Lawyer fails to save pohutukawa tree

Tauranga City Council are set to cut back a pohutukawa tree from the embankment at Fergusson Park in Matua, despite a last-ditch attempt by a lawyer to save it.

The property owner who requested the removal of the 22-metre tree, based on a covenant that dates back to the early 1960s, will be asked one final time to reconsider their request before the chainsaws move in.


Signs urging Tauranga City Council to reconsider the request to remove a Fergusson Park pohutukawa tree. Photo: Bruce Barnard.

Lawyer Michael Batchelor spoke as a private individual in defence of the tree on Tuesday afternoon, saying times have changed and the covenant under which the tree will be felled could be changed by the council.

He urged the authorities to take no action against the tree and negotiate from that stance.

However, lawyer Vanessa Hamm also spoke on behalf of the Waratah Street property owner who wants the tree felled in accordance with the agreement the then council signed with developers in 1961. They bought the property in 1989.

Vanessa blames the council for failing to maintain a 'very straightforward” covenant to keep vegetation growing over the top of the embankment down to one metre in height.

Vanessa claims her clients are affected by two trees, but because they understand the emotion the issue has generated, they only want the removal of the tree that affects their view of the Mount.

Trimming and thinning has been considered, she confirms, but is not an option.

To look at changing the covenant, the council would have to show changing circumstances, says Vanessa.

'I say there is not a change in circumstances,” she states. 'Fergusson Park is still a park, and the covenant is still on the embankment.”

Councillors voted to fell the tree, apart from John Robson and Bev Edlin.

John says councillors were elected to make the best decisions for the city and wondered why they were there if they were going to be bound by previous decisions of former councils.

'Since the covenant was signed, the city has changed a lot,” says John.

'The last time the issue came to the council there was an agreement that not all the trees had to go.

'I think we need to be clear, and I don't think we were in previous decision-making around this topic.

'It appears to me that there was a general understanding maybe inferred, certainly not explicit, that there was a trade-off that four trees would go and three trees would stand.

'I would suggest that even in the past eight years, the value of the trees has become even more appreciated by our community.

'I note that if we decide to say yes to this tree, we are saying yes to the other two. Do not kid yourselves that this decision will allow the elimination of one tree. This decision will allow three trees to go.”

Council received the formal request to remove one of the remaining pohutukawa trees in November 2014, and subsequently agreed that the tree was scheduled for removal in February 2015.

Council notified residents in the vicinity of Fergusson Park of its intention to fell the tree on February 11, but subsequently received a petition containing 92 signatures that opposed its removal.

Another 212 signatures were received on March 10.

You may also like....

8 comments

Integrity

Posted on 19-05-2015 19:55 | By Blasta

It's just as well council have honoured the covenant, their word and their integrity. Imagine doing 'business' with a corrupt organisation that alters their contracts and their word as the wind blows.


Selfish?

Posted on 19-05-2015 20:09 | By bbtg

How are the property owners selfish? The house was bought 26 years ago, most probably with a view. The covenants are there for a reason. To protect their view!


Goes

Posted on 19-05-2015 21:48 | By Capt_Kaveman

To show these Councillors dont care to much of native trees


Get real

Posted on 19-05-2015 23:37 | By YOGI BEAR

I saw a few branches falling off a Pohutakawa tree today, a tree a lot bigger than this. No covenant. This is really simple that even a pre-schooler can get it, TCC agreed no trees obstruct view, the tree is so it goes, that is it, plain and simple.


The ever growing concrete jungle

Posted on 20-05-2015 09:05 | By Seriously?

Such a shame to lose yet another native planting. Tauranga's enthusiasm to become a "mini-Auckland" is disappointing. With multistory apartments and hotels arising from our city centre and motorways and flyovers, Tauranga is turning into a concrete jungle. Save the trees for goodness sakes.


Ignorant comments

Posted on 20-05-2015 10:20 | By Annalist

It isn't a matter if council or others want to save the tree. Of course they do. It is a matter of fact and law. Many years ago covenants were place on the area. You can't just renege on a covenant. You need the agreement of all parties.


PROTECT THE WEALTHY

Posted on 20-05-2015 10:27 | By Towball

I have a council tree that drops all of it's debris onto my roof and spouting also blocking sun from bedrooms and council say I have to pay for it's removal. Once removed I have a very limited choice of replacement that are not fast growers. No equality as I don't have a million $ property. IT'S NOT EVEN A NATIVE LET ALONE A POHUTUKAWA !


Its just a damn tree

Posted on 20-05-2015 10:58 | By wannabeme

Get over it! Seriously there is so much more to worry about in this world than a tree. Its not like its hundreds of trees its one tree!! As soon as one person complains everyone gets on the bandwagon. I say go for it and ignore this tree hugging lot bet if it were them they would be doing the same.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.