City councillors' first working meeting of the triennium started with them receiving a good telling off over the council decision in September to order the felling of two London Plane Trees in Second Ave west.

Mary Dillon, a former city councillor, and current Envirohub BOP chair, took councillors to task in the public forum in a scathing dressing down over the decision and its implications for the city.

Starting from the fact the staff reports were clear the application to fell the trees should be declined, because they are healthy trees and do not meet any of the criteria for felling in the city council's own tree policy, Mary went on to ask what the councillors were thinking.

The documentation and reports from the council staff were pretty clear that the application to fell the two trees should be declined. It did not meet any of the criteria for removal of a tree in the current tree policy.

'Given that, I would have thought that you need some really persuasive reasons to move outside the policy requirement. And I have not been able to find a record of those anywhere,” says Mary.

'It's obvious to me no reasons were advanced or discussed other than the reasons put forward by the petitioners and addressed in the council officers report with the recommendation to decline.

'If that is so, the council decision seems to be to be really perverse, and I underline that word perverse.”

She wants the decision reconsidered, and for the council to discuss the implications of the decision, which Mary says has opened to door for any citizen who finds a tree a minor inconvenience to call for its removal.

'The community expectation is that council will treat all its citizens with an even hand in similar circumstances. To me that's called being fair or for the council it is being consistent.

'There was no serious reason for this tree to be removed. If you do it for one, you need to be able to do it for all of them. There was no serious reason for this tree to be removed and yet we have decided.

'So I don't think that potential precedent was raised at all in discussion and it should have been a major consideration.”

The city centre is about to lose a number of trees through planned reconstruction from the university in Durham Street, and the council's own rebuild.

'Those trees that you can see right outside the window there, every single one of theme will disappear,” says Mary.

All the trees on their own council property will also be removed because they will be right in the way of excavations and new buildings.

It leaves the council with just the two trees outside Baycourt. The trees on the courthouse site are on a designated site and can be removed at any time, says Mary.

'You walk the other way all the important trees are on council land, and you have set a precedent for that - and the next lot are the trees on the primary school site, which are not under council control.”

She advises councillors to think about the broader picture before making a decision where the removal of trees are sought over minor matters.

'Clearly none of that conversation took place at all,” says Mary.

A dangerous precedent set by tree decision, says Mary Dillon. Photo: Andrew Campbell.

The result of carrying on will be a city with more hard surfaces, taller buildings, less shelter, shade and loss of bird roosts, and nothing to mitigate the carbon effects of human activity.

The staff report sets the cost of felling the two London Plane trees at $10,000. The council has charged the petitioners $5000.

'Are you going to do that for everybody else who asks you? And where's the permission from the ratepayers to push that additional costs onto them?”

Mary says while $5000 is a small amount for the council, it won't be if it is repeated 20 or 30 times.

If the businesses in Second Avenue are complaining about leaves from the trees, they can take responsibility as citizens and sweep them up, says Mary.

She called for the council to take no action at this time, and to use clause 23 of standing orders to bring the trees decision back before council, and to rescind it.

In reply to a question from councillor Bill Grainger about health issues being more important than trees, Mary says there is no evidence of ill health.

The council tree policy updated with significantly more liberal conditions in 2013, sets out the processes and the criteria to be considered in tree questions.

'You didn't meet one single criteria,” says Mary. 'It wasn't a majority of people who wanted the tree removed. There was no evidence about ill health. The trees were in perfect health. There are no storm water issues. They are known and are on the LIM report before the person who has got that business even purchased it.

'There is nothing in the policy that indicates to me that you are entitled as responsible citizens and the leaders in the community to move outside it.”

Terry Molloy says he will move the notice of revocation on the decision. He will have to find the numbers to get the matter reconsidered at a following council meeting. Once the notice of motion is received, no irreversible action may be taken until the notice of motion has been dealt with.