Trees: love 'em or leave 'em?

To tree or not to tree? That is the quandary plaguing Tauranga.
The unwitting, leafy culprits evoke a spectrum of responses - from tranquil tree-hugging admiration to covert poisoning missions and outright rage.
Last month, 18 newly planted pohutukawa trees along Takitimu Drive were broken and dozens reportedly poisoned. Residents overlooking Waikareao Estuary say the trees will eventually block their views and devalue their properties. A $15,000 reward has been offered for information about those responsible.
This is the second time in six months that Tauranga City Council has offered a bounty for tree vandals.
A reward of $10,000 was raised in December last year following the poisoning of 10 london plane trees in Memorial Park.
The council is in the throes of developing a new tree and garden management strategy but will it be successful in bridging the divide?
Love or hate'em, people's perceptions of trees are highly subjective.
Take, for example, Bevan and Ben Grant, a father and son duo who are building a house at Matua as a development project.
At the front of the section, on Smiths Rd, is a large, 20-year-old norfolk island hibiscus.
The previous owner applied to the council to have it removed - more than likely to enhance its appeal to prospective buyers.
But the Grants say the tree is what drew them to the 370 sq m section.
"It's probably going to add to the resale value of the house in the long term," says Ben Grant optimistically.
"With most land, developers clear everything right out. When you're buying a small parcel of land, if you cut down the trees it makes it look a lot bigger than what it is," he adds.
Ironically, he worked in forestry for eight years, including a year in Canada for a company felling native forest.
"It was a pretty sad job. I got a bit depressed seeing all those trees cut down."
He says the tree outside the two-storey, four-bedroom house he is building is a joy to look at, attracting tui and herons to its boughs.
It would seem one man's tree treasure is another man's angst.
Tauranga Mayor Stuart Crosby is only too familiar with that angst.
He told a council forum last week that he spent more time dealing with issues about trees than anything else - and he was getting sick of it.
He believes the new strategy is "a wonderful opportunity to put it right".
The problem is not unique to Tauranga, says council arborist Brian Rickey but it may be exaggerated because of a clash between trees and water views.
"Living in Tauranga, views are one of the most important things to people. I don't think that's the case in other cities," he says.
Rickey has been an arborist for nine years, having worked for different councils throughout the North Island.
"The problem is generic. They seem to have a higher profile here ... generally if it's not a view issue, it's leaf debris or shade."
All trees in Tauranga used to be protected but over the past 10 years councils have moved away from blanket protection in favour of registers, Rickey says.
Under the current treescape management policy, trees on public land can be removed if they affect public health, pose a safety hazard, interfere with services or are diseased or dying.
If someone wants a public tree removed for other reasons they must pay an application fee and if approved by council staff, cover the cost of the value of the tree, its removal, a replacement tree and the first 18 months' maintenance of the replacement tree.
A tree that is six to 10 years old is valued at up to $5000, whereas a 50-year-old tree could cost $50,000. The council helps people remove leaves and twigs that have fallen from public trees if they are elderly (over the age of 65), physically unable or in "exceptional circumstances".
Trees on private property can be cut down and pruned by owners, unless they are on the council's register of notable trees.
City councillor Mary Dillon, who chairs the policy and strategy committee responsible for the new strategy, says a change in culture is needed.
"I hope there will be a gradual change in culture of some people who have very self-focused views about trees. They only see them in the context of the way it affects them, rather than how it affects the whole city," she says.
"We have got an inevitable conflict. It's not unique to Tauranga. It's happening in every city in New Zealand."
It was a "quite deliberate" policy shift by council to remove blanket protection to make way for urban intensification and infill.
The intention was to replace trees lost from private sections with street and park plantings.
"Looking back on it now I think we probably should have done more work on the culture of tree appreciation before we took that step. We thought it was safe to take. It wasn't."
Cr Dillon, who lives at Maungatapu, has an established garden, including 10 silver birches, a large jacaranda, golden elm and 15-20 camellias.
She believes trees and views can co-exist harmoniously.
"At Maungatapu there used to be a lot of trees along frontages. The trees were integrated with the view. Now the only property with trees of size is mine. I take the view (that) trees frame a view."
Tauranga needs trees to enhance biodiversity, encourage birdlife and filter out pollution, she says. "We need to rethink. We do not live life in a magazine. We live with nature and nature in itself is not immaculate."
Controls on property development are likely to be a lot more "directive" in future, she adds.
Tree opposition proves to be more of a shady business.
During the research of this article, the Bay of Plenty Times heard two fervent arguments about trees getting in the way of development but neither source was prepared to be named, or in fact identify where they were talking about.
Both pointed the finger at an over-zealous council directive.
"The council is tree mad," one man said.
He has had a vacant block of land for 10 years that he has considered planting trees on but says he is too "scared" to do so because he may be prevented from removing them in the future.
The other, a consultant, said the council was so inflexible with its tree policy that people tended to take matters into their own hands.
"Trees are seen as sacrosanct - thou shalt not touch. The Resource Management Act is central to this. In my view it gives disproportionate power to petty bureaucrats who can hold up the development of a property."
Another person phoned and left a message but would not give his name or leave a phone number. As yet his tree story remains untold.
Councillor Murray Guy voiced his opinion strongly in a letter to the editor last month.
Rather than labelling those who have damaged Takitimu Drive's recently planted Pohutukawa hedge "eco-terrorists" and offering a reward, the council should "wake up to the fact that disregard for the rights of our residents is the real issue", the letter said.
"A lot of emphasis in today's society is placed on an individual's right to enjoy their home without undue negative impact from neighbours. An occasional dog bark, smoke, noise nuisance will receive urgent remedial council attention.
"Try getting remedial action when a tree outside your property denies you daylight, or air movement; its roots lift and crack your drive and pathways, fills your garden and gutters with debris. Seems to me the `terrorist' label might be more aptly applied elsewhere," he said.
Strong words.
Maybe they will give clandestine objectors the courage to speak out.