Dear Marlborough District Council,

Please see Information posted in Tony Hay OIR No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8 and 9 before proceeding.

My name is Tony Hay and I am the owner, along with my wife, of 42 Lakings Road, Springlands, Blenheim.

As a property owner the Marlborough District Council is responsible for keeping the trees growing on its property clear of overhead power lines and underground cables. In this case I am referring to the berm on the southern side of 42 Lakings Road, Springlands. The Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 (Tree Regulations) sets out Council’s obligations as a tree owner and prescribes the minimum safe distances for trees growing near network power lines. In this case we are talking about an electrical power transformer (a bit more than power line) opposite 41 Lakings Road. As a tree owner, Council is responsible for keeping trees clear of power lines.

Tree owners should be aware that trees are a hazard if they fall and damage power lines. The closest a tree can be located is calculated on the basis of the height of the tree plus 4 metres. Timothy Lovejoy from David James Tree Services estimated that at least 2 of the trees were over 30 metres high. Add the 4 metres to that and you get 34 metres. The distance from the Willow and Pin Oaks to the electrical power transformer is some 15 metres. It is the same distance to my house at 42 Lakings Road which I am not happy about.

I have already supplied the Council with an assessment by Marlborough Lines of the likely impact should one or more of the trees fall on the electrical power transformer.

In the official Information Request “Tony Hay - OIR No. 1 – Climate Change” the Council has accepted that:

• Acceptance by MDC – Council accepts that the world is undergoing climate change. It has signed the Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration in 2015; has an across-Council working group; and a climate change action plan.
• Planning and Decision Making Consideration – Council does take into account the effects of climate change in its planning and decision making.
• Health and Safety – Severe Weather Event – There are expected to be a number of factors related to changes in the climate including severe weather that may affect people’s health and safety.

A new report written in April 2021 by Koi Tū director, distinguished professor Sir Peter Gluckman and Koi Tū deputy director Dr Anne Bardsley, along with national and international expert input discusses risk assessment and perception, cognitive bias, and explores issues of accountability. Basically, it says better to get things done proactively rather than reactively.

The role of Government and Councils is to keep its citizens, environment and economy safe but high-risk but predictable and inevitable events are often ignored. The report stated that many high-risk events are foreseeable even if their timing cannot be predicted and these should be addressed by responsible parties.

The report entitled “Uncertain but inevitable: The Expert-Policy-Political Nexus and High-Impact Risks. April 2021” can be found here:

https://informedfutures.org/wp-content/u...

My Questions

Has Council read the report “Uncertain but inevitable: The Expert-Policy-Political Nexus and High-Impact Risks. April 2021” and is it taken into consideration in any of its planning and decision making. It not why not?

Council’s new “Tree Policy June 2020” makes reference to the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 in a number of places but fails to address the issues I have raised above. Why?

Are Council going to take notice of the above regulations and remove the 3 trees on the berm on the southern side of 42 Lakings Road, Springlands?

Yours faithfully,

Tony Hay

Dear Marlborough District Council,

Need a response to this within the 20 days as required which is the 23rd May 2021 NOT the 31st May 2021 .

Yours faithfully,

Tony Hay

Dear Tony Quirk-8077,

Thank you for your reply, however I consider that you have not adequately answered my questions.

Referring to my first question and your answer. What does the Council mean by political risks? No doubt Council is aware that the New Zealand Government has taken on the task of addressing climate change, so what are the political risks?

Referring to my second question and your answer. Is Council washing its hands of its responsibilities as detailed in “Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003” by not including it in Councils recently completed 2020 Tree Policy document and instead delegating it over to Marlborough Lines to police?

Referring to my third question and your answer. Council’s reply implies that at some stage they accept that the 3 trees should be removed. However, what exactly does “at this time” mean? Has the Council set a death / injuries / loss of electrical power threshold at which point they will remove the trees? What is this threshold?

Yours sincerely,

Tony Hay

Dear Tony Quirk-8077,

Thank you for your reply, however I consider that you have not adequately answered my questions.

Referring to my first question and your answer. What does the Council mean by political risks? No doubt Council is aware that the New Zealand Government has taken on the task of addressing climate change, so what are the political risks?

Referring to my second question and your answer. Is Council washing its hands of its responsibilities as detailed in “Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003” by not including it in Councils recently completed 2020 Tree Policy document and instead delegating it over to Marlborough Lines to police?

Referring to my third question and your answer. Council’s reply implies that at some stage they accept that the 3 trees should be removed. However, what exactly does “at this time” mean? Has the Council set a death / injuries / loss of electrical power threshold at which point they will remove the trees? What is this threshold?

Yours sincerely,

Tony Hay

Dear Tony Quirk-8077,

Thank you for your reply dated 2nd June 2021 which did not address my questions. However, I am going to politely again ask Council for answers to my questions. The regulations I am referring to in my Official Information Request are important and I don’t think Council should be belittling them by not answering my questions. So, not to confuse matters I will again spell out my questions and Council’s answers.

My original questions (dated 3rd May 2021).

Has Council read the report “Uncertain but inevitable: The Expert-Policy-Political Nexus and High-Impact Risks. April 2021” and is it taken into consideration in any of its planning and decision making. It not why not?

Council’s new “Tree Policy June 2020” makes reference to the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 in a number of places but fails to address the issues I have raised above. Why?

Are Council going to take notice of the above regulations and remove the 3 trees on the berm on the southern side of 42 Lakings Road, Springlands?

Councils reply to the questions above (dated 19th May 2021)

I have now received comment and respond as follows:

1. Officers are aware of the report quoted and, as with many decisions, there is a balance between assessing community, environmental, economic and political risks and prioritising these.

2. Council works closely with Marlborough Lines in terms of the regulations quoted.

3. Council, as has been previously stated, sees no reason at this time to readdress the decision already made.

My reply to Councils reply to my questions (dated 1st June 2021)

Thank you for your reply, however I consider that you have not adequately answered my questions.

Referring to my first question and your answer. What does the Council mean by political risks? No doubt Council is aware that the New Zealand Government has taken on the task of addressing climate change, so what are the political risks?

Referring to my second question and your answer. Is Council washing its hands of its responsibilities as detailed in “Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003” by not including it in Councils recently completed 2020 Tree Policy document and instead delegating it over to Marlborough Lines to police?

Referring to my third question and your answer. Council’s reply implies that at some stage they accept that the 3 trees should be removed. However, what exactly does “at this time” mean? Has the Council set a death / injuries / loss of electrical power threshold at which point they will remove the trees? What is this threshold?

Marlborough District Council please answer my questions to this Official Information Request and not to my private email address.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Hay

Dear Tony Quirk-8077,

Thank you for your reply advising me that I have the option to seek a review by the Office of the Ombudsman. I am well aware of this since I currently have at least 11 Official Information Requests outstanding. It is unfortunate that I am dealing with a Council that serially says “we are not going to answer your questions”.

I reiterate … Council has NOT answered my Questions and there is still a long way to go on this Official Information Request. I do not accept Council’s assertion that these regulations are contained in the 2020 Tree Policy.

It seems that if the Council does not like my questions it tries to terminate the discussion. Take the OIR – “Protection Orders on Trees on Rate Payers properties” dated September 29, 2019. Council had “moved” an English Oak tree from Council berm (where it was perfectly entitled to have a protection order placed on the tree) onto a ratepayer’s property keeping the protection order in place. I questioned whether this was legal since the property owner had not given permission. Council subsequently replied to my private email address and then insisted that I had given permission to do this. I had not. Council never replied to this OIR and it has a status of “Response is long overdue. You can complain to the Ombudsman”.

It has been a disappointment to me that the Marlborough Councillors who are supposed to represent the interests of Marlborough Ratepayers have not shown any interest bar Nadine Taylor, who persuaded Council to run what I consider a biased survey after the tree culling that took place some 15 years after I bought the property. See “Tony Hay – OIR Nos. 5 and 6.

The most important responsibility of a Lines Company is to protect the security of the supply of electricity through the network, the safety of the public and the delivery of power to its customers.

I have spoken to a number of Marlborough Lines staff and they have mentioned to me that there is disquiet over Marlborough Lines (ML) not pursuing the Marlborough District Council (MDC) over trees on Council berm that would adversely threaten the electric power availability in Marlborough should a severe weather event take place.

ML employees have specifically mentioned to me that the trees outside 42 Lakings Road as well as those on the corner of Redwood Street and Wither Road are at issue which is why I am pursuing this. Here we have a similar situation where the electrical power transformer outside 203 Redwood Street is vulnerable to the tree on the opposite side of the road. We also have a number of trees threating power lines on the corner of Redwood Street and Wither Road including a number with protection orders on them. Is this the reason MDC made the comment “political risks”?

I have obtained from ML information as to the impact should the electric power transformer outside 41 Lakings Road be completely destroyed. This information has been passed onto MDC. Some 63 properties will lose power and as you would expect live cables will threaten the public. I have requested similar information from ML as to the impact should the electric power transformer be totally destroyed outside 203 Redwood Street.

As well as the 2 electrical power transformers I have referred to, ML has over 3,000 distribution power transformers. I have requested information from ML as to whether any of these are threatened in a similar manner by trees.

At this stage I think I should bring Council up to speed on the regulations I am talking about in this OIR. The purpose of these regulations is to protect the security of the supply of electricity, and the safety of the public. They come under Worksafe Regulation 22 of the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003, a tree owner (MDC) can apply to a government appointed arbitrator to determine a dispute between the tree owner (MDC) and a networks owner (ML). Now it seems that the problem here is that neither the MDC nor ML is interested in pursuing this since MDC has stated earlier in this OIR that the “Council works closely with Marlborough Lines in terms of the regulations quoted”.

MDC and ML are both culable and are playing with the lives of Marlborough Ratepayers. Is it a case of Ratepayers just being regarded as “collateral” as I alluded to in “Tony Hay – OIR No. 3 – Health and Safety”.

Obviously, neither the MDC or ML are taking into consideration Ratepayers who depend on an uninterrupted supply of electricity. Remember, if Marlborough experiences a severe weather event, and that is inevitable, then the supply of electricity may be crucial. The more we can restrict the devastation to the electrical infrastructure the better. Would it not be prudent to get on top of this potential problem sooner rather than later as I have documented in my original OIR request.

Since I believe that what I am advocating for is very important I have decided to supply this information to the Ratepayers of Lakings Road along with side streets as well as the properties around Redwood Street and Wither Road.

As regards the “Electricity (hazards from trees) regulations 2003” I will be putting a submission into Worksafe.

https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/laws-and-re...

Yours sincerely,

Tony Hay