A857286 Page 1 of 13

18–087

Title: Chichester Street Silver Birch Trees

Section: Liveable Communities

Prepared by: Martin Weaver (Cemeteries Leader)

Meeting Date: 21 March 2018

☐ Legal ☐ Financial Significance = low

Report to COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & SERVICES Committee for information SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to determine an outcome for to the residents of Chichester Street who have requested the removal of all Silver Birch (Betula pendula) trees within the road corridor throughout Chichester Street on the grounds of excessive leaf litter and alleged pollen related illnesses to residents.

The request does not meet that of a ‘Standard Removal’ according to Council’s current Pruning and Removal of Public Trees Procedure. A discretionary removal of these trees has been approved, at the cost of the requestor(s).

The report reviews: Current tree data, such as health, condition and suitability of the species at this location.

Places two valuations of the trees as functioning assets to Gisborne District Council and the wider community.

It cross-references the current and proposed procedures / policies by Gisborne District Council around the street tree asset and how these trees relate to these policies.

Highlights and compares the pollen issue from Birch trees in relation to other species. Compares other Councils’ responses to similar requests. Discusses and highlights four options and the associated risks and financial implications.

The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of low significance in accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

RECOMMENDATION That the Community Development & Services Committee: 1. Notes the contents of this report.

Authorised by:

Garrett Blair Andrew White Contracts and Asset Manager Director Liveable Communities

Keywords: street trees, Chichester silver birch, draft street tree and garden plan, pruning and removal of public trees procedure

A857286 Page 2 of 13

BACKGROUND

Chichester Street Silver Birch Trees

1. A request direct to the Mayor by a resident of Chichester Street for all twelve Silver Birch trees within Chichester Street to be removed was received in January 2018.

2. The twelve Silver Birch trees within Chichester Street vary in size between six and eleven meters in height, and are typical of their form and condition for the species and age structure (three trees estimated to be 15-20 years of age and nine trees 30 years).

3. The reasons for this request being excessive leaf litter causing a nuisance to residents, and health concerns to humans and animals (due to pollen allergies).

4. Accompanying the request was a medical certificate stating the requestor’s child has a confirmed allergy to Birch trees, and that removal of these trees within Chichester Street would benefit the child’s health.

5. Council has received twenty-one Requests for Service relating to the Silver Birch street trees in Chichester Street since 2006, see Appendix 1.

6. The requestor has solicited signatures from nineteen other residents of Chichester Street, all of whom are in favour of the removal of the Silver Birch trees, see Appendix 2.

7. The request does not currently meet Council’s Standard Removal criteria within our Pruning and Removal of Public Trees Procedure; yet a Discretionary Removal has been approved by Council’s Recreation and Amenity Operations Manager and communicated to the requestor.

8. Using the STEM (Standard Tree Evaluation Method) which has been developed by the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture, the twelve Silver Birch trees along Chichester Street have been valued at approximately $24,000. Please see Appendix 3 for a review on the STEM method.

Silver Birch Tree Pollen and Allergies – A Nationwide Issue

9. Birch pollen is recognised by Allergy NZ as being one of the most allergenic tree species. Taken from their website www.allergy.org.nz

“The white birch is one of the most allergenic taxa. Their flowers, called catkins, are long, dark, pendulous, worm-like structures on the ends of the branches.”

“In a typical residential area roughly 30 years old, the frequency of white birch is 45 trees for every kilometre of street. Therefore it is not surprising to find concentration of white birch pollen as high as 4000 grains per cubic metre of air at the height of its flowering period.”

10. Allergy NZ also state however, that due to the relatively short flowering season of Silver Birch trees, grass pollen in New Zealand is much bigger problem for allergy sufferers;

“Trees flower in the springtime when temperature is increasing. For each type of tree, the flowering period is defined by specific conditions, which usually occur at approximately the same time each year, lasting roughly 2 weeks and the peak pollinating period (time when there are the maximum concentration of pollen in the air) lasting only a few days. The tree season in New Zealand is relatively short compared with Europe, where the birch season is several months long. Here it is a month or less.”

A857286 Page 3 of 13

“Tree pollen is, therefore, less of an issue compared with grass pollen. Grass allergy is a severe problem because its season goes from August/September through to March. This makes New Zealand’s pollen season a nine-month nasal marathon! Many people allergic to grass are allergic to more than one species creating a long protracted suffering period.”

11. Requests to remove Silver Birch trees are common, and it is standard practice throughout New Zealand by Councils for these (and other ‘unsuitable’) species to be removed when they become a health and safety issue (refer to Appendix 4 re: NZ Municipal Arborists forum response to Birch and pollen).

Current State and Future Planning

12. Council’s current Pruning and Removal of Public Trees Procedure guides us on how to manage our portfolio of street trees, and other Council managed trees.

13. The Draft Street Tree and Gardens Plan (within the Draft Community Facilities Strategy http://www.gdc.govt.nz/draft‐community‐facilities‐strategy/) defines Silver Birch trees as ‘Unsuitable Street Trees’, and if adopted a removal and replacement programme (with allocated budget) of the Chichester Street Silver Birch trees could be implemented between 2019-2021.

14. Council currently has nearly 200 Silver Birch trees within our street tree portfolio; Chichester Street (twelve trees) and Einstein Street (thirteen trees) have the highest concentration of Silver Birch trees within our portfolio.

15. The exact number of Silver Birch trees within Council managed parks and reserves is unknown.

Emily Street Reserve Example – Silver Birch Removal Request

16. In 2016, a similar request to Council was made to remove five Silver Birch trees within Emily Street (they were causing problems for some nearby residents, including leaf litter and allergy issues).

17. Council consulted with nearby residents, with 60% (of 22 residents surveyed) in favour of removing the trees.

18. As the trees did not meet the criteria for Standard Removal (as per our Pruning and Removal of Public Trees Procedure), a Discretionary Removal was approved – however the residents did not wish to pay for the Discretionary Removal, so the trees still remain.

DISCUSSION and OPTIONS

Discussion points

19. Although the proposed removal and replacement plan (as per the Draft Street Tree and Gardens Plan) is due to be implemented in years 2019-2021 along Chichester Street, this could be amended and included earlier in the proposed schedule.

20. If the Draft Street Trees Plan is not adopted and the current procedures remain, a Standard Removal of these trees can only occur once the criteria for this is met. This generally leads to no action being taken until the tree becomes hazardous, and/or the tree has reached the end of its useful life.

21. Many differing species within the immediate and surrounding area will be contributing to the ‘level’ or ‘concentration’ of pollen within Chichester Street. Although Council recognises that Birch trees contribute to pollen levels, it would not be possible to prove they are the sole or major influence of pollen allergies within Chichester Street.

A857286 Page 4 of 13

22. If Council choses to remove the trees immediately due to their pollen issues, a precedent could be set to remove the remaining 185 (approximately) other Silver Birch trees within the street tree portfolio and other public places – which could severely impact operational budgets.

23. The estimated costs for removing, stump grinding and replanting these street trees is approximately $4,500 – this does not include the current STEM value of these trees ($24,000).

Options

24. Option 1: Remove the trees during 2018/19 as a Standard Removal, and replace with more suitable street trees providing the Draft Street Tree and Gardens Plan is adopted:

Amend the proposed replacement plan of the Street Tree and Gardens Plan to prioritise these trees for removal during the 2018/2019 financial year

Allow earlier replacement of these trees as a Discretionary Removal

25. Option 2: Fully review the Pruning and Removal of Public Trees Procedure, if the Draft Street Tree and Gardens Plan is not adopted, and approve Discretionary Removal.

26. Option 3: Permit the removal as a discretionary removal based upon the current procedure on the basis that residents pay for the Council Approved Contractor for the works.

27. Option 4: Permit the removal as a discretionary removal and allow the residents to appoint their own contractor for the works. This will require any non-approved Council contractor to adhere to the PCBU and H&S set by council

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Criteria This Report The Process Overall

The effects on all or a large part of the Gisborne district Low Low

The effects on individuals or specific communities Low Medium

The level or history of public interest in the matter or issue Medium Medium

Inconsistency with Council’s current strategy and policy Low Low

Impacts on Council’s delivery of its Financial Strategy and Long Term Plan. Low Low

28. The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of low significance in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

29. Other than the aforementioned petition received by the residents of Chichester Street, no other formal community engagement has taken place or received specific for these trees.

30. The Street Tree and Gardens Plan (as part of the Community Facilities Strategy) has been consulted upon.

CONSIDERATIONS

Financial/Budget

31. Discretionary removal of trees under Council’s Pruning and Removal of Public Trees Procedure is to be at the cost of the requester.

32. The twelve Silver Birch trees along Chichester Street have been valued at approximately $24,000 (using STEM methodology).

A857286 Page 5 of 13

33. Council currently does not have a dedicated budget to replace these trees. This will be available during the next financial year if the draft Long Term Plan budget proposal for street trees is approved.

34. The estimated costs for removing and replacing these street trees is approximately $4,500.

35. Operational budget could be made available to remove these trees this financial year, but other work would not be done.

Legal

36. There are no legal implications arising from this report.

POLICY and PLANNING IMPLICATIONS

37. Council’s Pruning and Removal of Public Trees Procedure indicates, that with the exception of removing trees that are classified as having a high probability of failure and high likelihood of harm to a fixed or fluid target, the responsibility for the cost of discretionary removal of trees is that of the requestors. Current practice is to implement Council’s policy of requiring the requester to meet the cost of discretionary pruning or removal of Council trees. However, this approach does often result in conflict with requesters who believe it is a community rather than private benefit to have the work done.

38. The adoption of the Street Tree and Gardens Plans (within the Community Facilities Strategy) is critical, and the implementation plan would need to be revised to reprioritise the replacement of these trees.

RISKS

39. Public Perception - Issues regarding street trees have the potential to be controversial. Both removal and retention proposals have caused conflict and anxiety in the past. For this reason, Council established the Pruning and Removal of Public Trees Procedure and decision-making framework to provide clarity and consistency.

40. The Draft Street Tree and Gardens Plan is not adopted by Council during the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, leading to;

Adverse effect upon the community via change or overrule of the current procedures that permits the removal of trees based around pollen related enquiries being allowed to be removed.

Political and public perception of council locally, NZ wide and potentially wider could lead to negative perceptions around this situation.

Financial, with limited funding currently applied to street tree maintenance, it is probable that pressures upon this funding would occur.

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Requests for Service Relating to Trees along Chichester Street Since 2006

Appendix 2: Chichester Street Residents’ Petition

Appendix 3: STEM Valuation review and further insight

Appendix 4: NZ Municipal Arborist email Re: Silver Birch Trees

A857286 Page 6 of 13

Appendix 1: RFS related to trees along Chichester Street since 2006 ID/Date/Time Details/Subtype

228193 02 Feb 2018 10:26a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES_CITY Email rec'd via website 2/2/18 @ 0947hrs:-

227362 17 Jan 2018 08:04a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES_CITY Heather would like to be contacted to discuss the removal of the "blue" street tree outside her house at 7 Chichester St please, she says the seeds from this tree are constantly being blown through her house, and are a real nuisance. Heather ph 8683683

207808 13 Jan 2017 04:31p.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Rec. via GDC web 13/01/2017 1557 hrs: eFix - request for service

198351 13 Jul 2016 08:52p.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES CS NOTE IN REPLY EMAIL HAVE ADV AFTER JULY AS PER RFS 194827 Email rec 13/07/2016 @2052

194827 13 May 2016 11:34a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Further to previous rfs (175817) and emails and letters, residents of Chichester Street are requesting the removal of thirteen silver birch trees. These are a nuisance and health hazard and they would like some positive action being taken please.

191280 03 Mar 2016 01:16p.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Email rec'd via website 3/3/16 @ 1219hrs:-

191068 29 Feb 2016 03:32p.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Christine would like to request the silver birch trees in Chichester St are removed. They affect her sons health and are a general nuisance She would like to particulary see the trees at 4 and 7 Chichester St and 21 Bulwer Rd and they drift onto her property

175817 28 Apr 2015 11:20a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES As well as the complainant all the residents of Chichester street are requesting the removal of some Silver Birch trees on this road. This has been an ongoing concern of these residents with letters and emails to council requesting this to happen. Can Mr Stone please be contacted to discuss.

162582 08 Jul 2014 08:16a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Webmail rec'd 7/07 1657 hrs - I refer to our request to GDC dated 27th March 2014 by six property owners to have six adjacent silver birch trees removed in Chichester street. We believe the trees are the cause of many health problems. Allergies such has hay fever, itchiness, swelling and sneezing are but a few reactions some of us go through. These symptoms are exactly the same health problems some Christchurch residents had to endure.

145389 04 Jun 2013 09:41a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES is looking to purchase this property, trees on the grass verge, would like to know if they are council trees? please contact via cell phone needs to know this by Friday 7th June, thank you

90384 09 Apr 2010 11:40a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES There are several Birch Trees on Road Reserve outside his properties, are they scheduled to be removed at all as customer is hoping they will be cut down in the future

88077 05 Mar 2010 09:22a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Email from Allen - Dear Andrew In April last year I contacted you and the Mayor regarding the silver birch trees in Chichester Street. Your response was that removal of the tree outside my home would not be looked at until circa 2014.

87658 05 Mar 2010 09:18a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Caller would like to request the removal of the street tree outside his property 3 Chichester Street as well as all the street trees that are at the neighbours. He says that they dropped their seeds all over his property, his vehicle and in his pool.

A857286 Page 7 of 13

ID/Date/Time Details/Subtype

52994 09 Apr 2008 12:17p.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Rang re a letter that he has received re removal of trees in Chichester Street. He would like the one outside his house

53304 07 Apr 2008 11:16a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Email from Brian. I believe the council plans to cut down the Silver

52900 28 Mar 2008 01:31p.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES would like the Silver Birch on the grass verge in front of his property to be removed. His neighbour at #6 is having his tree

52863 27 Mar 2008 04:06p.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Mrs Blair has noticed that the silver birch tree outside her property hasn't been marked for removal like the other trees -

52245 25 Mar 2008 03:05p.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Mr Wagner would like to request that the silver birch trees in Chichester St be removed & replaced with native trees. The trees

50451 20 Mar 2008 04:24p.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES There are 5 trees growing on Council owned land at this property. I believe some are down a drive.

36130 07 May 2007 11:44a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Would like some of the silver birch trees cut down - is having real problems with the leaves blocking up her drains. I advised

19825 10 May 2006 11:47a.m.

COMM_FACIL/STREET_TREES Caller concerned with the trees outside property. Has recently bought the property and they have 5 silver birch trees on berm.

A857286 Page 8 of 13

Appendix 2: Chichester Street resident’s petition

A857286 Page 9 of 13

Appendix 3: STEM Valuation review and further insight

Reviewed by Bruce Treeby, Tutor in Farm Forestry, The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, Lower Hutt.

We have difficulty when it comes to accounting for all the values and benefits that we attribute to trees, and the benefits that accrue from their presence in our lives. Those of us who have been involved in trying to protect trees, welcome the contribution that Ron Flock has made with this publication. As Tony says the inclusion of the arboricultural and visual components of his system which ultimately lead to a notable tree register at local and national levels of importance, are a considerable advance over earlier methods. Those of you who have used the Helliwell System will be aware that the multiplications involved can often mean that single factors can skew the final unit score. In STEM each components score can be traced in a quantitative way.

In STEM the evaluation criteria is separated into four major sections: Condition Amenity Notability Value

In the full tree evaluation score sheet, points for the components that make up the condition, amenity and notability are added to give a tree evaluation points total. That is a relatively straight-forward procedure. The next step is the tree valuation, and this is more complex. In the example given in STEM, the wholesale cost of a 5 year old tree ready for planting out is taken as the basic unit of value. The evaluation points of the tree that is being valued, is multiplied by the basic unit value to give the present value of the tree. To this is also added the initial costs of planting and maintenance over the years and GST. Ron Flock takes the wholesale cost as the conservative value and suggests that with retail margins of up to 100% that the possible final value could in fact be double. The retail margin value is open for local negotiation.

The decision as to what the basic unit of value is will be made at a local or regional level. Dunedin City Council uses the figure of $NZ177 as the wholesale cost of a 5 year old tree ready for planting.

So what have been the responses to STEM? Standards New Zealand has asked Ron to put New Zealand STEM forward as an "Industrial Draft". I asked Frank Buddingh' a consulting arborist who runs International Tree Managers Limited what he thought of STEM. He is enthusiastic about it and said for him it was a "workable document" that had already proved it's value in protecting trees in the Dunedin area. In one instance the local power supplier was set to run an underground power supply two metres away from a row of Fagus sylvatica. Using STEM, the conservative value of the individual trees was determined and the power company was advised that they would be liable for any deaths. The power supply was rerouted. Frank has used STEM in court cases and says that it has application in the new district plans. The Dunedin City Council uses STEM to assign value to the tree assets that are in the cities, parks, and streets.

Nelson City Council has used STEM (draft 5) to develop their list of Notable and Historic Trees for scheduling on the District Plan 1995/6, and this is shown in Appendix 1. Wellington City Council are trialing it to determine what trees should go onto a Notable Trees Register. There were questions raised over how trees in broken topography score low in visibility and the age scale between 40 and 80 years was too large a gap. The New Zealand Arboricultural Association has approved it's use, Waikato Institute of Technology are now using it in the arboriculture course, and there has been Australian interest.

A857286 Page 10 of 13

Ron set out to produce a method that is easy to understand, easy to use in the field and gives conservative results. I think he has been successful with all three objectives. Over the past four years, he has consulted widely with a series of drafts and this is number 6. STEM is already being applied with success by local authorities and arborists throughout New Zealand. Throughout, there are definitions, a glossary of arboricultural terms and references that assist clarity and those who want to do more study on the subject. Throughout the publication there are examples of application, step by step. There are 23 photographs of tree examples with their tree evaluation score.

I will conclude this review with some of my local experience. When I saw the cover photograph of the ring-barked Quercus robur and the same tree being cared for by an arborist, I immediately thought how useful STEM would have been to those of us who were unsuccessful in saving two 60 year old Norfolk pines in Rimu Street, in Eastbourne, Wellington. These trees along with three others on the other side of the street were part of the "seaside" character of Eastbourne. This was back in the 1980's prior to our merger with Hutt City. The council at the time wanted to redevelop the street and lower the camber. There were all sorts of arguments about drains and instability. There was a strong public debate, and in the end two of the trees were ring-barked to finalise the issue! I used STEM to put a value on the trees based on the three trees that were given a reprieve. On wholesale value using the Dunedin example, the trees had an individual value of over $NZ46 000 each and it could be $NZ60 000 or more. Such values may well have compelled the councillors of the day to act differently. The other three trees are still living and the camber was removed.

With regard to repair of damage, there is a Norfolk pine of similar age in Days Bay that some years ago suffered damage to the base of the tree from a car driving into it. No remedial action was done to the tree. The large bare area with no protective bark has been attacked by wood boring insects and today the stability of the tree is in doubt. If STEM had been in use at the time of the damage, it is likely that more care would have been taken of an asset that through neglect has become a liability.

In conclusion, I am sure that people who are responsible for the management and protection of trees will find this publication very useful.

A857286 Page 11 of 13

Appendix 4: NZ Municipal Arborist email Re: Silver Birch Trees

Hi 

WDC manage birch trees in much the same way as other Council’s have said – if a resident claims health issues related to birch trees we ask them to provide medical confirmation that it is caused by birch. Having said that most WDC birches are past there best so there removal can be justified on those grounds.

We don’t plant birches any more, haven’t done for many years and are slowly replacing them with more suitable species.

Regards

Chris ............................................................................................................. Chris Brockelbank Arborist WAIPA DISTRICT COUNCIL chris.brockelbank@waipadc.govt.nz | www.waipadc.govt.nz PH: 07 823 3823, extn 6549 | FAX: 07 872 0033

From: Bernardo Santos [mailto:bernardo.santos@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Monday, 18 September 2017 4:15 p.m. To: William Melville; 'Zeke Fiske'; Aidan Battrick; Claire Lilley; NZ Arb Municipal Arborist Group Subject: RE: Silver Birch Trees

Hi Claire,

Can’t say I have come across too many birch related cases here in Auckland as we probably don’t have as many silver birches as our southern counterparts.

Last year we had a case where two large cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) in the road reserve were supposedly causing respiratory issues. This claim was supported by a medical note by a GP. Upon investigating the issue, it was evident that there was a lot more to the complaint than allergen production (leaf drop, seed drop, shading, roots suckers, damage to footpath, etc…). In the case of cottonwoods, I found out that people wrongly blamed cottonwood seeds for causing respiratory issues since the release of the seeds coincides with pollen release of several different types of grasses. Grass pollens are tiny and not visible to the naked eye, thus people are quick to blame what they can see. The fact is that there are myriads of plants which cause allergies to people (privet, pohutukawa, pine, olive trees, all sorts of weeds) in New Zealand – removing one type tree may not solve the problem.

I also found a relevant study which may be of interest as it was conducted in New Zealand, though I believe it is somewhat biased towards the total annihilation of silver birches. The article claims that “silver birch is the main tree that causes allergic symptoms, including seasonal hay fever, asthma, and other health conditions such as food allergies (the oral allergy syndrome)” and goes as far as recommending that “The health-related problems of silver birch should be promulgated and trees should be removed”.

Will – interesting article as I was wondering myself if all species in the genus Betula were also problematic since Betula utilis ‘Jacquemontii’ is also quite popular in new developments here in Auckland. The tree itself performs quite well up here.

Kind regards Bernardo Santos Senior Specialist Advisor (Arboriculture) Parks Services Parks, Sports and Recreation M: 021 809 420 bernardo.santos@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Auckland Council, Level 5, Civic, 31–33 Manukau Station Road, Manukau City 2104

A857286 Page 12 of 13

From: Zeke Fiske [mailto:Zeke.Fiske@hcc.govt.nz]

Sent: Friday, 15 September 2017 7:52 a.m.

To: Aidan Battrick; Claire Lilley; NZ Arb Municipal Arborist Group

Subject: RE: Silver Birch Trees

Hi Claire,

HCC don’t have a policy of removing Silver Birch trees, though we have dealt with residents claiming allergies to Silver Birch.

We have gone the other way, more like Dunedin, in the sense that residents need to prove to HCC that they are in fact allergic to the particular Silver birch and that by removing it their allergies will improve (by visiting their doctor). Parks and Open Spaces made the decision with it being supported by the council after a complaint about Silver Birch trees to the Mayor. To date, no one in Hamilton has taken this route and been to their doctor. I liaised with Christchurch City Council around this issue when if first popped up, they have a rather in depth Policy around it, linked to the story Aidan mentions.

Our population of Silver birch trees is aged, so any removals, as you state below, are for that reason. We also have a large, much younger, population of River Birch trees which residents confuse as Silver Birch. Neither are planted as street trees any more.

Thanks

Zeke

From: Aidan Battrick [mailto:Aidan.Battrick@dcc.govt.nz]

Sent: Thursday, 14 September 2017 4:33 PM

To: Claire Lilley; NZ Arb Municipal Arborist Group

Subject: RE: Silver Birch Trees

Hi Claire

That’s a common request in Dunedin also. We have no policy or intention of systematically removing our Birches at the moment. All of these requests have been dealt with by myself at an operational level on a case by case basis. Obviously H&S is the first assessment matter but my approach has always been to keep the burden of proof with the applicant. I have not had any applicant follow through with providing such evidence so this approach may help with your repeat customer.

I do remember a case in Christchurch a couple of years ago where Birch trees were removed because of allergies being exasperated by the trees. Can’t recall all the detail but it was escalated to a political level.

www.radionz.co.nz/.../261528/council-to-remove-allergy-causing-trees

cheers

A857286 Page 13 of 13

From: Claire Lilley [mailto:Claire.Lilley@whanganui.govt.nz]

Sent: Thursday, 14 September 2017 10:54 a.m.

To: NZ Arb Municipal Arborist Group

Subject: Silver Birch Trees

Hi All,

Has anyone been dealing with particularly persistent residents wanting all silver birch trees removed due to allergies and does anyone have a policy of systematically removing them? If you do, do you have a time frame for this and was that a council decision or delegated within your section?

Luckily, or unluckily, many of our birch are typically rotten or significantly compromised structurally so I don’t object to the removal per se, but I believe the risk to health is low and a staged slow removal as and when they come up should be enough.

Just wanted to gauge the wider opinion.

Many thanks

Claire

Claire Lilley | Parks Officer 

P: +64 06 349 3076 | M: +64 027 4400 870 

www.whanganui.govt.nz Whanganui District Council | 101 Guyton Street | PO Box 637 | Whanganui 4500