

1

Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s 2020 / 21 Draft Operational Plan

10 March 2020

I wish to make a written submission and request that my written submission is minuted.

I have spent most of my residing in Mt Albert. My family also lives in Mt Albert and my mother lived most of her as a resident until having recently moved into a rest home in Avondale. My ties as well as the rest of my family have and always will be very strong. I was BORN in Mt Albert as were my siblings and we were raised here by our mother in my Grandfathers home where he lived most of his life until he passed away. We all have fond memories of visiting Owairaka maunga whilst growing up having visited it often and my mother (and Grandfather) have seen many many changes in their life times, watching the area grow. I have great memories of 'hanging' out with my friends when I was a teenager up the maunga and drove up there in my very first car. One of my favorite things was to sit at the base of a very large Macrocarpa near the (old) car park to the sports field area and listen to all the birds and breeze gently blowing through the branches. I have always found Owairaka maunga to be a calming place to be and the views are amazing. Therefore I feel my 'connection' to the maunga is just as important as any other kind of connection and just as strong, this place means so much to me and my family who have lived here for generations.

To my absolute horror I discovered this tree and many others have now been ear‐marked for what I see as nothing more than needless destruction.

I did not know about the planned destruction of 345 exotic trees until I became aware last year of a sign that was put up at the entrance of the maunga by you showing the trees to be culled. I, as well as many others, have since become aware of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority's Operational Plans. I do not believe a proper consultation has taken place regarding these plans for the planned removal of all exotic trees. For example, the non‐notified resource consent for the Ōwairaka tree removal was issued in February 2019 but the local community was not informed until late October – only two weeks before the felling was due to start. The details of how many trees were going to be removed was not even in the plan and as this current draft appears to be worded very similar we can only presume this exotic tree destruction is still going ahead. It was also stated 183 of these trees that are planned to come down are 'pest' species yet in fact only 7 individual trees on the maunga are listed as pests in the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy. Eg Olives and Norfolk Pine are not listed as pests and there are no cherry trees on the ARPMS pest list. There is no valid reason it seems to fell any Cherry, Olive or Norfolk Pine trees on the maunga at all then (with the exception of course of any posing an immediate danger but one would think these should surely have been dealt with during regular maintenance even before this 'plan' was drawn up. This needs to be checked way more thoroughly by your so called experts as they appear to have this all wrong.

While I do support the native re‐vegetation I do not agree with the needless destruction of 345 mature exotic trees to make that happen as that will destroy the current ecosystem with it's native birds, insects and lizards etc. I

#3740

2

believe this destruction and the associated noise (especially from the helicopters) will also damage some of the native trees and their inhabitants. The planting methodology that has already been implemented on the maunga appears to be an almost complete failure. There are numerous examples of dead and dying plantings on the maunga and these can be clearly seen on Owairaka maunga. Unfortunately there appeared to be no maintenance of these new plantings and watering has only now started (in January 2020) and was not carried out over the months from August when they were first planted until after the New Year 2020, contrary to what has been reported in some news media. Those who have regularly visited Owairaka maunga during these months would be aware of this. In fact is has been members of the tree protection group Honour The Maunga that have actually maintained and watered some plants on the maunga.

Re Tūpuna value: Waituatanga/Spiritual ‐ tread lightly, There seems to be a contradiction in the Operational plan: how is this tree removal action classed as treading lightly? And we see the new toilet block and military style gates directly as we enter the maunga, which is a terrible 'eyesore' to say the least and this must have caused some disturbance also with digging of the ground, which is not supposed to be 'allowed' on any ancestral burial ground?. Perhaps some of the expenditure for unnecessary tree removal could be reallocated and used in remedying these eyesores in a manner that will restore mana to this beautiful maunga.

Re Tūpuna value: Mana Aotūroa/Cultural Heritage, unfortunately the Operational Plan seems to fail to recognise any European or other heritages completely. At the hui TMA organised last year it was made clear by some of the TMA spokespersons that they felt exotic trees represented symbols of European colonisation, and that their removal would have a restorative effect on their personal mana (eg Arborist Zane Wedding's public statement 27/11/19), this to me is giving cause to believe this has more of a relevance than the reasons given in the Operational plan (that the exotic trees are mostly pests). This attitude/action is no better than those past acts of colonisation of the past that were referred to, if in fact that this is the reasoning behind this massive tree removal on the maunga. Vigorously destroying urban forests on the Tūpuna Maunga and laying them relatively bare in the name of 'symbolic redress' is surely hardly in line with the Collective Redress Act’s intentions?? and will not sit well with many Auckland residents. Remarks made by Tau Henare about how he felt 'colonised' all over again were quite repulsive and nothing short of racist.

At the hui last 6 May 2019 where these and other concerns were raised by a member of the public she was abused and shouted at by Cr Josephine Bartley with angry racist remarks which was not interrupted or stopped by anyone from TMA, not Paul Majurey, not any other member and this was also dismissed by Phil Goff. This kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable from anyone in that sort of position and should not be condoned by any member of TMA, Council or Phil Goff. Josephine Bartley clearly needs to be reminded of the Council's Code of Conduct and should have been reprimanded for not obeying it.

Under Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s co‐governance structure, the Auckland Council members are there to represent the interests of “the other people of Auckland", as well as the interests of all ratepayers, including Ngā Mana Whenua. I note that “the other people” also includes Māori who are not members of the 13 iwi/hapu who directly benefited from the Treaty settlement.

I would ask that as someone who cares immensely and has a strong connection to Owairaka maunga that the felling of the 345 exotic trees (and the other hundreds and hundreds over all the maunga) be re‐considered and the plan amended. Thousands of Auckland residents (and residents from other areas) who are now aware of the intention to slaughter these exotic mature trees from these maunga that TMA have 'control' over and do not agree with this action have signed a petition to reflect this, this cannot and should not be ignored.

I believe this should be a gradual process and not a slap dash total ripping out of all trees non‐native leaving many maunga very bare for years to come, and denying the next generation the enjoyment of these wonderful mature trees. There is clearly a bias and obsession with anything non‐native.

Last year Phil Goff announced there is a climate emergency and I cannot see how this Draft Operational plan can be inline with or can help in any way with this situation. Surely we should all be contributing in any way we can in helping this situation not hindering it!!.

You need to be listening to the people of Auckland.

#3740

3

Thank you.

#3740

#3746

#3746

#3746

1

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I would like to request that you seriously reconsider the current plan to remove 345 exotic trees from the Owairaka Maunga. The trees are a wonderful food source for the many native birds who live on the Maunga, birds unlike humans don’t discriminate between native and exotic trees. A wonderful alternative to the current plan is to allow the exotic trees to continue to exist until their natural lifespan. Planting native grasses and shrubs can continue to happen without destroying fully grown and ancient exotic trees. Yours sincerely,

#3760

1

Subject: re Submission to Owairaka/Mt Albert

I have sent this submission to Tupuna Maunga Authority For your record

Dear TMA

I most strongly object to the felling of healthy mature trees on Owairaka/Mt Albert or any volcanic cone if the reason is that they are not natives! The only reason a tree should be removed is if it threatening to fall or is diseased. My observation is that virtually no trees on Owairake/Mt Albert fall into that category. The pleasure of walking up and around Owairaka/Mt Albert is the lovely shady paths and wild tangle of nature – as it should be. The lovely grand oaks and other mature trees provide nesting and protection for a myriad of birds and small creatures. The network of roots, fungi and biomatter under the ground should be retained to prevent erosion and provide a healthy soil structure. This takes decades to develop and is so important. I have seen the complete disaster that has occurred on other maunga that have been cleared of non‐natives and that should be a lesson to the TMA that it is a violation against nature, beauty and common sense. I also object to ratepayers money being used in such a destructive way. With developers clearing private land around the city to build housing it becomes ever more important to retain all the public mature trees possible. Small shrubs, flax and grasses will never replace the majesty of tall beautiful trees. Have you ever really looked at them? I have never been so angry about a decision before – I have yet to meet a person who agrees with it and I have talked to many. Please don’t kill any of the trees – plant underneath and let nature take its course – in the long run that will be best.

#3769

1

I submit this to those responsible for the care of our beautiful city. I without reservation completely oppose the proposed removal of exotic tress for the slopes of Mt Albert. I am a 30year resident of Mt Albert and have raised my family of four on the slopes of this Maunga and have walked on this beautiful piece of the Auckland landscape on countless occasions. The logic of replacing mature trees ( exotic or otherwise ) with seedlings and resulting in a 30year carbon sequestering capacity deficient at the time in our history where we face a undisputed climate crisis defies belief. There is simply no mandate as far as I am aware that any Authority has that enables it to inflict this scale of environmental carnage on my community. Regards

#3770

1

Subject: Submission on proposal to remove exotic trees from Maunga

Dear Sir /Madam

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Tupuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority Draft Operational Plan 2020/21. We are interested in the proposals for the Maunga in Auckland but Maungawhau in particular. Auckland Council have produced several Vegetation and Management Plans over the years which have seen the removal of cattle, cars and buses and upgrading of paths but not much else.

REMOVAL OF EXOTIC TREES FROM MAUNGA I am concerned that there is a proposal to remove exotic trees. I agree that some species should be removed e.g Pines Radiata, tree privet, Taiwan cherry and others which are known to seed, rapidly multiply and become a nuisance but trees planted by early settlers or those with historical significance or horticultural merit should be retained. Trees which are providing stablility to the land should also be retained. Your plan should include a list of what are “inappropriate exotic trees and weeds” so that the public know which trees will be removed.

REPLANTING Trees which are to be removed in the long term could be retained in the interim to provide shelter for the new planting. Replanting needs to occur prior to the next growing season and the plants protected looked after for so they are not overgrown with weeds. The number of new trees planted should at least exceed the carbon foot print of those removed.

NATIVE TREES It would be wonderful to see the reintroduction of more native trees including karaka, puriri, totara, puka, titoki and whau to support the return of native birds, reptiles including geckos, and butterflies by providing food sources for them. We would also like to see the views from the Maunga retained where possible with planting of low shrubs and native grasses above a certain height. This would enable you to see the form of the Maunga from the distance as you can now. We love the views from the top of Maugawhau of the other Maunga around the city.

ARCHAELOGICAL FEATURES Protection of kumara pits and other archeological features is essential.

GRASSES Not sure what the outcome has been with the trial areas planted with grasses on Maungawhau/Mount Eden. It would be good if native grasses could be established to control invasive weeds. We are concerned about dry grass and fires ‐ may be the Maunga should be smoke free and areas of dry grass controlled.

BROADWALKS Pleased to see construction has begun on new broad walks around the crater. Their design should follow the existing contours, avoid damage when constructed and blend in with the landscape. Many of the existing steps and paths are difficult to use and not safe as the ground is so friable. They need to be upgraded and better designed to control water run off. We hope the Auckland Urban Design Panel have provided an independent design review and offered advice on the proposed broad walk project as it will have a major impact on this sensitive area and on the environment.

RANGER OR FULL TIME OFFICER We would like to see a Ranger or full time officer appointed to oversee what happens on the Maunga on a day to day basis and manage compliance acitivities under the Reserves Act 1977.

#3773

2

FRIENDS OF MAUNGAWHAU “Friends of Maungawhau” publication “Maungawhau A Short History of Volunteer Action” is a very interesting record of the background of what the group have been trying to achieve on the Maunga and the difficulties. There is Information about the ”nuisance” trees removed, areas they have cleared of invasive weed species and replanted with natives and looked after, and rubbish removed. They are to be highly commended for their efforts and their publication. VISITOR INFRASTRUCTURE ON MAUNGAWHAU/MOUNT EDEN At last there is a cafe and information centre operating in the existing “kiosk”. Agree with the location of the new toilet block adjacent to the visitor parking area and the attempt to screen it from view. We enjoy the view from the existing concrete viewing platform/ building at the end of the road looking towards Rangitoto and Coromandel ‐ not sure if it should be retained or demolished and a new platform built in this location. CONSTRUCTION WORK BY WATERCARE ON MAUNGAWHAU/MOUNT EDEN In 2010/2011 Watercare installed a new supply pipe up to the reservoir in the crater and disturbed the land on the eastern side. Replanting included whau which has survived. Unfortunately the planting on the reservoir roof is looking very sad possibly due to poor drainage, lack of water or wrong choice of plants. It was a waste of money ‐ their planting plan should have been reviewed by Department of Conservation and The Historic Places Trust and Friends of Maungawau. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your proposal. We hope that feed back from residents will be listened to and some of the comments taken note of. Regards

#3773

1

Subject: Submission on Tupuna Maunga Authority’s draft operational plan 2020

To whom it may concern:

I have lived in Mt Albert most my and do not want to see the wholesale massacre and destruction of 345 exotic trees on Owairaka Mt Albert. Please stop planning to fell healthy trees.

The plan is not clear. It needs to clarify as to how many of the proposed new plantings on Owairaka are going to be trees. There should be an equal number of trees planted to the existing healthy trees that are going to be cut down.

I can’t understand why you would want to cut down any healthy trees. The existing trees on Owairaka maunga are home to many forms of wildlife including native birds that have been drawn to the maunga because it has a variety of food sources for the birds and they provide a safe place to live high up in the trees where most predators cannot reach.

Come on! Think about the affect cutting down so many trees will affect not only the local residents, but the greater Auckland. Trees are an important element storage of , the prevention of erosion and cleaning the air we breathe.

Ask any child where they would like to play. In amongst trees and wildlife or on a barren windswept maunga.

Yours sincerely

#3775

1

Subject: Submission to TMA Draft Management Plan

18/3/20

Tena koutou,

I am writing to make a submission, speaking to the TMA Draft Management Plan, specifically regarding the proposed removal of 345 ‘exotic’ trees from Mt Albert/Owairaka/ Te Ahi‐kā‐a‐Rakataura. This submission outlines who we are and the reasons our whanau has a right to speak to this plan, inconsistencies we believe are apparent in the plan and an encouragement for the TMA to understand they have an exceptional opportunity to work with the community to forge a way forward in partnership.

Firstly, I would like to say who I am. My name is Our family are Mt Albert residents, of whom currently still live in Mt Albert, within the shadow of the

maunga –

As well as being Mt Albert residents, our entire whanau spanning the have consistently and lovingly used ‘our’ maunga. The families have picnicked, run, power‐walked, planted on community days, dog‐walked, run school cross‐countries, had wedding photos, flown kites, been on bear‐hunts, practiced yoga, photography, had tea‐parties and a whole lot more. We all have fond memories of picnics under the cherry tree grove with countless tui dive‐bombing and feasting on the nectar of the cherry trees.

Over this time, we have also done what any ‘good’ citizen would do – we have talked to other walkers and runners, getting to know our community, picked up rubbish; including fire‐works, fast‐food wrappers, condoms, beer bottles, tissues etc. We have taken lost items to the Police station in Dominion Rd, we have asked campers to move on, we have looked after wandering dogs and escorted errant teenagers back to school during school hours.( just ask (MAGS) and (Marist College)). We believe we could genuinely be called kaitiaki of this maunga and have willingly and respectfully taken on this role.

We have seen our mountain in every season, in every weather, through the thick and thin of life, and it has always been a refuge and place of solace for us in our own tough times, including sickness, anxiety, job uncertainty and even death.

On this basis we feel we have every right to speak and to be heard about what is happening on our mountain at the moment.

The first we knew of the plans for our maunga was from the notice‐boards erected at the entrance to the mountain, some eleven days before the scheduled tree felling began. We did not receive any notification in our mailbox as the TMA has said they did. Neither did any of our neighbours in

Subsequently reading the TMA draft management plan for 2019/2020 there appear to be a number of inconsistencies that we can highlight. I will highlight these with specific reference to Mt Albert/Owairaka.

#3778

2

1. Nowhere in the document can I find any specific reference to removing the 345 exotic trees on the maunga. There are words such as “vegetation removal – weed species, health and safety risks and inappropriate exotics”. If this was intended to encompass the removal of all the exotic trees, it seems to be an intentionally deceptive way of portraying this. Granted, there may be one or two of the gum trees that require pruning for health and safety reasons but not all of them. There are also a number of pohutukawas that would benefit from trimming. 2. “Revegetate suitable areas” – we wholly support the additional planting of natives to eventually cloak the mountain. Currently the planting has only been small shrubs and flaxes, many of which have died due to the hot dry conditions this summer. Incidentally, many of the same people who are now involved in the protesting up the mountain are one and the same of the community who helped with the planting on the community planting day. 3. “ensure that new structures …designed to complement the landform, reduce or minimise visual distractions and respect historical and spiritual values…” So the people who designed, signed off, engineered and installed the new automatic gates clearly did not read this part of the draft plan. I went through Checkpoint Charlie in 1978 and these gates are sadly reminiscent. A design class at school could have done a more environmentally friendly and culturally appropriate structure. 4. “work with stakeholders to develop and implement a sustainability programme…” The community of Mt Albert are one very important group of stakeholders. Therefore, as is written in this draft plan, the TMA should beworking with them, not opposing them, to implement both environmental and also community sustainability. It is written in black and white right here.

Regarding the values outlined in the TMA’s plan I also note the inconsistencies between what is written and the actions of the organisation.

1. Waituatanga – “tread gently” Using helicopters and chainsaws for 50 days or thereabouts is not in my opinion treading gently upon the mountain. Leaving the mountain denuded of many of its mature canopy trees is not treading gently for the environment – neither the birdlife nor the new plants reliant on the canopy for shelter. Of more concern is the lack of regard for the community that this is impacting. The community have risen up to share their disbelief, their outrage, their sadness at this proposal and they have been flatly ignored and disrespected. acerbic remarks on national television completely disregarded this value that is clearly stated the TMA will uphold. His remark, (not verbatim) “the only compromise we will come to is when you do what we want” completely devalues the process and the paper upon which this plan is written. As an attendee at the hui last year I felt those who spoke in support of conservation of the large trees were completely disrespected and belittled. This is not the attitude that I have ever seen on any Marae I have visited. 2. Mana Aoturoa The Maori world view (te ao Maori) acknowledges the interconnectedness and interrelationship of all living and non‐living things. I love this value and have endeavoured to understand and include this in my own personal life journey. The stories from all parties (Maori and European included) concerning the history of the mountain are fascinating. The depth of emotion from people who have personal attachment to some of the trees is remarkable – olive tree seeds bought back from WW1, several trees from Rarotonga, gums from our Australian neighbours, cherry and rhododendron planted by early settlers. It would be a travesty to disregard these stories, what they mean historically and culturally. Personally, I love the trees for the tree’s sake and the beauty and refreshment I feel when I walk around the mountain. I have shed tears thinking that many of these mighty trees would be reduced to stumps. PLEASE TELL ME ‐ “why?” “what is the point?” “what are you trying to achieve?” “why is it so hard to talk with you honestly?” I have heard that the removal of the trees is “not a race issue.” I don’t really know what this means. What I do know is that many New Zealanders are inextricably tied to this whenua and its people and the issues the TMA have created are distressing for them all. Even if I am classed as some of the “other people of Auckland” I am welcomed into the whanau of my son‐in‐law as a kuia. My mokopuna then are tangata whenua. What I also know of te ao Maori is the wisdom it encompasses. I would like the TMA to review its plan using such wisdom.

In summary, we are completely against the removal of the exotic trees on Owairaka. We do not sanction our hard ‐earned tax‐payers dollars being used to remove these trees. We fully support the additional planting of native trees on all the maunga of Auckland. We will help. In the current global climate emergency the felling of thousands of mature trees makes NO sense. It is both a profligate waste of my hard earned dollars and each and every tree.

#3778

3

Because the plan does not fully disclose the intended actions of the TMA, one can conclude that there may be other issues not disclosed. This is not an honest treatment of people and process. Perhaps the TMA did not intend their actions to have such a radical effect on the community. Maybe it was not their intention. However, now that the community has rallied, and camped, and petitioned and spoken and made submissions, it would behove the TMA to go back to the drawing board as it were. This is an ideal opportunity to set a standard for what real partnership within NZ can look like in the future – an opportunity to move together, hand in hand, to begin to herald the new future for NZ. That is what I am hoping for my mokopuna. Truly we are all in this together: He waka eke noa.

If not, I have grave fears for this dear land of ours. Actions speak louder than words and I would like to see the TMA createa new action plan, acting according to their values and in conjunction with the ‘whole community’. This submission is fully supported by our whanau and in particular those who have lived or are still currently living in Mt Albert/Owairaka. Their names and initials are listed below, and you can find most of them on the electoral roll. They are mostly all current residents and rate‐payers of Auckland city. The whanau boasts a large number of under 10 year olds who vociferously support ‘the trees’, all of them. Naku iti noa, na

Subject: Te Maunga Authority Owairaka SubmissionDate: Wednesday, 18 March 2020 5:25:22 pm

I write to lodge my protest to the felling of trees on Mt Albert / Owairaka.

With its plans to fell 345 mature exotic trees on Owairaka, the Te Maunga Authority hasundertaken a belligerent bullying of the our neighbourhood. While this plan is proposed in theguise of practical ecological management of the maunga it seems to me the TMA is actuallyprimarily promoting a vindictive response focussed on issues race and ethnicity. Not only is thisoutside the TMA’s mandate but the last I knew it was illegal in this country.

I was at the hui held on Owairaka 28 November last year and was appalled at the behaviour ofthe TMA representatives who showed none of the respect they received from others – they didnot listen to alternative views and constantly over-talked and heckled other speakers – is theway our tikanga is meant to work these days . In his address the TMA operations manager

said , “the restoration plan [which includes the removal of exotic trees] is seen in thewider context of colonisation, land confiscations, and the alienation of Māori from their whenuaand culture”.

I know there are many hurts from the past, but come on New Zealand, come on TMA we needleadership that is willing to open a pathway forward to a collaborative and jointly beneficialfuture for all of those that live in Aotearoa. This plan will not heal any hurts.

Over the last 100 years, who has been active in protecting and nurturing the flora and fauna andheritage of our maunga? I say “our maunga” confidently - Mt Albertresident, I am tangata whenua and it is the residents of Owairaka, Maori and Pakeha, that haveexercised true kaitiakitanga on our maunga…. And done a bloody good job.

The proposed cutting of Owairaka’s trees by the TMA is grounded in racial issues not ecology, itis designed to inflict pain not heal and it is not the way forward for Aotearoa, New Zealand.

#3790

Subject: Te Puna Maunga Makaurau Authority Draft Operational Plan 2019/2020Date: Thursday, 19 March 2020 6:20:58 pm

This is my submission on Tupuna Maunga Authority’s draft operational plan 2020

Dear Te Puna Maunga Authority,

of my family have lived in Mt Albert and have enjoyed having a maunga in ourback yard. We have had many gatherings and celebrations on the Owairaka maunga. It is a placefor the enjoyment of nature that abounds on it. It is a healing place where we can relieve thepressures of urban living in a calm environment. Why would anyone want to destroy such abeautiful place that has many wildlife forms including birds, dogs and humans sharing the samearea.

With reference to the Auckland City Council Native Restoration Guide Page 11. Respect cultural,historical and spiritual values.I have already seen destruction on some of the Auckland maungas – where is the respect!Why is there a need to remove colonial and early residents beautification of the Aucklandmaungas – where is the respect!Surely, we should recognise European and other historical efforts across the city. We shouldacknowledge their efforts at beautifying the maungas – where is the respect!Respect for the earlier residents should allow the trees they planted to survive.

With reference to Page 73-76. Owairaka budget.Unnecessary expenditure is wasteful.Felling beautiful healthy trees – is wasteful!Planting new native trees and allowing them to die from neglect – is wasteful!Allowing weeds and long grass to grow around them and strangle them – is wasteful!

Planning must include new plantings as well as controlling weeds, pest animals and other threatsto forest habitat.With many walks closed due to Kauri die back Aucklanders and visitors to Auckland arediscovering and rediscovering urban walks that have less impact on these delicate environments.Careful and ecological thinking can enhance what are already beautiful places rather thandestroying it.

“Protect Restore Connect”Owairaka has become a very unique site. Your plan needs to identify the physical conditions ofthe site that will influence different plant growth. Removing sheltering trees will lead to the lossof what would have been thriving young plants. The young seedlings need all the protectionfrom wind, drying out and extremes of heat. Planting in a bare site won’t help the new plantingsto tolerate the exposed conditions. Both shade and shelter need to be established first beforeplanting new plants.

#3792

Not only do I want to see the wholesale massacre and destruction of 345 exotic trees onOwairaka Mt Albert, but I want to see more public consultation before any more on otherAuckland’s volcanic cones (maunga) have the same fate as the maungas in Mangere, MtWellington, Mt Richmond and Pigeon Mountain. Please stop planning to fell healthy trees. Section 41(2) of the Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau collective redress Act 2014 must beadhered to as follows: “The Maunga is held by the trustee for the common benefit of Nga Mana Whenua o TamakiMakaurau and the other people of Auckland.” Please take into account both groups of people inAuckland. Create a commonly acceptable beautification of the Owairaka maunga and the other13 Auckland volcanic cones. Your sincerely

#3792

22 March 2020To the Maunga Authority

My name is and I am writing this e-mail today to express my objection to the removal of healthymature trees from the Maunga in Auckland. I am a resident in Mt Albert and have lived here for over 22 yearsand my family have grown up here and love the environment due to the beautiful mature trees that are so mucha part of the history and character of this area and are so evident on the Maunga in Mt Albert. My husbandwalks our dog up there nearly every day and spending time up there surrounded by the sheer size, colour andvariety of trees is part of what makes it so special. We watched a Tui yesterday perched on a gum tree. That birdis a native of this country and has no qualms about what type of tree it spends time on, it does not boycott theexotic to sit on a native, and to be fair that bird has been here longer than any group that emigrated to NewZealand. It does not discriminate, it sees the beauty of a tree and what it can offer. The trees you are intent onpulling down are healthy and pose no threat to anyone, they provide shade and shelter to any New Zealanderwho is lucky enough to spend time on the Maunga. The destruction of these trees will destroy the spaces peopleenjoy up there - take the time to ask the people of Auckland what it is they love about the Maunga and watchhow they spend their time up there. Take the time to see the beauty of a community coming together when theyhave picnics under the shade of some of the trees you wish to cut down and watch them walk in the trees nearthe archery field and feel like they are taking a bush walk in the Waitakere, or the wedding couple that come upto have photos taken because of the beautiful backdrop of native and exotic trees providing a kaleidoscope ofcolour through the seasons. Feel the community as I have when our dog runs on the archery field when thesession is on and they all stop what they are doing to make sure our dog is kept safe, or the children climbingthe very trees you wish to chop down. These Maunga represent us as a people and a community. The exotictrees up there exist alongside the natives and together they represent our future, that different groups can existpeacefully and enhance our country.I took the time to look up the benefit of a tree: Here are a few of the benefits:

1/ Provide oxygen - trees are often described as lungs of the planet .

2/ Absorbs carbon dioxide which is causing climate change

3/ Provides shade and protection from the wind, they are natural air-conditioners

4/ Help with flood control due to their ability to hold vast amounts of water. I have read that trees areconsidered to be an important part of stormwater management for many cities, as they capture and slow rainfall

5/ Habitats for birds and insects

6/ Trees absorb and block sound

7/ Provides canopy which act as a physical filter trapping dust and absorbing pollutants

8/ They promote physical activity and community as people look to walk and jog in shaded areas.

I understand more trees will be planted on the Maunga in the future and I fully support the planting of nativetrees but we all know how long trees take to grow. My niece planted a native tree near the archery field afterseeking permission from the council when she was in her teens. She has just turned 40 and her tree would nothave even grown to 7 metres and provides no shade or canopy to anyone.

In essence we need trees, as Munia Khan wrote:

Trees exhale for us so that we can inhale them to stay alive.Can we ever forget that.? Let us love trees with every breath we takeuntil we perish.

#3800

Please reconsider destroying 2000 healthy mature exotic trees on all the Auckland Maunga. We need them andmore so than ever before. They are a part of our city and our history and they represent the city and country weare now and we are all “one”whether native or exotic.

Yours faithfully

Sent from my iPad

#3800

As a long-standing resident of Mt Albert I feel a very strong connection to the mountainthat watches over us and is the source of the creek that runs past the end of our street.

I have no objection to a transition to native vegetation on Ōwairaka, but am appalled at theshortsightedness of felling a so many trees at once - the affect on the local insects andfauna will be devastating and the current condition of other mountains already subjected tothis treatment does not give me confidence that the mountain will be left the better for it.(Through the recent drought Ōwairaka stayed green and was a haven for all of us as wellas the wildlife, while Maunga Māngere turned brown and burned.) I am also concernedabout the prospect of erosion if the trees are removed.

New planting should come first and then selective felling of trees as they near the end oftheir life or in small enough numbers to have no significant impact.

Real engagement with the local community and bringing them on board with plans wouldbe a good thing - there is a depth of knowledge and an enthusiasm to care for our localmaunga that the TMA could be drawing on.

#3804

The Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan

21.03.2020

With regard to the above, I would like to put forward the following observations and comments on the draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan for 2020/21.

My references and comments relate mainly to Owairaka / Mt Albert, but apply to all the maunga.

Firstly I’d like to say that I completely support the goal of restoring native vegetation to the Tupuna Maunga. However I do not support the totally destructive and ill conceived process that is being forced upon the mountains, the environment and the communities that surround them.

I am a resident in . In October last year (2019) our community became aware of the plan to fell 345 trees in the Owairaka reserve. The felling was to start two weeks from the day the notice was dropped in our letterbox. This was the first time the Tupuna Maunga Authority (TMA) had been in contact with anyone from our local community.

Since that time there has been significant opposition to the felling of the trees. This has given the local community time to research and investigate why this is happening, and why the local community was not included in any of the decision making around the proposed tree felling.

I would like to note that the removal of nearly half of the trees on the mountain, including almost all of the large trees, will be an extremely significant event, both from the point of view of the process itself, and to the end result which will devastate the existing flora and fauna on the mountain.

I see in the application for the resource consent (non-notified), that the author of the report on “Biophysical and Landscape character effects” states that the effects of removing half of the mature trees from the mountain will be “less than minor”. One can only draw the conclusion that this person never actually visited the maunga to actually look at the vegetation, or worse – is being paid to say exactly what the applicants asked her to say in order to meet the threshold for the consent to be approved.

Similarly, another author states that the ecological effects of this clear felling will be “less than minor”. To her credit she does say that the work should be carried out outside the main bird breeding season – August to January. Something that the TMA ignored completely when they organised to start work in November.

How can removing fifty percent of the large trees have a “less than minor” effect on the ecology of the mountain? Or is this person being paid not to think as well?

The unnamed assessor of “Traffic effects” thinks that 50 days of having 10tonne and Hiab and tipper trucks moving up and down Summit Drive 15 times a day is also “less than minor”. This person obviously does not live here.

#3816

Noise – apparently the Acoustic Specialist thinks 50 days of running chainsaws, chippers, trucks and helicopters will result in negligible noise effects for neighbouring properties, and be “less than minor”. He obviously lives far away from here. I hope he was well paid for his efforts. Because of the above “less than minor” assessments, along with several others, the application was deemed to not warrant public notification. How very convenient for the TMA. Having seen this apparent manipulation of the resource consent process made me wonder what else the TMA was up to that it shouldn’t be. This brings me to the Operational Plan, and whether or not it is being applied in a manner consistent with the TMAs values. In order to assess this one only needs to look at last years’ plan and consider how that was acted on. It turns out that there are a number of blatant breaches. These are highlighted in the copy of the plan below. A few of the most concerning points are: NO consultation with local communities. Having open days and “meetings” with locals, after the planning and decision making has been done does not count as consultation. Being told that the plan is going ahead whether we like it or not, is not consultation. The trust’s statement of intent (2017/18) says that one of the trust’s strategic objectives is “to form enduring relationships, and collaboration”. No attempt to form a positive relationship with local communities has been made. No concern for birdlife on the maunga. A herpetology report was done, but no report on birdlife. Why was this? The herpetology report found there was no population of native geckos or skinks on Mt Albert. There was no report to document the significant native birdlife on the maunga. Is this because the birdlife will be devastated by the removal of more than half of the vegetation off the mountain, and therefore will get in the way of the TMA’s plan? No concern for European and other histories associated with the mountains. There are numerous references to Ngā Mana Whenua and “the other people of Auckland”, “other world views”, “European and other histories” and “all the people of Auckland” in the TMA’s plan, and their values. However NONE of this is expressed in their actions. There are a number of trees on Mt Albert that were planted by families of soldiers returned from World War II. The TMA is under the impression that these trees are “pests”. They are NOT pests. They are not on the Auckland Council’s own list of pest species. In fact there are only around a half dozen trees on Mt Albert that are actually classed as pests. The TMA has been pathological in its insistence that there are hundreds of “pest’ trees on the mountain. This suits their agenda. They are just plain lying.

#3816

No concern for the ecological damage their destructive tree felling is imposing on the maunga. Removing half of the mature trees from any of the maunga will have serious implications for the existing flora and fauna. The Auckland Council’s own website states that “Succession planting is the best method”. Why is this method not being followed? The evidence of the three maunga that the TMA have already attacked is surely enough to demonstrate that they have no idea of what they are doing. Unless the plan is to remove all the vegetation. This does not follow their own stated value of “Tread Gently”. The so-called “revegetation” is laughable. A small number of grasses left in pots on the ground. So called “mound planting”. To ensure that they don’t disturb the non-existant geckos and lizards, and further contribute to erosion. No follow up or maintenance has been done on the three damaged mountains, resulting in the replacement vegetation dying. The fact that there has been no follow up or monitoring of the planting suggests that the TMA has no real interest in revegetation, only in removing “exotic” vegetation. This does not follow their own stated values of “Restore the biodiversity” And how can grasses replace mature trees? Trees planted today, to quote the UN, can't grow fast enough to avoid what the UN calls "catastrophic planetary changes". The Auckland Council, by aiding and abetting the TMA in this plan, is actively destroying our local ecosystem, and contributing to the destruction of our wider ecosystem. This seems to be an Auckland wide problem, not just limited to the maunga. No concern for the “visual and physical integrity of the maunga”. Another one of the TMA’s values. They started on Owairaka by installing a toilet block directly in front of the entrance. It’s the first thing you see when you come through the gates. Is this a traditional Pa layout? Then they installed vehicle barriers that would not look out of place in a corrections facility. They have installed these hideous things on many of the other maunga as well. And now they want to remove half of the mature vegetation, and claim that the visual effect will be “less than minor”. How can anyone have confidence in people who advocate for, and implement plans like this? The six Auckland Council, so-called, representatives on the TMA are supposed to be representing “The other peoples of Auckland”. This includes Europeans and other races. There has been NO demonstration of consideration of European heritage, and an active hostility toward anything that is not indigenous. I would like to know why the Auckland Council members are not representing their constituents.

#3816

Budget. Millions of dollars to remove trees that don’t even need to be removed? Is the Auckland council so flush with cash that they can throw our money away like this? As a ratepayer I am disgusted that the people entrusted with the management of our funds can waste it in this manner. More than a million dollars is budgeted to remove mature trees off Owairaka alone. These trees not only don’t need to be removed, they should not be removed. Succession planting. Look it up. Further TMA plans. I understand that the TMA wants to expand its mandate and reach beyond the Maunga reserves. On the evidence of their current “achievements”, this is very concerning. Given the total lack of adherence to their current values and plans, this should not be allowed to happen. In summary, I say that based on observations of the “work” that the TMA did under last year’s Operational Plan: The TMA is NOT adhering to its own values. The TMA is NOT following its own stated plan. The TMA is NOT working for the benefit of the “other people of Auckland”. The TMA is NOT recognising European and other histories, and interaction with the maunga. The TMA is NOT forming enduring relationships and collaborating. The TMA is NOT actively nurturing positive relationships. The TMA is NOT protecting the integrity of the Tūpuna Maunga. The TMA is NOT preserving the visual and physical integrity of the munga as landmarks of Tāmaki. The TMA is NOT working to restore the biodiversity to the maunga. The TMA is NOT giving “expression to mana whenua and other world views, and the connections and histories in a manner that highlights the way in which these views complement each other”. The TMA is most definitely NOT Treading Gently. The TMA plan, and Strategic framework: Tūpuna Maunga Values, states that they want to restore and reintroduce indigenous native ecosystems, reintroduce native plants and attract native animal species. What they don’t seem to understand is that there is already a thriving population of native birds and plants on Owairaka. Removing 345 mature trees will destroy this population. It will take decades to restore to the level we have now. The trees don’t need to be removed, they will eventually die anyway. We need to preserve what we have now and use those mature trees to protect new plantings of native trees underneath their canopy. It’s a well recognised process and advocated in the Council’s own website. It’s called Succession Planting, and it won’t require the spending of millions of dollars to remove trees unnecessarily. Restoring native vegetation to the maunga is a good idea. The method proposed by the TMA for doing this is bad.

#3816

Below are excerpts from The Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan. I have highlighted points that are of concern, and/or being ignored. There are many other points that would benefit from discussion in depth, but not enough time can be spent on them here. This just touches the surface. This organisation, including and especially the Auckland council members, needs to be accountable for their decisions and actions. That is not happening now. Regards,

#3816

The Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan

The operational plan outlines the work programme for the financial year, which comprises of a number of projects at a network and individual maunga level. Importantly, the operational plan sets out how these individual projects contribute to delivery of the Tūpuna Mauna Authority’s objectives and vision for the Tūpuna Maunga by linking them to one or more of the Tūpuna Maunga Values in the Integrated Management Plan.

In July 2014, the Collective Redress Act was passed. The Act vested the Crown-owned land of 14 Tūpuna Maunga in Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau, on the basis that they are held in trust for the common benefit of the iwi/hapū of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau and the other people of Auckland.

Under the Act each Tūpuna Maunga was declared a reserve and the Tūpuna Maunga Authority was appointed as the administering body for the majority of the maunga for the purposes of the Reserves Act 1977.

The Trust’s Statement of Intent 2017/18 confirms the Trust’s strategic objectives as:

4. Mā whero, mā pango ka oti ai te mahi Enduring relationships and collaboration.

Tūpuna Maunga Authority

The Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s bespoke co-governance structure recognises not only the important relationship Ngā Mana Whenua have with these sacred places, but also their importance to, and connection with, all the peoples of Auckland. The Tūpuna Maunga Authority is a tangible expression of the spirit of partnership between Ngā Mana Whenua and council.

Auckland Council

Auckland Council is responsible for the routine management of the Tūpuna Maunga under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority. It is responsible for the costs in relation to the Tūpuna Maunga and administered lands incurred by council and the Tūpuna Maunga Authority in carrying out their respective functions under the Collective Redress Act or the Reserves Act 1977.

#3816

Strategic framework: Tūpuna Maunga Values

The values weave together and give expression to mana whenua and other world views, and the connections and histories in a manner that highlights the way in which these views complement each other and create a richness to the relationship people have with the Tūpuna Maunga and mulitple ways in which ways in which these relationships are thought of and expressed.

The values are as follows:

Waituatanga/ Spiritual: tread gently

Mana Aotūroa/ Cultural and Heritage: recognise European and other histories and interaction with the Maunga

Takotoranga/ Landscape: - protect the integrity of the Tūpuna Maunga

preserve the visual and physical integrity of the munga as landmarks of Tāmaki.

Mauri Pūnaha Hauropi/ Ecology and Biodiversity: Maunga tū mauri ora, maunga tu Makaurau ora /if the Maunga are well, Auckland is well

restore the biodiversity of the Tūpuna Maunga

Mana Hononga Tangata /Living Connection: actively nurture positive relationships

give expression to the history and cultural values of the Maunga

Whai Rawa Whakauka/ Economic and Commercial: focus on commercial activities that create value and enhance experience

foster partnerships and collaboration

Mana Whai a Rēhia /Recreational: balance informal and formal recreation

#3816

Work Programme Overview

Healing

- Restoration of indigenous native ecosystems; reintroducing native plants and attracting native animal species; removing inappropriate exotic trees and weeds

Development

Cultural interpretation including distinct entrance ways, pou whenua, visitor information hubs and educational signage

Commercial activities to develop alternative revenue streams to invest in the protection and enhancement of the values of the Tūpuna Maunga

Connection

Volunteer programmes to connect communities to the Tūpuna Maunga

Education programmes, community events and a bespoke website that celebrates the living connection that all communities have with the Tūpuna Maunga.

All projects are designed to deliver outcomes for the 13 iwi/hapū of the Tāmaki Collective and all the people of Auckland, enhance the mana and mauri of the Tūpuna Maunga and deliver improved open spaces across the eight local board areas.

They will also enable a compelling case in a future UNESCO World Heritage bid for the Tūpuna Maunga, which will contribute to a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world. The bid for World Heritage status will require a dedicated resource and will be progressed in this financial year in partnership with the Department of Conservation.

#3816

Table 1 Tūpuna Maunga Work Programme 2018-28

Tūpuna Maunga Value Prioritised Projects

Wairuatanga / Spiritual

- tread gently

- vegetation management – remove weed species, manage health and safety risks and inappropriate exotics

- revegetate suitable areas, - Settings that inspire reverence, aroha, respect and awareness of the Tūpuna Maunga as treasures :

develop new entrance signs and distinct entrances have been identified as one way to initially give visibility to and celebrate the significance of the Tūpuna Maunga and their original ancestral names for the Tūpuna Maunga. Through working with mana whenua, future opportunities to establish an authentic Māori presence will be identified and implemented.

- Potential transfer of administration of land contiguous to other Tūpuna Maunga. - Potential administration of certain Maunga reserve lands from the Department of Conservation to the

Authority. -

Mana Aotūroa / Cultural and Heritage

- recognise European and other histories, and interaction with the Maunga

- Sharing European and other histories and geological significance: develop interpretation that honours the multiple narratives, cultural meaning and connections felt and expressed among all people of Tāmaki Makaurau over the Tūpuna Maunga and the geological significance of the Tūpuna Maunga. Initially work will focus on obtaining baseline knowledge to be used in interpretation. The focus will then move on to how to share this and encourage collective stewardship of existing historical heritage.

- Neighbours and local communities: communicate and collaborate with neighbours and local

communities to enhance the values of the Tūpuna Maunga. The initial focus for this will be on informing them of key developments, engagement in the biosecurity programme and the development of the individual Tūpuna Maunga plans.

#3816

Takotoranga / Landscape

- protect the integrity of the Tūpuna Maunga

- preserve the visual and physical integrity of the Maunga as landmarks of Tāmaki

- vegetation removal - weed species, health and safety risks, and inappropriate exotics

- revegetate suitable areas

- advocate for the acquisition/transfer land to enable the Maunga Authority to manage adjoining land that comprise the true extent of the Tūpuna Maunga to enable integrated management and development.

Mauri Pūnaha Hauropi / Ecology and Biodiversity

- Maunga tū mauri ora, maunga tu makaurau ora / if the Maunga are well, Auckland is well

- restore the biodiversity of the Tūpuna Maunga

- Biodiversity programme: restore the indigenous biodiversity of the Tūpuna Maunga through the ongoing management of existing threatened plants, replanting of suitable areas with indigenous ecosystems and the reintroduction or attraction of indigenous species such as microorganisms, invertebrates, lizards and birds.

- Volunteer programme: actively create opportunities for people to contribute to the wellbeing of the Tūpuna Maunga through involvement in the biosecurity and biodiversity programmes

Mana Honanga Tangata/Living Connection

- actively nurture positive relationships

- give expression to the history and cultural values of the Maunga

- Develop the Tūpuna Maunga as places of education, understanding, discovery and rediscovery so that everyone can understand the historical connections and develop their own personal connections to the Tūpuna Maunga through for example interpretation, education programmes, events, Tūpuna Maunga Lease Outcome Plans, and the development of infrastructure that creates an authentic Māori presence.

Whai Rawa Whakauka / Economic and Commercial

#3816

Mana Whai a Rēhia / Recreational - balance informal and formal recreation

- Ancillary visitor infrastructure: develop/upgrade/renew ancillary facilities to support visitor experience such as toilets, seating, car parking, water fountains, bike racks, vehicle barriers.

#3816

Submission in respect of Tūpuna Maunga Authority operational plan, operations and policy

21 March 2020

Please stop the chop of healthy mature trees from the Auckland Maungas

My name is and I am New Zealand citizen and long time resident of Mt Albert.

1. Climate Change Emergency has been declared and the Auckland Council has undertaken to adhere to Climate Change initiatives, which is in direct contrast of removing healthy non-native trees from the Maunga. The replacement plantings (mainly low growing flaxes and plants– certainly not replacement TREES) has been poorly executed with the plantings having a mortality rate of well over 90% across all Maunga which is clearly evident to anyone inspecting Mt Albert, Mt Wellington, Mt Mangere and Pigeon Mountain. Clearly IF any trees were to be planted, they would take years and decades to reach the maturity of the trees they are wanting to remove. Why remove them ? it does not make any sense in this current climate hiatus where EVERY tree is of value – certainly plant more but DO NOT take healthy ones away and do so in a sustainable way allowing them to grow under the canopy of existing trees.

2. It is deeply saddening to visit these wonderful places and see plants left dying in the sun with no clear plans to maintain the plants with not even a watering programme having been implemented. Clearly the Tupuna Maunga Authority (TMA) is unqualified, imcompetent and wasteful in its planting practice and the plantings are now being overtaken by noxious weeds and are left at extremely high risk of grass fires (as evident on Mangere Maunga) and will leave long lasting damage and is a betrayal of TMA’s duty of care for the Maunga of Auckland. I have no confidence that they should be the ones charged with the level of care in regard to the plans to replant the Maunga. They have done this already to four Maunga within Auckland and have plans to do the same plan of removal of healthy trees from all Maunga around Auckland and this needs to be halted.

#3821

3. The TMA further fails to be transparent about their plan as evidenced by a community planting day when it failed to tell the community of its plans to remove 350 healthy mature trees from the Owairaka Maunga. Its dealings have been slippery, unclear and disrespectful to the community about its plans and has failed to engage with the community and the Honour the Maunga group which has had valid concerns raised but never addressed at all by the TMA and this has lead to mistrust.

4. Covid-19 is here and is a game changer. With strains on the finances of all government and local authorities, it is unacceptable, irresponsible and negligent to contemplate the expenditure of $30 million on what are non-essential, superfluous works and a complete waste of ratepayers money. .

5. In summary, The Tūpuna Maunga Authority (TMA)’s budget should be cut to allow only for essential maintenance only (such as grass cutting), public safety (such as security patrols), and repair works needing immediate attention and NOT to remove healthy trees on the Maungas - either natives or exotics.

Yours faithfully,

#3821

I attach a submission on removal of exotic trees from Mt Albert.

#3831

Late last year I was appalled to read in the NZ Herald about the imminent removal of 345 exotic

trees from Mt Albert. I think this was one or two days before contractors were due to start tree

removal. Despite being a Mt Albert local, and living on the slopes of Mt Albert, this was the first

inkling I had of any tree removal. There was obviously a complete lack of consultation with the

community and no notification by the TMA.

I can see no justification for complete removal of exotics, especially when many of the trees are

mature and they provide shade to humans and a habitat for wildlife, especially birds. In a time of

global warming we need every tree; we do not need stumps and chipped foliage and branches. We

should also be encouraging bird life, not hacking down their homes.

I do not believe the TMA assertion that most of the exotic trees are pest species or are a danger to

the public because of their age. I understand that there are only seven pest individuals. These trees

should be managed in the same way that exotic trees are looked after in other public spaces –

remove/trim when they become a real danger; plant native seedlings underneath the mature trees

so that the seedlings have a chance of growing up through the protection of nurse plants, and

eventually forming their own canopy.

I am also very concerned that many of the exotic trees are actually being replaced by flax and

sedges. Whilst these plants may provide an aesthetic appearance in planted gardens, they do

nothing for wild life and do not provide shade and protection.

As a rate payer I am incensed that such an enormous amount of Auckland ratepayers’ money is

being spent on such an ill-conceived idea. With the huge impacts of COVID-19 and the on-going

global warming crisis, now is not a time to spend enormous amounts of money on tree removal.

There are also many pōhutukawa trees growing on Mt Albert. I query whether or not Mt Albert is

the natural habitat for these trees. I suspect that pōhutukawa is also an alien in this environment.

Will these trees also be felled, and if not, why not?

I urge the TMA (and their backers) to not go ahead with removal of exotic trees from Mt Albert.

#3831

To Whom it may concern,

Thank you for your consideration and please make this submission an official council publicrecord.

Kind Regards

#3841

Submission on Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s 2020 - 2021 Operational Plan and Budget

Dated - 20 March 2020

I am a resident of Mt Albert and have been so for 10 years. I have come to love this place deeply, particularly the beautiful environment that is Ōwairaka. It is a place of serenity and tranquillity and for many in the community it is the living heart of what makes this place special. I am opposed to the TMA’s plan to remove all the non-native tress. The way such a plan has been fostered on our community is disgraceful. This action is destructive, controversial and alienating. The heart of this community is the Maunga and The Tupuna Maunga Authority in their actions are proposing to tear this heart out. In a time of heightened awareness of catastrophic environmental issues, unprecedented global pandemics and such economic uncertainly, there is no justification for the dreadful waste of money and hurt the Authority are causing. There is as a huge disconnect from what has been offered to the community and the reality and I wish to question what I see as a significant misuse and waste of ratepayers money that could be better used in education programs that befit the whole community in sharing Tūpuna Maunga values. Through considered, inclusive, community engagement there could be increased support for, and tangible engagement in the protection and restoration of these Maunga. I personally would love to be involved in helping realise a shared vision.

Specifics 1: The Operational Plan and the Tūpuna Maunga values

Waituatanga / Spiritual – tread lightly Given that over 30% of Auckland’s tree cover has been lost in the last decade and Auckland Council has declared a climate emergency how can the wholesale removal of 2000 trees in a very very short time frame using helicopters etc be deemed treading lightly. Let alone the enormous impact on the community through noise, disruption and most importantly grief. The loss of habitat to many many lifeforms as a result of these actions is appalling.

Tūpuna value: Mana Aotūroa / Cultural Heritage The stated intention is to also recognise European and other histories and interaction with the Maunga and the operational plan. Many of the trees on Ōwairaka have a story important to many and I fail to understand why so-called exotics must be singled out for destruction.

Tūpuna value: Mauri Pūana Hauropi / Ecology and Biodiversity The plan to remove all exotics in such a short time frame is ludicrous and is counter to this stated value. There is currently an extraordinary healthy mix of natives and non-natives and the larger mature non-natives shelter smaller natives and provide habitat for multiple flora and fauna. Recent plantings of natives in exposed areas has failed dismally and proves it is imperative that the trees remain to lessen the impact of the inhospitable environment the TMA are proposing.

Tūpuna value: Mana Hononga Tangata The stated value of actively nurturing positive relationships could not be further from the truth. As more and more people come to realise the destruction proposed the opposition to the tree felling continues to grow. I’ve even met many overseas visitors (let alone locals who are still unaware if what is proposed) who are incredulous that such an action is being proposed and at such environmental and financial cost. This message is far reaching and has such a negative impact on our beautiful city and the Authority. I and my family (and my neighbours) are personally deeply

#3841

hurt at what is being proposed and the manner at which this ‘process’ is being implemented and I implore all concerned to reconsider and reach out to community to allow participation in a shared vision. The decisions made to date are divisive, unpopular and creating a great deal of resentment. This is a wonderful opportunity to build positive supportive relationships that is being squandered through inconsiderate and non-transparent process.

Tūpuna value: Mana Whai a Rehia / Recreational The stated value to promote health and wellbeing will be lost through the wholesale destruction of an environment that is currently just beautiful. Enhance the environment – don’t destroy it.

2: The Work Program

Deceptive and Vague Wording: The stated value of actively nurturing positive relationships is not being met and it is difficult to trust the Authority s intentions when last year’s operational plan had no mention of the removal of all the non-native tress. It begs the question of transparency and’s what else is being planned. This year wording of the operational plan appears to be almost identical with no real indication of the mass removal of trees from Auckland’s volcanic cones.

It also appears that Authority and Auckland Council has tried to undertake this programme with little or no community consultation utilising a non-notified consent. Why? This just flies in the face of positive community relationships. For example, a non-notified resource consent for the Ōwairaka tree removal was issued in February 2019 yet nobody in the local community was informed until late October – two weeks before the felling was due to begin. Such actions are counter to the Authority’s values and generate distrust and antipathy towards the Authority and Auckland Council alike. The manner in which this has been undertaken creates division and distrust. Again Why? The operational plan must be inclusive, clear in its wording and intent and communicated fairly. This is not the case.

Pest species: The TMA claim approximately ½ of Ōwairaka’ s non-native trees are “pests” and are also claiming that olives are pests – only 7 trees are listed as pests in the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy – again why the inflated figures to push through what appears to be an increasingly disturbing unknown agenda. This again does not create a feeling of trusted or positive partnership. With this the Japanese Cherry’s on Ōwairaka are not a listed pest species as per the Authorities stated control of cherry, privet in the draft operational plan.

Health and Safety: The Authority sites “proof” of there being a health and safety risk using a photo of a tree that fell over during the 2017 storm when trees all over Auckland came down in a 1 in a hundred-year storm. Given the severity of the storm it is testament to the health and hardiness of ALL the trees on the Maunga.

Inappropriate exotic trees: This is a disturbing statement – since when did all non-native trees become inappropriate as this appears to be the Authority’s ideology. This is a particularly dangerous stance to take in a multicultural society and if trees become politicised this will undoubtedly cause division in the community.

Maintaining ecological biodiversity during the succession to 100% native vegetation: The Operational Plan’s methodology thwarts ecological biodiversity in many ways – the planting methodology is a failure with many failed plantings on Maunga whose exotic trees have already been chopped down including Mangere and Pigeon mountains. Failure has been a direct result of removing tree cover, the methodology employed in replanting and lack of maintenance. I.e. Poor process and a lack of care.

Volunteer programmes to connect communities to the Tūpuna Maunga: I love this Maunga and I believe that we can all be united in caring for this beautiful place and I ask all decision makers to seriously consider how you can bring a united community together to care for this special place.

Sharing European and other histories and geological significance: Quite simply destroying non-natives, destroys that expression of non-Mana Whenua heritage – please let this be a place of shared significance and celebration show casing Mana Whenua but also acknowledging all the other peoples of Auckland.

In summary I oppose the felling of the non-natives proposed across Auckland Maunga, this is a needless waste of ratepayer’s money and in a time of huge distress will only add to people’s misery.

Thank you for your consideration.

#3841

#4412

Annual Budget 2020/2021 May 2020 Page 1 of 26

Annual Budget 2020/2021 Note: this feedback form has been created for the purpose of publishing hard copy submissions received

via community engagement partner organisations that were unable to be translated (where necessary) and

delivered to Council in person due to the COVID-19 lockdown. In the interests of including all public feedback

received for analysis and decision making, this form incorporates the closed responses of these

submissions.

Your feedback

1. Waste management targeted rate

The cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and plastics) has increased due to international market conditions.

To pay for this we propose to charge only those who use the service by increasing the targeted rate by $19.97 a year or $0.38 a week (the total cost changing from $121.06 to $141.03 incl. GST)

If we do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates for all ratepayers, including those who don't get a kerbside collection service.


Support

2. Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a targeted rate. In other parts of the city, residents pay for their collection via Pay As You Throw. The targeted rate for for the Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas no longer meets the cost of collection.


• $14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93 to $144.16), and

• $20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191.00 to $211.91).

If we don't do this, we would have to increase general rates for all ratepayers, including those living outside these two areas who would subsidise residents of old Auckland and Manukau cities.


Support

3. Waitākere rural sewerage targeted rate

Last year we consulted on removing the septic tank pump-out service funded by a targeted rate. While feedback indicated a willingness to go ahead with the removal of this service in the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas, residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area said they wanted to keep the service. The cost of delivering this service is higher than the current targeted rate of $198.43.

Our proposal, for those in the Waitakere Ranges local board area who want the service, is to recover the full cost by increasing the targeted rate to between $260 and $320 a year (incl. GST).

Organisation (if applicable):

Your local board: Albert-Eden


This increase would apply from July 2021. If we don't do this, the council could end the service, or continue to subsidise the cost of the service to septic tank users in the Waitākere Ranges local board area from all general ratepayers, including those who don't use the service.



4. Local Board priorities

Which local board would you like to provide feedback to? Albert-Eden

In your opinion, are the priorities right for the local board area in 2020/2021?


Important privacy information

The personal information that you provide in this form will be held and protected by Auckland Council in accordance with our privacy policy (available at aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/privacy and at our libraries and service centres) and with the Privacy Act 1993. The privacy policy explains how we can use and share your personal information in relation to any interaction you have with the council, and how you can access and correct that information. You should familiarise yourself with this policy before submitting this form.

#4412

#4417






submissions.

Your feedback






Do not support

2. Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau CityIn the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a targeted rate. In other parts of the city, residents pay for their collection via Pay As You Throw. The targeted rate for for the Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas no longer meets the cost of collection.






Do not support











Which local board would you like to provide feedback to?




#4417

#4419






submissions.

Your feedback






Support







Support
















#4419

#4429






submissions.

Your feedback






Support

2. Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a targeted rate. In other parts of the city, residents pay for their collection via Pay As You Throw. The targeted rate for for the Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas no longer meets the cost of collection.






Support
















#4429

#4433






submissions.

Your feedback






Support







Support
















#4433

#4442






submissions.

Your feedback






Support







Support
















#4442

#4447






submissions.

Your feedback






Support







Support
















#4447

#4459






submissions.

Your feedback






Support







Support
















#4459

#4474






submissions.

Your feedback






Support







Support
















#4474

#4477






submissions.

Your feedback






Support







Support













I do not support any of the priorities



#4477

#4478






submissions.

Your feedback






Support







Support
















#478

#4528






submissions.

Your feedback






Support







Support
















#4528

#4585






submissions.

Your feedback






Support







Support
















#4585

Documents

Albert-Eden written feedback volume 2 - Auckland …...4478 Albert-Eden 2 4528 Albert-Eden 2 4585 Albert-Eden 2 Annual Budget 2020/2021 - Hard copy submission Submitter details Date