A 150-signature petition has been handed to Tauranga City Council this morning in an effort to save a pohutukawa tree bordering Ferguson Park in Matua.
Arborists arriving to fell the tree today were met by signs protesting their actions and a neighbour warning them off.
Signs confronting the city arborists today. Photo: Bruce Barnard.
The tree is to be felled following a single complaint from an anonymous resident who doesn't live near the tree. The immediate neighbours are opposing to its removal, says resident Jan Fraundorfer.
The endangered tree is one of only three left along the Waratah street side of the park, after four were felled in 2007.
'One protester sat here all day yesterday, put up the signs and collected 150 signatures on the petition,” says Jan.
'All of the people who live along the top there are against it. We think that there's one person who has asked to have it removed but council won't give us that information.
'Everybody else wants the tree to remain, even though they are more directly in front of the tree. Everyone is a bit upset about it because no one was notified until the letters arrived on Thursday.”
It is round two of a tree fight that started in 2007, which resulted in four of the original seven pohutukawa being felled.
The council of the day came to an agreement with four residents to fell the trees immediately affecting them, and leave three in place, says Jan.
They were felled after a complaining landowner invoked a covenant on the land regarding height restrictions on the seven trees between 129 and 139 Waratah Street.
'It's my understanding that those trees would be now protected and not subject to this covenant on the bank,” says Jan.
'But it's one of those remaining trees that the council is chopping down on the strength of what the neighbour has said - that someone can't get a view of the port.
'If it's the house we think it is, they only live there a couple of weeks of the year. They live in Australia, and they also have their name on the original application back in 2007.
'So from what I can see, the council are out of order.”
The tree has a reprieve while the council staff consider their options. Today they were presented with a lawyer's letter in addition to the petition, and Mayor Stuart Crosby, who was party to the original agreements, has also been contacted by the residents.
City arborist Josh Trafford has not returned calls from SunLive, while TCC's Communication advisor has yet to return our calls regarding the matter.
'There's nothing wrong with the tree - it looks pretty,” adds Jan.
'Council has pruned it so you can see through it. All the residents who live there permanently want the tree to stay.
'In January 2007 they wanted to take out all seven of these trees and we had a big protest. They ended up taking four and leaving three.
'Our argument is that they were part of an agreement in January 2007 that these three trees were to be left and pruned.”



12 comments
Overit
Posted on 16-02-2015 12:43 | By overit
I hope the tree gets to stay. We need trees to survive.
Blue Boy
Posted on 16-02-2015 13:25 | By BlueBoy
This is another one of those things where money speaks louder than words, if any of the ordinary folk around the bay were to try and have a tree of any kind removed they would be told to get lost and or have a court order out against them, Just goes to show again it's who you know in council and not what you know aye.
Why?
Posted on 16-02-2015 14:02 | By The Sage
Why remove it if the people living right there don't want that. The nameless person who complained needs to front up. I thought they were trying to fight erosion on these banks.
Double standards
Posted on 16-02-2015 14:17 | By Howard and Mary
My elderly inlaws have struggled for years to have limbs removed from a tree in Banks reserve to let some sun and light in during the winter mornings. In the end it was kind natured workers who have removed them while doing other work not the council. The Pohutakawa in Ferguson Park doesn't adversly affect anyone to the degree the tree in Banks reserve does and here they are approving it's removal.
Complaint Driven Council
Posted on 16-02-2015 14:52 | By Dean Wearne
Again ...one complaint and the council feels the need to get involved. The council is there for the community not the single voice of negativity or opposition. I'm all for a complainant being identified - then maybe they might think about the effect on others and not just themselves before voicing their personal dissatisfaction. After all the council deals with community issues not just the whims of individuals - does it not?
Blue Boy
Posted on 16-02-2015 15:16 | By BlueBoy
I have just found out that this stupid money hungry council is trying to sell of Tauranga's green belt park reserves for low cost housing for this new university in town, going into well established and respected areas of town, this will surely lower the cost of some of these property values. I'll bet you wont see any of this anywhere near any council members properties they with make sure of that. After all isn't why they are there to make all things better for them and what they can get out of it but don't give a bugger about us. Next thing they will want to put low cost housing into the Elms and that little park above Dive Crescent, Oh I better shut up they might get ideas never know where they will stop need to look at Hamilton.
Herons
Posted on 16-02-2015 15:17 | By Raeleen
On Saturday evening two beautiful herons were on the fence beside the pohutakawa so they probably roost and nest in the tree. Council should name the complainant, was it the new owner of the vacant section to increase the value of their possible development?
Blue Boy
Posted on 16-02-2015 15:24 | By BlueBoy
If you want to see how low cost housing affects other and suburbs you need to be looking at Hamilton to see how it has affected things, All kinds of carry on, Parties, Drugs, Rubbish, Sex, Violence then empty during the corse of holiday breaks and the list goes on, They need to make use of the under utilised bus system would make more sense.
Trees belong to all
Posted on 16-02-2015 15:58 | By Sam Green
Shame on the complainers. These are native trees that were once the indigenous forest in the area. Nameless cowards.
the law
Posted on 16-02-2015 22:48 | By Active
it is sad to see such a nice tree that now means a lot to people living there is to be removed. However if the complainent holds a legal covenant over the land owned by council as to the height or whatever of trees etc. and this was not legally changed in 2007 on titles then the council should never allowed the trees to grow as they may not be adhering to the covenant over all these years.The complainent may hold the trump card.If so hopefully something can be worked out and changed legally so it dosn't happen again and the tree stays.
To play devils advocate
Posted on 17-02-2015 10:20 | By Phailed1
Plenty of trees in this city have been cut down after emotional pleas from usually elderly residents about having to clear their gutters. The more advanced "reasons" usually include adverse health effects on nearby residents. Then if the council refuses to cut down the tree the media and online commenters scream that the council has put the tree above residents health. Go figure. Play the health or disability card and you can get Council do do most things.
Pohutukawa
Posted on 17-02-2015 15:58 | By AndysMum53
I understood that this is a protected tree, check council protected tree list! Trees of any sort (well nearly all - exception would be Privit)are needed to help each and everyone of us live!
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.