The sound of chainsaws filled Fergusson Park in Matua today as the pohutukawa tree at the centre of a recent neighbourhood battle is felled on council's instructions.
Contractors Arbor Care are taking the 22m tall tree down branch by branch, and expect to be there for most of the day.
The Fergusson Park pohutukawa is being felled today. Photos: Andrew Campbell.
The majority of the tree is destined for the mulcher, but its larger limbs will be taken back to the depot. Anything millable will be donated to charity, though the arborists think that is unlikely because it is too small.
The tree's fate has been in the balance since Arbor Care was first tasked with its felling in February this year after a local resident asked council to remove it from an area covered by a height restriction covenant.
Council notified residents of its intention to fell tree on February 11, but on February 16, received a petition with 92 signatures opposing its removal and requesting them to reconsider their decision. A further 212 signatures were received on March 10.
However, lawyers failed to save the tree despite their advice to city council to change the convenant, which dates back to 1961.
Council decided not to act, and all but John Robson and Bev Edlin voted to fell the tree.
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 decisions made by previous 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 the previous decision making around this topic.
'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 (in Fergusson Park).
'Do not kid yourselves that this decision will allow the elimination of one tree. This decision will allow three trees to go.”
19 comments
John Robson
Posted on 26-05-2015 15:57 | By Colleen Spiro
No I do not think you were around when the covenant was placed 1954, I think.....yes you are there to make good choices, AND to ABIDE by the covenants in place...
right decision
Posted on 26-05-2015 19:29 | By YOGI BEAR
This is like pulling hens teeth, takes a long time to achieve the obvious. There are no teeth in a chicken, there are no policies that are better than the legal binding document, the covenant.
trees
Posted on 26-05-2015 20:37 | By dumbkof2
Well if the chainsaws hadnt got it somehow it would have developed a terrible disease and would have died
COUNCIL CAUSED THIS MESS
Posted on 26-05-2015 21:04 | By ROCCO
This all related to binding legal land covenants that enabled Council to acquire Fergusson Park in 1960s on favourable terms.In these circumstaces if CRS Robson & Edlin don't want to honour Councils legal obligations that is their concern but it gives some evidence as to their credibility come 2016 elections.Had this thing gone to Court then Council would have been nailed to the wall probably with indemnity costs awarded against it.
right decition
Posted on 27-05-2015 08:30 | By Glen Clova
I`m with you Yogi also they should do the same with all the trees the council has planted around the Waikareao Estuary over the last 20 years and now cuts the views of houses bordering the walkways,especially the ones who built before the walkways were made.
For once I agree,
Posted on 27-05-2015 08:41 | By robin bell
with yogi bear quote "there are no policies that are better than the legal binding document,the covenant. At last yogi gets it.T.O.W. Robin Bell.
seesee
Posted on 27-05-2015 10:12 | By SeeSee
vandalism by council
A covenant is a covenant
Posted on 27-05-2015 10:21 | By Annalist
I'm not sure if Cr Robson has an understanding of covenants so let me enlighten him. A covenant is a legally binding agreement that cannot be changed at whim. If changes are to be made you either get the agreement of all the parties or you go into an expensive legal fight with no guarantee of success. I suggest you simply honour the covenant.
Where is the common sense?
Posted on 27-05-2015 11:26 | By How about this view!
IT"S A TREE!! They are not hard to grow, in fact really they are no more than large weeds. What really annoys the heck out of me is that our Parks and reserves department who manage the TREE REGISTER, see fit to try and subvert a legal contract at ratepayers expense and will then not think twice about prosecuting us mere mortals if we TRIM a tree in contravention of a BY-LAW. How about we attack the seat-warmers behind the scenes that appear to have NO COMMON SENSE! The talking heads or puppets, that wear the Councillor badges, would be derelict in their duties if they didn't seek advice BEFORE opening their mouths on controversial issues, wouldn't they???? BUT then there's a lot of that about!
Test
Posted on 27-05-2015 11:32 | By Kaimai
Perhaps all candidates at the next election should have to pass (yes pass, not sit) a simple test. I'll suggest one question - What does legally binding agreement mean to you?
A covenant is a covenant,
Posted on 27-05-2015 12:15 | By robin bell
but only when it suits.For years yogi bear,rocco and the rest have argued steadfastly (with abuse) against the most important covenant N.Z. has.Time for some consistency I think, or are trees more important than peoples rights? Robin Bell.
Short sighted
Posted on 27-05-2015 14:27 | By The Sage
So the Council spends hundreds of thousands of dollars rebuilding the seawall and bank in the park, then remove trees helping to hold the bank together. It is only a matter of time before there is another big rain and banks start disappearing, and houses with them.
trees have been around
Posted on 27-05-2015 16:22 | By kurgan
a lot longer than when ignorant mankind (should be manhurt) came up with stupid covenants.
kurgan
Posted on 27-05-2015 17:41 | By How about this view!
So were dinosaurs, but their time came and went. As has been the case with many, many more species of flora and fauna, long before mankind arrived. So, what is your point???
@Kurgan
Posted on 27-05-2015 17:45 | By Annalist
Covenants aren't stupid. Some in fact are used to protect trees. Some also state what and can't happen on a property. I'm guessing that the council of the day (40 or 50 years ago) had to agree to this covenant in order to get the land for Ferguson Park?? Good on the then council for at least getting us a fantastic park. Not so stupid eh?
Before you attack mankind engage the brain.
Posted on 27-05-2015 17:58 | By ROCCO
Well @"kurgan" lets just enlighten you.Yes trees are very good and we need them but when the legal covenant was signed there were no trees planted. Council could have planted whatever trees it liked to retain the bank and pohutukawas are not a good retaining tree being top heavy and very spreading.Council could even have planted trees further down the bank to accomodate the height restriction.
@ ROCCO
Posted on 29-05-2015 17:41 | By YOGI BEAR
Agree, the covenant is a binding agreement that one could argue that Council has deliberately acted in such a way as to breach that covenant. There is no argument here on this, if the situation was reversed TCC officials would swarm in mass and exact a price for non compliance. So the resident is completely in his rights to seek that TCC comply, I dint care how many think otherwise, he is right and he alone is right.
Pohutakawa Trees
Posted on 31-05-2015 15:42 | By YOGI BEAR
Are not natives of NZ, they actually came from South America previously and they were brought here by people with a "ship" not a log or two.
RATZ ARTZ BRIGADE
Posted on 04-06-2015 17:40 | By kellbell
Few weasel words around currently promoting breaking of contracts and covenants well boyos don't think I would go down that path if you want to retain any shred of credibility.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.