Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br /> called by the City Council, opined that there are alternative sites that have far higher <br /> prospects of successful restoration planting than this one. [n short, he considered the <br /> combination of the difficult climatic conditions, the poor soil types and the slow growth <br /> are likely to compromise any realistic prospects of success with such a restoration <br /> programme. We agree. <br /> [30] Both ecologists, Dr E van Eyndhoven and Dr Lloyd, were agreed: <br /> (a) fencing a,td destocking dte restoration areas was unlikely to have <br /> immediate benefits, given the likely proliferation of weeds and cocksfoo[; <br /> (b) control of predators present in the area (including stoats, rabbits and <br /> possums) would be needed on an ongoing basis. <br /> Senescent trees <br /> [31] We note in passing that it was accepted by the appellant that they would crave to <br /> remove a number of trces for house site B. A number of other trees growing close to the <br /> proposed house site are likely to be affected and would, in our view, eventually be <br /> removed. The azgument appeared to be that these trees were senescent and thus in a <br /> state of decline. However, given the photographic evidence we saw, they appear to have <br /> been there for many decades and we were told might continue under the cuRent regime <br /> to survive for a number of decades: 50 years in Dr van Eyndhoven's opinion, and 50 to <br /> 150 years in the case ofDr Lloyd. <br /> [32] From the Court's point of view we therefore face [he prospect of particular <br /> uncertainty in respect of restoration planting on the one [rand compared with the known <br /> loss of trees which are continuing to grow (albeit in particularly diffcult climatic <br /> conditions, and where some have fallen and regrown). We are tentatively of the view <br /> that a consent for their removal is required under section 16.6.2 of the District Plan. We <br /> do not consider that these trees, even wind-thrown or dead standing trees, area [!treat to <br /> life or property (section 16.6.2.12). <br /> <br /> . a~y@:1L Ca Tye <br /> [33] We aclatowledge that there is the potential for increased adverse effect on dre <br /> ~.-~~-+:F:q remnant forest if, for example, deer were to be graztd in this area rather than sheep. <br /> ~~'[t' 'rir~l <br /> ,~r. <br /> 1, <br /> •i iLl l CT <br /> <br />