Plan to increase Christchurch's tree coverage approved despite critics' barbs

Thursday, 8 June 2023

A plan to increase the tree coverage in Christchurch has been criticised for not being ambitious enough.

One submitter to the Christchurch City Council’s Urban Forest Plan told the council on Wednesday that it was aiming to take twice as long to plant fewer than half as many trees as other cities around the world.

But the council’s head of parks Andrew Rutledge said some of those cities were now realising their targets were too high and were reviewing them.

Rutledge said staff decided not to increase the tree canopy targets in the plan following public consultation because they needed to be achievable.

The council unanimously approved the Urban Forest Plan on Wednesday, but not before residents’ associations and individuals called for greater transparency around tree replacements and guarantees that some suburbs would not be forgotten.

They also wanted an end to developers’ “scorched earth” practice of clearing established trees instead of working with them.

The draft Urban Forest Plan proposes the city’s tree canopy goals. A tree canopy is defined as trees 3.5m and higher, and is measured by aerial surveys.

The plan aims to lift the proportion of the city covered by a residential tree canopy from 13% to 20% by 2070 and street tree canopy from 8% to 15% by 2070. The tree canopy in public “open spaces” is about 23% now. Under the plan it would be 40% by 2070.

The council decided, at the request of councillor Sara Templeton, to increase the street tree canopy target to 20% by 2070. It also opted to review the targets every three years, following a push by Cr Yani Johanson.

The lack of trees is most stark in some of Christchurch’s lowest socio-economic areas like Hornby and Linwood, where the tree canopy coverage sits at 6.5% and 8.9% respectively. Some of the city’s more affluent suburbs have the highest tree cover with Cashmere sitting at 21% and Fendalton at 19%. The plan will prioritise areas with low canopy cover.

However, resident Greg Partridge said Christchurch’s goals did not demonstrate ambition or the necessary urgency that came with declaring a climate emergency.

He compared the proposal to the plan in Melbourne, which was much larger than Christchurch but had existing tree cover of 22% and a target of 40% by 2040.

Christchurch’s sister city Adelaide planned to boost its canopy by 20% in areas which currently had less than 30% cover.

“That equates to [Christchurch] taking more than twice as long to achieve half as much,” Partridge said.

Garth Wilson, of the Central Riccarton Residents’ Association, said his community was struggling to see how the suburb’s tree cover could grow without more oversight of developers.

“They’re allowed to come in cut down every tree, every bush, every blade of grass,” he said.

Christchurch-based ecologist Colin Meurk also called for council to have greater oversight of developers, saying they appeared to have a “scorched earth” policy of clearing land to begin developments.

He said when it came to tree replacements the age of the tree should be considered. He did not consider it adequate to replacea 100-year-old tree with a seedling.

The council was attempting to change the district plan to bring in charges for companies behind new residential sites if their developments have less than 20% tree canopy cover.

Under the proposal, developers could retain or plant trees to reach the 20% mark, but if they did not meet the threshold they may have to pay between $30,000 and $60,000, depending on the size of the property.