Month: February 2025

Q. What is a ‘Character Area’ according to the Christchurch City Council?

A. Character Areas (previously known as Special Amenity Areas or SAMs) are areas in residential neighbourhoods that are distinctive from their surroundings and are considered to have a character worthy of retention.
The Christchurch District Plan includes character area overlays in 15 Christchurch locations.
https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/resource-consents/resource-consent-activities/residential-and-housing/character-areas

‘The Management of Suburban Amenity Values in Christchurch City’, July 1997
Suburban Amenity Christchurch Report
– Page 20
The amenity values and garden city design of Christchurch are to a large extent the result of the vision shown by the city fathers in designing and providing the city’s green spaces over 100 years ago.
City heritage is expressed through the city’s inherited assets including buildings, places, objects, trees, natural features, archaeological sites, and sites of significance to tangata whenua.
– Page 21
Special Amenity Areas
Special Amenity Areas (SAMs) have been identified in Living Zones as areas with special aspects or characteristics that contribute to the pleasantness of an area including the scale, age and style of buildings, the lack of intrusions or the level of intactness, the combination of streetscape and vegetation, and the intimacy of the street scene.

Christchurch Suburban Character Areas Assessment, January 2015
Assessment Report
– 7 Character Areas 10 and 10a: Slater / Poulton and Dudley Assessment
Pages 39 – 44
– 18 Character Area 37: Emmett Street Assessment
Pages 111 – 117
18.1 Area Description
Character Area 37 is located in Mairehau, north of Shirley Road and west of Marshland Road to the north-east of the central city.
Character Area 37 comprises the length of Emmett Street.
The area has been identified as a Character Area due to the consistent style and era of dwellings (primarily consisting of state housing of the 1940s and 1950s), consistently generous street setbacks, low or no fencing (enabling good visual connectivity between dwellings and the street), well-landscaped gardens and a relatively narrow, high-amenity streetscape. The street pattern is a curvilinear street, which wraps around McFarlane Park.
18.2 Streetscape Elements
The underlying topography of the site is flat, with no notable long or short views. This area has significant streetscape quality, with a street width of approximately 20m and wide grass berms (approximately 3m) on either side of the carriageway (located between the carriageway and the footpath) within which mature street trees are planted (spaced at approximately 15m down the length of the street).
These street trees create a canopy over the street and this in conjunction with the grass berms, large front yard setbacks and small scale of dwellings give the street a spacious yet intimate character & provide a pleasant pedestrian environment.
18.4 Conclusion
The continuity and coherence of Character Area 37 – comprising of the streetscape and site character elements (landscape and built form) is consistent.
This Character Area has approximately 92% of sites that are classified as either primary or contributory.
– Page 121
Character Area 37: Emmett Street
Recommendations: It is recommended that Character Area 37 – Emmett Street, is retained as a Character Area in its entirety (as illustrated in the Site Classification and Boundary Map, Appendix 16).

‘The Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan’, 2 May 2015
Character Areas Info Sheet
– Christchurch City Character Areas (Formerly ‘Special Amenity Areas’)
Character Areas, which used to be known as special amenity areas (or SAMs) will be changed as a result of proposals in stage two of the district plan review.
– Character Areas are residential parts of the city that contain a set of qualities (eg building style/type/age) that make the area distinctive and of value to the district.
– There will be two types of Character Areas:
Category 1 Character Areas have the highest character value.
Category 2 Character Areas have moderate character value and the rules mainly seek to retain the streetscape character between the house and the street boundary.
– CA 11: Dudley, SAM 10 (Slater/Poulton), Category 1, Restricted Discretionary Activity – rule 14.2.2.3.22 RD22
– CA 32: Emmett SAM 37 (Emmett Street), Category 1, Restricted Discretionary Activity – rule 14.2.2.3.22 RD22

Christchurch Suburban Residential Character Areas, July 2015
Classification & Boundary Maps for Category 1 Character Areas
– Page 6
Appendix 5 – Character Areas 10 and 10a: Site Classification and Boundary Map (Dudley)
– Page 22
Appendix 16 – Character Area 37: Site Classification and Boundary Map (Emmett)

Partial Assessment of Benefits and Costs of Character Areas, 18 August 2015
Assessment Report
– Page 3
1.3 Engaged by the Christchurch City Council (Council) to provide
evidence on the assessment of the costs and benefits of the Character Area rules in the Residential Proposal of the proposed Replacement District Plan (pRDP).
– Page 4
3.1 The analysis undertaken in the Report comprises an objective assessment of the benefits of Character Areas (hedonic valuation), and subjective assessment of the benefits and costs of the Character Areas (survey).
– Page 31
4.2 Sample Method
Letters were sent by the Christchurch City Council (CCC) on 9 July 2015 to all households within the Character Area, excluding properties belonging to Housing New Zealand, Orion and the Council.
The letter noted that the household was within a Character area, and requested that they fill out the survey with the web link directing them to the site.
4.3 Response
The survey received 430 responses, of which 70 were discarded as incomplete. A further 3 were removed because they responded that they were not within any of the listed character areas.
Of the 357 completed responses 110 came from the Beckenham Loop area, and a further 73 from Dudley.
These two areas therefore contribute strongly to the overall responses, but analysis of the sample shows that the sample is reasonably representative.
These two largest groups (Dudley and Beckenham Loop) are represented in the sample at approximately the same proportion as their representation in the overall character area.
– Page 32
Figure 3: Survey sample representation by Character Area designation
– Page 33
Table 3: Response count and proportion by character area
CA 32 – Emmett (Emmett Street)
Response Count = 13, Response Proportion = 3.6%, Proportion of properties in total = 7%
[See 4.2 “excluding properties belonging to Housing New Zealand”, this area of Shirley is predominately Housing New Zealand.]
– Page 35
Figure 5: Question 3 – important aspects of character areas (proportion of respondents)
‘Street Trees’ received over 70%, 2nd to ‘Age and style of houses’
– Page 52
Table 5: Comparative data for Question 3 – Aspects of character areas

Independent Hearings Panel, 18th August 2015
Urban Design – Character Areas, Overlays and the Residential Small Settlement Zone Built Forms Standards
– Page 9
Matters of agreement
(c) The deletion of CA32 Emmett Street
– Page 26
Submission #2378 (Crown)
7.3 In addition to the Category 2 Character Areas, the Crown identifies Category 1 Character Areas with a high rate of Housing New Zealand Corporation property ownership. These are CA32 Emmett, CA29 Auburn and CA7 Piko.
7.4 While distinctly different from each other, each of the areas identified by the Crown reflects a highly intact street layout, subdivision pattern, site and building layouts and landscape qualities that are highly representative of the eras in which they were established.
7.5 Of these areas, CA 32 Emmett offers the most substantial gain in housing density under the Comprehensive Housing Redevelopment Mechanism (CHRM), particularly in conjunction with the wider Shirley area which has been the subject of a master plan process for redevelopment undertaken by Housing New Zealand Corporation in consultation with Council.
While I support the retention of all three Character Areas, from a resource management perspective and taking into account the Ministers’ SOE, with my knowledge of potential residential density gains of Emmett Street within the wider context of Shirley, I consider that the area provides significant benefit in respect to the potential increase in residential unit numbers, if redeveloped comprehensively. As such, I do not oppose the deletion of CA 32 Emmett Street.

‘Council moves to protect special areas from new housing rules’, 26 Nov 2021
https://www.newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/council-moves-to-protect-special-areas-from-new-housing-rules
Christchurch City Council is assessing which areas of the city would be unsuitable to enable more housing when the government’s new rules are applied.
The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and the recently-announced Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and other matters) Amendment Bill will make it easier for new housing to be built in cities around the country as local Councils will have less ability to request resource consents for proposed developments.
However, Councils will be able manage housing development in areas they deem unsuitable if features or areas are listed in the Christchurch District Plan as ‘qualifying matters’.
Some qualifying matters have already been listed in the NPS-UD, such as outstanding natural features and landscapes, natural hazards and historic heritage. Although the Council can include other matters as qualifying matters, the NPS-UD limit this to matters that are site-specific, supported by evidence, and where the costs and broader impacts of imposing these limits are assessed.

‘Character areas protected from housing intensification rules’, 13 Apr 2022
https://www.newsline.ccc.govt.nz/environment/story/character-areas-protected-from-housing-intensification-rules
Residential areas of Christchurch with special character value are being protected from new housing intensification rules.
Christchurch City Council has begun consulting with the public on its Draft Housing and Business Choice Plan Change, which will enable medium density housing development to occur in most residential parts of the city without the need for resource consent.
Residential areas can only be exempted from those rules if Councils can provide evidence that they are unsuitable for the amount of increased housing enabled by the legislation, referred to in the legislation as ‘Qualifying Matters’.
“We have taken the position in our Draft Housing and Business Choice Plan Change that most of the 15 Character Area overlays in the current Christchurch District Plan meet the threshold to become Qualifying Matters,” says Council Head of Planning and Consents John Higgins.
“We are proposing that these areas should be treated differently than other residential areas in the city, meaning the amount of intensification allowed should be reduced,” Mr Higgins says.
Character Areas are identified in the District Plan as areas in residential neighbourhoods that are distinctive from their wider surroundings and are considered to be worthy of retaining.
They were last reviewed in 2015, on the basis that at least 80 percent of the properties in the area contributed to the character values that made it special. [The Emmett Character Area has approximately 92% of sites that are classified as either primary or contributory].
“Residential character is created from the way that different physical elements of our neighbourhoods come together,” explains Mr Higgins.
“This might include the combination of a landscape setting, such as a riverside esplanade or an avenue of trees, or with a grouping of properties with buildings of the same era, with consistent architecture and scale. [Emmett Street]
These character areas can make neighbourhoods feel quite special and we want to protect them as much as we can,” Mr Higgins says.
Examples of remaining character areas include Dudley in Richmond.

Land Use Recovery Plan, April 2024
Appendix 2: Amendments to the Christchurch City Plan
Amendment 1B: Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism (CHRM)
– Page 18
Community Housing Unit: means a residential unit supplied by Christchurch City Council, Housing New Zealand or a Registered Community Housing provider (under Part 10 of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act, 1992) and which is offered for rental as Social Housing (as defined at Section 2 of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act, 1992).
Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism, Map 8 Shirley
– Page 26
Map 8 Shirley, extent of the proposed CHRM Area.

Christchurch City Council Residential Intensification, 2025
https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/resource-consents/resource-consent-activities/residential-and-housing/residential-intensification
– Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism
Community houses are rental social housing units supplied by Christchurch City Council, Housing New Zealand Corporation, a not-for-profit housing organisation, or a Registered Community Housing provider.
– What is the Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism?
The Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism (CHRM) is a set of rules in the District Plan that apply to specific areas of Christchurch that contain clusters of social or community housing. The rules enable medium density redevelopment to provide for better use of land and a wider range of housing types to suit different kinds of households (e.g. town houses and terrace houses).

It was ironic to find during my research, that these ‘Character Areas’ on either side of Shirley Road have received different fates based on their ‘original’ social housing status & ‘current’ community housing status, by being excluded due to the Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism (CHRM) rules.

See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/site-history/
Chancellor Street Heritage Houses
“New Zealand Premier ‘King’ Dick Seddon’s Liberal Government (1893-1906) wanted architectural variety, rather than uniformity, in the design of the workers’ dwellings. Local architects submitted entries to design competitions held throughout New Zealand and the dwellings were built by local contractors.”
“The Chancellor Street houses also form part of New Zealand’s heritage of state housing generally. The setting is the original 1914 rectangular land parcel with a small garden between the house and the roadway and a larger open space at the rear.”
Dudley Character Area
“In Christchurch, some of these homes were designed by some prominent local architects including Hurst Segar, Cecil Wood, Barlow and England.
Three pockets of these homes were built in Christchurch in 1918 to 1920, one being in Chancellor Street. Of the three pockets of these homes built in Christchurch, little remains of the other two, so Chancellor Street is unique in the fact that they are all still there and are in good hands.”

“Richard Seddon, concerned at the number of homeless and substandard conditions, decided that the the State should play a larger part in housing. Seddon came from England and had seen for himself good quality council housing available to low income families.”
https://www.riseuprichmond.nz/dudley-character-area/

So while Dudley Character Area in North Richmond remains, Emmett Character Area in Shirley has been removed.

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better it’s not.”
The Lorax by Dr. Seuss

UNLESS someone…cares:
– Richard Seddon cared & we have the Chancellor Street Heritage Houses, which influenced the Dudley Character Area.
– George Brington Malcolm cared & we have benefited from his vision in the Emmett Street Oak Trees & MacFarlane Park.

Christchurch City Council please care…
‘Save our Trees’…’Save our Character Area’…’Save our History’…
Let us ‘Tell Our Stories’ to inspire the future generations living around Shirley by:
– looking at other options to save George Malcolm’s Emmett Street Oak Trees.
– if an Oak Tree can’t be saved, please save it’s wood, so that it can be repurposed in a new Centre building at 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve or
– creating a carving/sculpture to be placed in MacFarlane Park by the Shirley Community Gardens on Jebson Street, to honor George Malcolm &
– create a new canopy of Oak Trees, either side of the MacFarlane Park path from Jebson Street to Acheson Avenue, to replace the Oak Trees that have been removed already from Emmett Street.
– create a new building at 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve, where we can continue to ‘Tell Our Stories’ in a new Shirley Centre, that George Malcolm’s Oak Trees are still a part of Shirley’s character & identity, as we continue to protect our environment for Shirley residents (people & wildlife) to benefit from now & in the future.

Q. What is a ‘Significant Tree’ according to the Christchurch City Council?

A. “Trees are a major part of the city’s character and amenity.
Trees are identified as being ‘significant’ because they have particular botanical, heritage, amenity, landscape, cultural, ecological and/or environmental values.”
https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/resource-consents/resource-consent-activities/general-rules-and-information/protected-trees-and-guidelines

“A society grows great, when old men plant trees, whose shade they know, they shall never sit it.” – Greek Proverb

‘Trees to be pruned’, The Press, 18th June 1985
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19850618.2.53
The trees in Emmett Street will not be topped but they will be pruned, the City Council decided last evening. Residents of the Shirley street petitioned the council to have the pin oaks that line the street topped to let in more light, and avoid power and telephone lines.
The council believes that topping the trees would spoil their natural beauty.
Several councillors agreed that the trees did inhibit lighting in the street and some branches did grow over property boundaries. However, they did not want to see the mature trees topped or removed.
The director of parks and recreation reserves, Mr Neiel Drain, said the Emmett Street trees were pruned regularly. Topping would promote bushy growth that would further inhibit light and cause problems with overhead lines.
The council supported the retention of the parks and recreation department’s practice of pruning street trees to retain the natural form and beauty of the trees and approved its adoption for all street trees belonging to the council.

4.0 Rules ­ Special Purpose (Road) Zone
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/City-plan/14-V3-Part-8.pdf
4.5.4 Removal or major pruning of any tree in Road Zone
Updated 14 November 2005
Category B ­
Street plantings of special historic, landscape and specimen value
Emmett Street: Landscape

Greenspace Traffic Works Committee, 4th March 2009, Meeting Minutes
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/council/agendas/2009/april/spgreenspacetrafficworks1st/shirleypapanuigreenspacetrafficworkscommitteeagenda1april2009.pdf
Pages 3 – 8
Purpose of Report: To recommend that the Board recommend to Council that the request to undertake height reduction pruning (topping) of the protected scarlet oak trees in Emmett Street be declined.
Executive Summary: The trees in Emmett Street are protected through the Christchurch City Plan for their landscape value under Volume 3: Part 8 Special Purpose Zone 4.5.4 Removal or major pruning of any tree in Road Zone as category B trees.
Legal Considerations: The rules for pruning trees protected under Part 8 Special Purpose Zones are :
“In addition to any relevant rules applicable to listed protected trees in Appendix 4, part 10 of the Plan, within any of the streets listed in the SP (Road) Zone listed below:
(a) No tree shall be removed”
The Greenspace Manager has the following delegation with respect to trees:
“In consultation with any other units affected and the relevant Community Board, authorise the planting or removal of trees from any reserve or other property under the Manager’s control.”
Therefore the delegated authority to approve or decline this request lies with the Transport and Greenspace Manager or the Community Board.

Volume 2 : Section 4 City Identity
4.2.1 Policy: Tree Cover
To promote amenity values in the urban area by maintaining and enhancing the tree cover present in the City. Tree cover and vegetation make an important contribution to amenity values in the City. Through the redevelopment of sites, existing vegetation is often lost and not replaced. The City Plan protects those trees identified as “heritage” or “notable” and the subdivision process protects other trees which are considered to be “significant”.

4.2.2 Policy: Garden City
To recognise and promote the “Garden City” identity, heritage and character of Christchurch. A key aspect of achieving this policy will be maintaining and extending environments and vegetation types which compliment this image.
A broad range of matters influence and contribute to this image, including the following:
– tree-lined streets and avenues
– parks and developed areas of open space

14.3.2 Policy: “Garden City” image identity
To acknowledge and promote the “Garden City” identity of the City by protecting, maintaining and extending planting which compliments this image.

Volume 3: Part 8 Special Purpose Zone
14.3.5 Street Trees
Nearly half the length of streets within the city contains street trees, but the presence of very high quality street trees which add considerable presence to streets and neighbourhoods is confined to a relatively small proportion of the road network. These streets add particular character and amenity of the city, either in the form of avenues which form points into the city, or an important part of the local character of particular streets.

Background:
31. The scarlet oak trees in Emmett Street were planted in 1950 and 1970.
There are 115 trees.
32. They are significant to Christchurch City as a landscape feature for size, form and age.
33. It is possible that they also have significance to Christchurch for commemorative purposes as it has been suggested that they were planted to commemorate soldiers in World War II. This has not been confirmed.
34. Topping the trees would have a negative effect on them as a landscape feature and would negate the reason why they were protected.
35. A conservative value of $2.7 million (using STEM Standard Tree Evaluation Method, which is the national aboricultural industry standard for evaluating and valuing amenity trees) has recently been placed on them. Topping them would reduce the value by approximately $900,000.
36. Approving the request may lead to residents with similar requests (e.g. Massey Crescent, Severn Street, Dudley Street etc) expecting the same result.
This would have serious consequences for the Garden City image.
37. Council has declined similar requests from residents in other streets with significant trees.

The Preferred Option:
(a) decline the request to reduce the height of the trees in Emmett Street; and
(b) that the trees in Emmett Street be maintained to internationally recognised and accepted arboricultural standards and practices.

Christchurch City Council Proposed Tree Policy, March 2010
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/Council/agendas/2010/August/ShirleyPapanui18th/Clause7Attachment1ProposedTreePolicy.pdf
– Trees make an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of Christchurch’s residents and to the Garden City image through the quality of the city’s landscape.
– Trees play a vital ecological, environmental, heritage, financial and cultural role. They have an important contribution to make in the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
– Christchurch is internationally recognised as the Garden City and one of the city’s greatest assets is its trees.
– This is a tribute to those people past and present who on public and private land have planted a wide range of trees and other vegetation.
– The rate of development and urban intensification places pressure on privately owned protected trees and those that are not protected through the City Plan.
– Urban intensification places more pressure on public spaces to provide the vegetation amenity that was once provided for on private land.
– Retention of existing juvenile and mature trees, replacing old trees and the planting of new trees in public spaces therefore presents a significant contribution to retaining and enhancing the city’s Garden City image.
– Council considers that it should be seen as taking a proactive stance by retaining trees wherever possible within the environment.

Q. So how did the ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ go from being ‘significant’ to Christchurch City, part of the “Garden City” identity & “an important part of the local character of a particular street”: Emmett Street, to receiving a ‘Start Work Notice’ (SWN) in January 2025, for 17 of Malcolm’s Oak Trees to be removed?

A. “As a result of a process introduced under the Canterbury Earthquake emergency powers legislation (the CER Act), protection is being removed from 80% of Christchurch’s notable trees.
We are a group who has organised to fight this environmental disaster, coming on top of so much other earthquake loss.
So far we have negotiated a deal which would see more than 900 of these trees saved. We need help to save the rest, and to make sure that no one backs out of the agreement that has already been reached.”
https://givealittle.co.nz/fundraiser/chchnotabletrees/

Independent Hearings Panel, March 2015
Christchurch Replacement District Plan
https://chchplan.ihp.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Decision-63-Schedule-1-Chapter-9.4-Trees-Appendix-9.4.7.pdf
– Appendix 9.4.7.1.2 – Schedule of Groups of Trees
Pages 53 – 57
– Appendix 9.4.7.2 – Schedule of Significant Trees in Road Corridors, Parks, Reserves and Public Open Space
Pages 58 – 106
Malcolm’s ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ are not included in either Appendix.

‘Tree Protection Change Rankles Christchurch Residents’
The Press, January 29, 2016
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/76383155/tree-protection-change-rankles-christchurch-residents
– Big beautiful trees are an integral part of Christchurch’s garden city image.
Rules protect thousands of trees on private land, but under the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan protection measures for those trees are in for some radical changes.
– Under the current Christchurch District Plan, the tree is listed as a Protected and Notable tree but under the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan, which is currently the subject of an extensive hearing process…
– The new schedule under the proposed plan cuts the list of about 1600 protected trees on private land to only 400 by using a new assessment method.
Predictably the massive excision of a host of clearly loved trees in the garden city has caused consternation.
– The controversy is partly about the assessment process used to prune the list of trees on the current list of 1600 trees.
– The council used a system called the Christchurch Tree Evaluation Methodology (CTEM) to come up with the new list. The system is designed to overcome the subjectivity of the assessor and the ability of a tree to become listed because of a high score in one category, such as age.
– Submitters opposing the new method and list are worried about the threshold and the lack of importance attached to the landscape values of trees.
– [Arborist Michael] Ontash sees problems with that. He says that could potentially withdraw protection from over 2800 significant trees that might score below the threshold using CTEM but still make a large contribution to the garden city image.

‘Call To Save Christchurch Trees’
RNZ, 7 February 2016
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/regional/295951/call-to-save-christchurch-trees
– Christchurch residents are urging the council to save more than 1500 heritage and notable trees from being delisted and losing protection in the city’s plan.
– A group of advocates for the trees is raising money through a “give a little” campaign for a legal challenge to the proposal.
– Some trees listed as notable under the current Christchurch District Plan, will not be protected under the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan.
– The new law, which is being fast-tracked under earthquake recovery legislation, would change planning rules to make it easier to develop property, reducing the number of protected trees by 80 percent.
– Mark Belton is a professional forester and advocate for heritage trees. He told Radio New Zealand’s Sunday Morning programme that Christchurch had the greatest variety of trees of any city on the planet.
– Another opponent of the rule change, Barbara Stewart, said the council was considering reducing the number of protected trees from 1900 to just 380.
She said after losing so many old buildings to the earthquakes, the city’s trees were one of its few remaining connections to the past.
Ms Stewart described removing the trees’ protection as a man-made disaster.

‘Council Reneges On Deal To Protect Trees’
RNZ, 5 August 2016
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/310195/council-reneges-on-deal-to-protect-trees
– Christchurch City Council is being accused of shameful behaviour in going back on an agreement to protect the city’s notable trees.
– In February, it signed an agreement with heritage advocates to save more than 800 trees that faced losing their protected status because of changes to planning rules.
It has now cancelled that agreement.
– One of those who wants the trees protected, Mark Belton, said some of them dated back to when the city was first settled.
They were one of the few reminders of the past in a city that had lost most of its heritage buildings to the earthquakes, he said.
“This is something the people of Christchurch really expressed a preference for in the Share An Idea exercise where people were given an opportunity to express what sort of city they wanted and the most overwhelming response was about making the city greener and more attractive.
“And then we have these sorts of things happening which are essentially driving the whole process in reverse.”

“On October 7, 2016 the Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) publicly notified its Tree decision – a decision that overall, has delivered a positive outcome.
The key elements of the IHP’s decision are as follows:
1) Our Mediated Agreement with the Christchurch City Council has been upheld, with 80% of the original 1623 trees on private land remaining on the Christchurch Plan schedule;
2) The Panel has also directed that the 724 listed trees on public land be returned to the Plan; and
3) The new Plan still contains a suite of provisions (objective, policies and rules) that continue to provide recognition and some protection for scheduled trees.
Overall, although we have lost some very good trees and still retain misgivings for the future (particularly given the culture within Council that proposed so drastic a reduction (ca. 84%) of the Heritage and Notable tree schedule in the first place) we believe this is a very good result for the Christchurch community and the landscape character of our city.
https://givealittle.co.nz/fundraiser/chchnotabletrees/updates

“2) The Panel has also directed that the 724 listed trees on public land be returned to the Plan”, but the ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ were not returned to the Christchurch District Plan & are no longer classified as ‘significant’ or protected for the future.

Significant Trees Qualifying Matters Technical Report, June 2022
Christchurch City Council Report
– Page 5
17. Varying forms, shapes and textures of trees contributes to the amenity values3 of a place. By providing specific landmarks within an urban landscape, the physical feature of a tree can help identify a specific location. Through physical responses to the environment, trees can add micro-changes to an urban landscape, such as responses to the wind and shading effects. Through their own growth and seasonal
change, trees allow people to mark change over time. Urban structures, in comparison, can be erected within months and then remain unchanging, providing only a very limited sense of change over time.
18. Trees are also valued as they connect with people’s historical associations and memories. In addition, trees within the urban landscapes are easily accessible on a daily basis as they are located in proximity to where people live.
– Page 6
18. Trees are often planted for sentimental or cultural reasons…Public and private trees are also planted as markers, as physical links to sister Cities, or as records of notable events and memorials…Over time, these trees become even more valuable to the community and provide a human connection with history.
– Page 8
3.2 CTEM Criteria for Group Trees
36. Group of Trees means a cluster, grove, or line of trees (including the root systems) that may be the same or variable species, either planted or naturally occurring that:
are located in close geographic proximity to each other and meet at least one of the following criteria: canopies are touching; or canopies are overlapping…
– Page 15
3.4.7 Visibility
Visibility is a measure of the prominence of the tree in the wider landscape…It is a measure of how far the tree can be seen from, and is different from “Location”,
which is a measure as to the frequency of viewing.
3.4.8 Location
Location is a measure of how many people see the tree(s) and is based on site profile e.g. road hierarchy…The tree is assessed based on where it is located. e.g. if the tree is located in an urban park that borders an urban arterial road…
[The ‘Emmett Street Trees’ are off Shirley Road, which is a Minor Arterial Road & the trees are clearly visible at this intersection].
– Page 23
3.6.2 Heritage
Association: There is a recorded association with a major natural or planned event, or an eminent person by the presence of a plaque or other written record.
Commemoration: Well documented planting to commemorate an occasion or occasions of importance in New Zealand’s history such as battles or treaties.
– Page 29
127. Over time, these trees become even more valuable to the community and provide a human connection with history, though they may not be yet listed as Heritage under the District Plan.
128. Recording these historical human connections becomes more important through time.
– Page 31
136. Trees perform very important environmental, social and cultural services within current and future urban landscapes. Trees that are listed in the Schedule of Significant Trees have the highest legal protection afforded to trees in Christchurch.
– See also: 3.4.9 Role, 3.5 Environmental and Ecological, 3.5.1 Services, 3.5.2 Canopy Volume, 3.6 Exceptional Evaluation & 3.6.1 Landscape.

Christchurch District Plan (2025)
Chapter 9 Natural and Cultural Heritage
9.4 Significant and Other Trees
https://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz/?docId=BJN6TOTWF9M%3d

9.4.2.1.1 Objective – Trees
a. Maintain and enhance the contribution of the Christchurch District’s significant trees listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1, and trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space, to community amenity through:
i. landscape character and amenity;
ii. heritage and cultural values;
iii. purification of air and rainwater;
iv. releasing oxygen and storing carbon;
v. cooling of the built environment and waterways;
vi. stormwater and erosion management; and
vii. biodiversity protection and enhancement;
while providing for the reasonable use and enjoyment of property and landowner responsibilities.

9.4.2.2 Policies
9.4.2.2.1 Policy – Identification and assessment of significant trees for scheduling in the District Plan
a. Identify trees, including groups of trees, and assess them for significance and/or exceptional values according to the following:
i. botanical value;
ii. historic heritage value;
iii. amenity value;
iv. landscape value;
v. cultural value; and
vi. ecological and/or environmental value.

9.4.2.2.3 Policy – Tree protection
a. Protect from inappropriate physical works:
i. trees that are listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1, particularly those trees identified as having exceptional values; and
ii. trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space where they provide amenity value and/or collectively contribute to the character and environmental quality of the Christchurch District, to the extent consistent with maintaining the multiple functions of road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space.

9.4.2.2.4 Policy – Tree maintenance
a. To enable the maintenance and management of trees that are listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1 and trees in the road corridors, parks, public open space and reserves in recognition that such works may be necessary to:
i. ensure the continuing health, structural integrity and amenity value of the trees;
ii. enable the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property and surrounds; and
iii. minimise the risk from the trees to public safety, property, buildings, strategic infrastructure and electricity distribution lines.

9.4.2.2.5 Policy – Trees and utilities
a. Where it would not be reasonable to locate outside of the dripline of a significant tree listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1 due to locational, technical or operational requirements, ensure that the utility is appropriately designed, located and installed to maintain as far as practicable the specific values of the tree.

9.4.2.2.6 Policy – Trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space
a. Road corridors, parks, reserves, and public open space are planted with trees to enhance environmental, landscape, cultural, social and economic values.
b. Identify significant trees, including groups of trees, in road corridors, parks, reserves, and public open space and list them in Appendix 9.4.7.2.

9.4.2.2.7 Policy – Felling of trees
a. For trees listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1:
i. limit the felling of significant trees, except where there are no reasonable alternatives enabling retention of the tree due to its condition, or where the use and enjoyment of a property and surrounds is significantly compromised or diminished; and
ii. avoid the felling of significant trees that are identified as having exceptional values, except where there are no reasonable alternatives, or where the use and enjoyment of a property and surrounds is significantly compromised or diminished.
b. Limit the felling of trees in road corridors, parks, public open space and reserves having regard to size, location and species, except where there are no reasonable alternatives.

9.4.3 How to interpret and apply the rules
a. To understand whether a site has a significant tree(s), including groups of trees, listed in the Schedule of Significant Trees, and the nature of this listing, refer to Appendix 9.4.7.1 and the planning maps.
b. The rules that apply to significant trees and trees in parks, road corridors, reserves and public open space are contained in the activity status tables (including activity specific standards) in Rules 9.4.4.1.1 – 9.4.4.1.6. Trees listed in Appendix 9.4.7.2 form part of the wider set of trees referred to as trees in road corridors, parks, public open spaces and reserves.

Chapter 9 Natural and Cultural Heritage
9.4 Significant and Other Trees
9.4.7 Appendices
Appendix 9.4.7.2 Schedule of significant trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space
https://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz/?p=1&docId=Vx15lDOsvwk%3d

George Malcolm’s Emmett Street Oak Trees (located on the north side of Shirley Road) are not included in this Appendix.

But this Appendix does include the following ‘significant’ trees located on the south side of Shirley Road, in North Richmond.

10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve, ‘Significant’ Trees
– PTG51, 6038, Thuja plicata, Western red cedar
– PTG51, 6039, Quercus coccinea, Scarlet oak
– PTG51, 6041, Liriodendron tulipifera, Tulip Tree
– PTG51, 6042, Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweet gum
– PTG51, 6043, Platanus x acerifolia, London plane
– PTG51, 6044, Fagus sylvatica Purpurea, Copper beech
– PTG51, 6046, Tilia x europaea, Common lime
– PTG51, 6047, Quercus robur, English oak

Dudley Street, Dudley Character Area, Road corridor, ‘Significant’ Trees
25 Quercus heterophylla, Bartram’s oak
STG25: 4596, 4597, 4598, 4599, 4601, 4602, 4603, 4604, 4605, 4606, 4607, 4608, 4609, 4610, 4611, 4612, 4613, 4614, 4615, 4616, 4617, 4670, 4671, 4672, 4674

Q. So why are the trees on the south side of Shirley Road in Richmond, classified as ‘Significant’ Trees, whilst George Malcolm’s ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ (located on the north side of Shirley Road in Shirley) are not?

A. Maybe because these trees are located in the Shirley Community Reserve & North Richmond, which is classified as the ‘Dudley Character Area’:
https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consents-and-Licences/resource-consents/Forms/Character-Areas/Dudley-Design-Guide-2019.pdf
George Malcolm’s ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ in Shirley were originally classified & protected as part of the ‘Emmett Character Area’.
But in 2025, this ‘Character Area’ no longer exists in the new Christchurch District Plan.
See: Emmett Character Area

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
nothing is going to get better it’s not.”
The Lorax by Dr. Seuss

UNLESS someone…cares, George Brington Malcolm cared.
From one acorn grew an oak tree & one man’s vision created Emmett Street in Shirley.

‘Major Housing Development in the Shirley District’, 31 March 1953
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19530331.2.8
An aerial photograph of part of the Shirley district showing a State housing area laid out on modern town-planning lines. The building project, which is almost completed, comprises 518 homes designed for more than 2000 persons. The west and east boundaries of the main block are Hills road and Quinn’s road. Shirley road is the southern boundary and a private property the northern.

Malcolm’s vision & plan for planting the Oak Trees along Emmett Street, has made the difference to the identity of Shirley’s community & created an environment for Shirley residents (people & wildlife) to benefit from over many generations.

George Malcolm’s legacy is an inspiration to those that admire the ‘Emmett Street Trees’ as they have weathered all seasons, earthquakes, aftershocks & floods.
Yet are still standing…

From Emmett Street to Canterbury University, Malcolm’s trees can be seen.
From Lincoln University to NZLIA, Malcolm’s name provides a scholarship for aspiring landscape architecture students, to celebrating professionals receiving his NZLIA Supreme Award, his legacy from Shirley to throughout NZ lives on…
because he cared.

I didn’t know who had planted the ‘Emmett Street Trees’, until after I shifted from Shirley to Richmond & started researching these communities while advocating for a new Centre to be rebuilt at 10 Shirley Road.

It wasn’t until I found the ‘Shirley MacFarlane Park Community Concept Plan’ created by Lucas Associates in February 2008, that I found Malcolm’s name.
https://www.lucas-associates.co.nz/christchurch-banks-peninsula/shirley-concept-plan/

https://www.lucas-associates.co.nz/assets/Document-PDFs/Shirley-Concept-Plan.pdf
Page 14, Photos of George Malcolm on Emmett Street in 2008 & photos of the Hanson Lane Nursery
Page 15, ‘Stories from the Past: George Malcolm’
A feature of the area is the tree lined streets which are a result of George Malcolm’s design.
Much of his work can be recognised around Christchurch, including the Canterbury University grounds, some of his earlier work on the housing development in Shirley was known as the Emmett Street Block.
George was employed as a landscape officer in 1948 by the Housing Department.
George became more involved with the planners responsible for the overall layout of the Emmett Block development and worked with them to try to convince them to give more attention to the landscape.
For the Emmett Street Block subdivision, the planners had originally allocated just 3 different species of shrubs and hedge plants; crab apples were the common street tree available.
George organised the establishment of a nursery on the old Ballantyne Block in Hansons Lane [Upper Riccarton], so there were more plants available for housing developments – especially large trees.
[When my family shifted back to Christchurch from Whanganui, our family home was in Ballantyne Avenue. When I read Malcolm’s story a few years ago, I was surprised to find a connection between our lives through the Upper Riccarton & Shirley suburbs]
At this nursery, George began to propagate big trees with the help of a large glasshouse gifted to him from the Burnham Military Camp.
In the Emmett Block development, George had the job as landscape officer working with the planners to set aside areas for vegetation – retaining existing large trees from the previous farms and designing street tree planting.
“I had to fight hard to allow wide berms and allow large trees” but in the end he managed to convince the planners to do so in the proposed streets of the Emmett Block. Today the large Scarlet Oaks are a unique feature of the area.
“It was in desperate need of this – I feel I have achieved it”.

George Brington Malcolm, MBE
27 November 1917 – 29 January 2012
George Malcolm died in Christchurch on 29 January 2012 in his 95th year.

George Brington Malcolm Obituary from ‘New Zealand Garden Journal’
https://www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_34-36_from_2012_Vol15_No1.pdf
Page 2-3, This obituary was originally published in Landscape Architecture New Zealand, Winter 2012, Issue 14. It was written by Neil Aitken, using archival background information from H. G. Gilpin, L. W. McCaskill, Alec Wilson and Jan Woodhouse.

He was a founding member of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects Inc. (NZILA) and actively supported the Institute’s endeavours throughout his career. George’s earlier background was in horticulture and he was awarded the National Diploma in Horticulture (Hons) in the early 1940s while working with the Parks and Reserves Department of the Christchurch City Council.
In 1948, he joined the Ministry of Works, Housing Division as Landscape Officer.

He consolidated this with his voracious reading of overseas landscape publications. He also started to amass his renowned reference library.
In 1962 he was appointed Senior Landscape Officer for the Ministry of Works with nation-wide responsibilities. This enabled him to start preaching the doctrine of landscape awareness throughout New Zealand.

At this time there was a dearth of academically qualified landscape architects in New Zealand (those who were here had overseas qualifications), and George, typically, sought to remedy this by approaching Auckland and Canterbury Universities, but without success. Imagine, therefore, his reaction to Professor T. M. Morrison of Lincoln College telling him that the college proposed to establish the first course in landscape architecture in New Zealand in 1969. George described this moment as “a great thrill to me.”

This, of course, provided George with the opportunity to realise his dream of having landscape architects throughout the Ministry of Works and Development (formerly MOW) and he pursued this with typical dedication, vigour and success. In addition to providing employment opportunity and experience to many graduates, he also obtained departmental approval for study awards in landscape architecture, not only within New Zealand but also overseas in recognition of the important global perspective.

Throughout this period, George also corresponded with overseas landscape architects, and in 1972 received a New Zealand Government travel grant which enabled him to meet landscape architects in public and private practice and in educational institutions throughout the US, Canada, and Great Britain…

George Malcolm was a very human and humane man. He nurtured his staff and ensured their welfare, always providing wise counsel to express their ideas over the full continuum of landscape from planning to detailed design. He always championed sound design on the ground, and it is no coincidence, therefore, that the NZILA’s premier design award is the George Malcolm Award.
This selfless dedication to the education and training of his staff was the true measure of George’s breadth of vision and generosity of spirit.

George was recognised by numerous institutions: he was one of the two foundation Life Members of the NZILA; an Associate of Honour of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture Inc.; a Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Parks and Recreation Administration; and last, but by no means least, an Honorary Associate of the Institute of Landscape Architects (now the Landscape Institute, Great Britain) in recognition of his achievements. This is an honour rarely bestowed and without precedent in New Zealand.

George Brington Malcolm Obituary from ‘The Press’
https://quakestudies.canterbury.ac.nz/islandora/object/qsrobject%3A264384/datastream/OBJ/view
Saturday, February 18, 2012

The second-youngest of 10 children, he was brought up on a mixed fruit-growing and dairy farm in Richmond, near Nelson. His childhood was marked by financial hardship and good fun, having to live for some years in a ‘permanent tent’ as the family home was too small for all the children.
Farm work instilled in him a love of trees, nature and landscape. His parents were devout Christians and he followed this path throughout his life.

On leaving school during the Depression, he applied for a job delivering telegrams. Work was so scarce that four years passed before he was advised of a vacancy. In the meantime he had taken a job on a relative’s orchard in Hawke’s Bay. He then worked at a plant nursery, where he was encouraged to study for the national diploma in horticulture.

Malcolm married Ethel in 1941. They settled in Christchurch and had four children. He continued his studies while working for the Christchurch City Council’s parks and reserves department and in the Botanic Gardens. He joined the Ministry of Works in 1948 as officer in charge of landscape work in the Christchurch district. A major part of his responsibility was landscape design for new state housing developments. This strengthened his interest in landscape design and environmental planning and he became a voracious reader of professional journals.

A trip to the proposed site of the Benmore dam with the district commissioner of works sharpened his appreciation of landscape design. Realising the scope and significance of the job ahead, he began frequent visits to the site, two years before a project engineer was appointed. He then worked with a succession of project engineers. They were sympathetic to his aims. The result represented a turning point in major construction schemes, as landscape architects were no longer required just to tidy up the mess after building was completed, but became involved in the planning.

Malcolm worked closely with people in charge throughout the construction period. He later took this approach to North Island roading and highway projects. This brought pressure on him to move to ministry headquarters in Wellington, which he resisted for family reasons and love of Christchurch. This did not prevent his promotion to inspecting landscape architect for the ministry’s town and country planning division, responsible for overseeing landscape design standards and supervision of ministry nurseries.

His pioneering work was recognised with the award of honorary associate of the UK Institute of Landscape Architects, in 1972. He was the only New Zealander to receive this honour. He was granted a study tour of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Europe that year and was instrumental in establishment of the landscape architecture course at Lincoln University.
He was a foundation member of the ILA and one of its first fellows, and was appointed a fellow of the Royal Institute of Horticulture. He was awarded the MBE on his retirement.

Malcolm leased an orchard at Styx in 1953 and later bought land nearby. Son Peter says the family all learned orcharding and marketing skills from this venture.
Family life was ‘integral’ to him and he juggled work, study and orchard management around it, Peter says. His Christian faith was central to him and he lived in a spirit of generosity and kindness. Ethel died in 1990 but he stayed in their Fendalton home until the recent earthquakes, when he moved into a rest home.

George Brington Malcolm, born Richmond, November 27, 1917; died Christchurch, January 29, 2012. Pre-deceased by wife Ethel; survived by daughter Keren, sons Arthur, Peter and Alistair, 13 grandchildren and 25 greatgrandchildren.

1972 New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA)
https://www.nzila.co.nz/about/history
The NZILA was formed in November 1972. The initial executive, elected in 1973, included president Tony Jackman, Frank Boffa, Charlie Challenger, George Malcolm, Neil Aitken, and Robin Gay.
https://www.nzila.co.nz/about/life-members
Life membership may be awarded to “a person who in the opinion of the Committee has made a unique and outstanding contribution to the advancement of the profession in New Zealand, provided that a person should not be elected to this grade of membership unless he/she is, or has been, qualified to be recognised as a Fellow of the Institute.”
In Memoriam: George Malcolm

NZILA provides an education policy and an accreditation process to review education programme providers. Lincoln University started an undergraduate course in landscape architecture in 1988, followed in 1995 by Unitec. The third NZILA accredited provider is Victoria University of Wellington.
The institute holds biennial awards. There are three Supreme Awards, selected from the winners of the general awards: the George Malcolm Award for “the most outstanding achievement in landscape design”, the Charlie Challenger Award for “the most outstanding achievement in landscape planning”, and the Te Karanga o te Tui, for “the most outstanding achievement in demonstration of the Te Aranga principles”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Institute_of_Landscape_Architects

1981 AHRIH Awards
Associate of Honour of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture (AHRIH)
Awarded to persons who have given distinguished service to horticulture in New Zealand.
This is a select group because the RNZIH rules state that no more than 60 people can hold the award, and no more than three awards are given per year.
https://www.rnzih.org.nz/pages/AHRIH_Recipients.htm#gsc.tab=0
1981, Mr George Brington Malcolm

RNZIH Annual Journal: No. 9, 1981
Citations for the award of Associate of Honour 1981
https://www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/RNZIH_Annual_Journal_1981_9.pdf
Page 82 & 83, Mr G.B. Malcolm
In 1948 he accepted a position with the Housing Division, Ministry of Works, Christchurch, and was responsible for the horticultural and landscape work throughout the Canterbury district and at that time established a departmental nursery at Christchurch. Several years later he was appointed to the position of landscape officer for the South Island engaged on national works projects and during this period he provided periodic services to head office, Wellington.
In 1962, he was appointed to the position of senior landscape officer, Ministry of Works (based in Christchurch) in charge of the landscape section for New Zealand, and during this period a substantial landscape section was established, including new nurseries, and landscape architecture began to be recognised as an integral part of national works.
In 1974, with the amalgamation of the landscape architecture section with the environmental design section, town and country planning, George Malcolm was appointed to the position of Inspecting Landscape Architect (based in Christchurch), but with national responsibilities connected with environmental planning and design, technical responsibilities for all nurseries and holding grounds throughout New Zealand as well as heading the Christchurch environmental design team which operates on a regional basis covering national projects in the South Island. He also has responsibility for the Christchurch nursery which produces 100,000 trees and shrubs annually for national works and other projects throughout the South Island.
George Malcolm for many years (largely singlehanded) pioneered landscape architecture within the Ministry of Works and Development.
George Malcolm, during his long service to the N.Z. Government, has done a great deal to improve the N.Z. environment and promote the profession of horticulture in this country. He has been responsible for planting many millions of trees, both native and exotic.

1982 ‘Landscapers Retire’
The Press, 19th November, Page 11
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19821119.2.83
Two landscape architects responsible for founding the profession in New Zealand will be honoured at a retirement dinner in Christchurch today.
Mr Malcolm joined the Ministry of Works and Development in Christchurch in the 1940s as a landscape officer. He has been involved in such projects as the Auckland and Dunedin motorways, the Wairakei-Taupo highway, and the Benmore and Manapouri-Te Anau hydro-electric developments.
Mr Malcolm is retiring as inspecting landscape architect for New Zealand.

1983 New Years Honors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_New_Year_Honours_(New_Zealand)
Member (MBE)
George Brington Malcolm – of Christchurch; inspecting landscape architect, Ministry of Works and Development, Christchurch, 1975–1982

1987 NZILA Awards Programme Established
https://www.landscapearchitecture.nz/landscape-architecture-aotearoa/2021/12/10/2022-awards-reminder
The NZILA awards programme began in 1987.
The inaugural George Malcolm winner was the Ministry of Works and Environmental Design Section for its Christchurch Girls’ High School project.
NZILA George Malcolm Supreme Award:
Recognises the most outstanding achievement in landscape design. A winner will only be selected from the winners of the relevant award categories and awarded if the entry attains this standard of excellence.
https://www.nzila.co.nz/awards/categories

2006 ‘The Founding of Landscape Architecture in New Zealand’ Project
https://livingheritage.lincoln.ac.nz/nodes/view/35136
‘The dawn is breaking’: Long before the DipLA course at Lincoln was set up, George Malcolm was advocating for landscape awareness and professional landscape architecture training in New Zealand. Although not a trained landscape architect, he worked as landscape officer in the Ministry of Works from 1948, moving into senior roles overseeing the Ministry’s landscape work until he retired in 1982.
As well lobbying for the DipLA to be set up, he made sure there were employment opportunities for the new graduates. He is commemorated in the NZILA George Malcolm award for design excellence.
George here describes how he lobbied for a tertiary course to be established.

https://natlib.govt.nz/records/22568946
Interview with George Malcolm: Early advocate of landscape architecture in the Ministry of Works. Foundation member of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA). Influential in promoting the landscape architecture profession in government departments. Retired in 1982; the same year the NZILA George Malcolm award for design excellence was established.

2013 G.B Malcolm Scholarship Established
https://www.lincoln.ac.nz/study/scholarships/search-scholarships/g-b-malcolm-scholarship/
The G.B Malcolm Scholarship was established in 2013 as a result of a bequest from Mr Malcolm, to encourage and promote study in Landscape Architecture at Lincoln University.
One scholarship will be offered annually to a full time student studying a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture at Lincoln University.

2019 NZILA George Malcolm Supreme Award
Te Papa Ōtākaro/Avon River Park (ARP)
https://nzila.co.nz/showcase/te-papa-otakaro-avon-river-park
Judges Citation:
Te Papa Ōtākaro is not only the largest public realm project undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand, it has also involved many landscape architecture practices and other collaborators, working within the complex context of the re-building of Christchurch.
Te Papa Ōtākaro has emerged as a significant and transformative urban landscape, maximising the opportunity provided by the earthquakes, to develop an exemplary interweaving of urban edge and river. Enhancing the cultural landscape of the city, as well as the ecological and social values, has provided Christchurch with a central core that holds the city together, and re-presents it with a new vision. At the same time as the Park has transformed the River precinct, it has also honoured the traditional heritage elements, such as the Bridge of Remembrance.
Te Papa Ōtākaro’s scale, collaborative process, cultural and ecological transformation, hard and soft landscape quality, and spatial qualities, are recognised in the award of supreme excellence, the George Malcolm Award.

2022 NZILA 50th – Landscape architecture pioneer George Malcolm
https://www.landscapearchitecture.nz/landscape-architecture-aotearoa/2022/3/31/nzila-50th-landscape-architecture-pioneer-george-malcolm
In 1970s New Zealand, landscape architecture was a little known and misunderstood profession. Lincoln College as it was then, was driving its development especially in terms of education and the public sector was the epicentre of employment for Lincoln’s new landscape architecture graduates.
The Ministry of Works, Housing Corporation, Department of Lands and Survey, Electricity Department, Forestry and Tourism Departments were key employers of landscape architects in this decade along with local councils. One man in particular played a key role in developing landscape architects and the wider profession and that was George Malcolm.
Many of the women involved in the early years of the landscape architecture profession here in Aotearoa credit George Malcolm with encouraging them.
Jan Woodhouse says he became a champion of women graduates by creating jobs for them as well as supporting them.
“He was the head of a family with strong christian values and he was also a man of the land. The values of care, protection and encouragement were brought to the office.”
George Malcolm died in 2012 but is remembered well by the many people he influenced in the landscape architecture profession here in Aotearoa.

Q. So after reading George Malcolm’s story/legacy, I didn’t understand why the ‘Emmett Street Trees’ previously classified as ‘Significant Trees’, but now in 2025 they are not?
A. See: ‘Significant Trees’