Should we protect special trees on public and private land? And what about looking after them? Is that something Council should help with?

Any tree of significence should be protected regardless of whether this creates development problems or not. The practice of removing all vegetation and soil prior to any development removes years of natural development which can not be replicated. All developers (residential, commercial and industrial)must submit design incorporating existing trees and present a plan to protect trees for the future. Naturally, native trees should be given preference over any introduced species. The concept is not to prevent development but to try to prevent the blank, featureless developments that have taken place in the past and, to assist, to provide a welcoming environment for residents, workers, shoppers. By enforcing concepts, similar to the above, we also encourage growth of our native bird population in the city.

Yes I certainly consider that Council should protect significant trees on Council land - roads and streets especially.

The reasons are:

an investigation, publicly transparent, should be considered before any modification or removal of significant trees is undertaken.

the interpretation of significant tree or trees needs better definition in addition to considering factors beyond the aborists' definition, taking into account such values as local community values - peoples' sympathetic identification with a tree and wildlife's value of or of several trees, i.e. Tui feeding in native or exotic trees (banksia / prunus) and bat roosts.

Council has already protected many trees on streets - Grey Street for example and the current policy not to protect would not necessarily stand very strongly within a District Plan review.

I am certainly aware that tree protection is not absolute - trees die eventually and may need pruning, but trees suffering destruction before public transparency leaves people upset and feeling powerless.

I feel the governments approach under the recent RMA amendment passed on a challenge and responsibility to local government to make different / better provision for tree protection

HCC need to ensure that there is no disincentive to purchaseing properties which have protected trees. Currently ownig a protected tree is a liability and owners usually have to apply for a resource consent to maintain trees. HCC need to recognise the service provided to Hamiltons Heritage by waiving consent fees and potentially subsidising maintenance work.

Trees are great but just be sensible about them - there are areas that people love because of the older tees (Ham East) but many are happy to purchase in North Hamilton with little or NO vegetatiion - my experience of these people is that the plant trees and gardens as soon as they move in - generally a regulation on this stuff leaves people stuck and having to live with dumb trees (a neighbour of mine planted a Kauri 20 years ago and it looks great now - but bags not live in this house in 100 years).

Hopefully there are other questions to comoe that are more meaningful and less emotive relating to the Natural environment issue

All interesting comments thanks. Council would really like the community to tell us what you would like protected and if we should provide incentives to look after what we have, so keep the comments coming and tell us what you think.

The heritage trees of Hamilton are very important to the cities character. Spaces only become a place over time, as trees grow and buildings change. For example if the hillside adjacent to the rowing clubs down by the river was to be newly vegetated the character of that place would be completely different, and it would be experienced differently, prehaps discouraging types of activity. But it is also important to consider that whilst the trees in Hamilton are beautiful they are also playing a role in the ecology, I think the council needs to make more provisions and funding for riparian planting throughout the region, Hamilton has a very poor water quality and the majority of it is running back into the river, is this not what we pride our city on?

Yes. Yes. Yes. For shade, beauty, and places for birds to perch. We need more trees of the sort that kids can climb. We also need more that produce edible nuts and fruits. For my family chestnut season is a special time. It should be an offence to fell a tree without permission. I couldn't believe that one of my neighbours knocked over a newly planted magnolia tree on the grass verge in front of his house so he could park his SUV there illegally at night.

It is vital that special trees on both private and public be protected in order to protect and enlarge bird, bat and other diversity in this city. Thatis quite apart from the beautification of the city created by the guardianship of special trees.

I think it is very important to protect the trees we have left in public spaces. Private is another matter. Hamiltons council needs to take responsibility for growing more trees in Hamilton City, especially natives to this area, its environmentally friendly and will make our city different from the rest. Turn Garden Place into a garden.

It's vital. We have already seen the public reaction to the developer who vandalised the trees on the proposed Eastgate site, and the revised district plan has to have enough teeth to prevent this kind of unthinking action by developers. Trees are essential in a city - they encourage birds, provide summer shade, help control air pollution, and give an invaluable link to the natural world for people living in built-up areas. However, some people may fear the introduction of highly restrictive laws such as those applied in places like Waiheke Island, where it is almost impossible to remove any tree over a certain height, even if it is causing damage to a house by excessive shading and root invasion. We need to be careful to introduce laws that give complete protection to significant trees while allow leeway for removal or modification of trees that are causing genuine problems.

Definately. One of the many of the problems with the moonscape of Rototuna is that there are no trees (or no trees of significance yet). Trees effect the neighbourhoods dramatically. However, if tree is deseased or dangerous, then health and safety must over ride its status. It would be up to the homeowner to maintain special/designated trees. If the tree is on public land, then it is the city's responsibilty. Perhaps there could be annual grants available or special discounts with certified arborists to aide homeowners to maintain those trees on their lands? Awards/recognition for significant trees within our city? Application for removal of significant trees of a certain size with no disease or safety concerns should be made public (big sign in front of the actual tree, not an advert in the paper) with a provision for the community/neighbourhood to have its say well in advance to avoid a repeat of the Hamilton East massacre.

Yes. Protect significant trees in urban spaces whether they be on private of public land.

Survey potential development land well in advance so green spaces and individual trees can be protected carefully during the development stages.

Subsidise owners of protected trees to help offset maintenance costs.

I definitely think that signifcant trees should be protected both on public and private property. There is no argument trees provide a huge amount of environmental and social services, e.g. moderate climate , provide shade, oxygen, soil stability, absorb sunlight, provide habitats for fauna and other flora, are a sustainable renewable resource, provide shelter, windbreaks, filter the air by removing particals, are aesthetically pleasing in the landscape, define landscape character......etc. etc.

Review the current system and provide incentives. Some proven methods, Standard Tree Evaluation Method (S.T.E.Ms), or Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture Notable Tree Evaluation Method.

The provison of incentives would more…