Steve Morris said it was the second time the petitioner had "become allergic to trees when they reach a certain height", referring to the fact Mr Clarkson had earlier paid $5500 to have jacaranda trees pulled out and replaced with the pohutakawa trees.
Cr Robson questioned whether the council's tree policy favoured the wealthy.
Mr Clarkson's offer to pay for the tree's removal and replacement does appear to have been one of the key reasons the council approved his application.
Where does this leave people who have concerns about "nuisance" trees but do not have a few thousand dollars to pay for them to be removed? Will their application be turned down, and will their ability to pay be the basis of that decision?
Mayor Stuart Crosby acknowledges the decision is inconsistent with the council's tree policy but says policies are guidance, not hard-and-fast rules.
It sounds reasonable enough, but a policy that can be swayed on the basis of someone's ability to pay is dubious and opens up all sorts of questions.
Frustrations about red tape are common but if there is to be flexibility it has to be based on more than someone's ability to pay.
