The Norfolk Island Pine at 225 St George St, Papatoetoe was reduced to a stump, visible to the right of the driveway above, after it was illegally felled. This is the property in August, 2022. Image / Google Maps
The Norfolk Island Pine at 225 St George St, Papatoetoe was reduced to a stump, visible to the right of the driveway above, after it was illegally felled. This is the property in August, 2022. Image / Google Maps
Developer Zulfika Ali and his company Z Ali Investments have been fined $96,000 for illegal tree works at 225 St George St, Papatoetoe.
December 2019: the Norfolk Island Pine at 225 St George St, Papatoetoe is in a grove of trees, to the far right. Only the top of it can be seen. Image / Google Maps
Judge Sheena Tepania in the District Court at Auckland convicted him and the company he directs after guilty pleas.
“Ali was aware that the removal of the tree would yield more developable land for his plan to establish multiple houses on site. The assumption made by Mr Ali that the tree was dead was clearly unreasonable and opportunistic,” she said.
Instead of being able to get 15 homes on the land, Ali could now get 16 homes, she said.
He had bought the site for $3.75 million in December 2020 and by 2021, it was valued at $3.95m, the judge noted.
The tree was 25m to 30m high and was protected. Although not native to this country, it was deemed “notable”.
Trees deemed to be of special age, stature, character and visibility are among those described as notable trees and these trees are listed in the Auckland Unitary Plan.
Ali, represented by lawyer Honor Lanham, engaged contractor Rakesh Kumar to remove the tree after the June 2021 tornado.
Kumar, who also pleaded guilty but has yet to be sentenced, had more than 15 years of experience carrying out tree contracting work, the judge said.
The aftermath of the tornado that destroyed many trees and homes in Papatoetoe in 2021. Photo / Alex Burton
But he was not a qualified arborist, operating a business called Discount Tree Works at the time of the offending.
Lanham said the tree’s removal occurred in the context of a natural disaster and taking it down could not have been premeditated.
There was no basis to infer Ali had a strong financial motivation to do that, she submitted, “given the agreed factual position that Mr Ali instructed Mr Kumar to remove the tree because he assumed it was dead”.
The decision said the residential site is 2332sq m and Ali and his company knew that the tree was notable and that a resource consent was needed to alter or remove it.
The tree had dual stems in its upper part and after the tornado, Kumar scaled it and found the trunk was split about halfway up or 15m from the ground.
He considered removing the top above the split and some broken branches below were required to render it safe.
“In addition to the removal of the damaged branches and top of the tree above approximately 15m - the permitted emergency tree works - Mr Ali instructed Mr Kumar to fell the remainder of the tree as Mr Ali assumed it was dead, although the tree was in fact still alive and able to regrow,” the decision said.
“Mr Ali and Mr Kumar made no inquiries to confirm whether any further work was authorised. Mr Kumar commenced felling the lower part of the tree without a resource consent.”
Ali said he spoke to all the neighbours before cutting down the tree and they were happy and thanked him for saving their lives as the tree was swaying dangerously and they were scared of it falling on their houses. He said he could get that in writing.
Ali said the tree was a huge risk to the public and neighbouring properties. Because it was the only tall tree in the area, he thought the wind caught on it more heavily than other, smaller trees.
A council officer contacted the council’s senior heritage arborist, who advised that the tree in its state then was a hazard and the best course of action was to allow the contractors to fell it safely.
By this point, Ali had also arrived and informed the officer the tornado had damaged the top of the tree and pointed out the split in the felled trunk.
The felling of this once-towering Norfolk Island Pine on St George St, Papatoetoe resulted in court action. Photo / Auckland Council
Ali’s lawyer said the tree could, at most, have been retained up to the 15m line, possibly reshaped and managed over time to re-establish itself. She sought a fine of only $40,000.
David Collins, the lawyer for the council, said Ali’s offending was deliberate and resource consent was required to alter or remove it.
He argued guilty pleas were not entered at the earliest possible time and initially the defendants entered not guilty pleas and sought a trial date.
The case was resolved only a few weeks before that date.
Back in 2021 - damage from the tornado that destroyed many properties in Papatoetoe and uprooted trees. Photo / Alex Burton
The defendants had no criminal history that the prosecutor was aware of.
Lanham said Ali’s references spoke of his honest and caring nature, his commitment to Islam, his ongoing assistance to his Muslim community and that offending of any type was out of character.
