However, a council spokesperson told Hawke's Bay Today this wasn't accurate - that permission hadn't been sought, let alone granted.
Chairman Rex Graham then overrode his own council's statement to claim there had been "some confusion in the communication".
Among other things, he pointed out "walnut trees are not good for organic orchards".
For the sake of perspective let's remember there are only a few walnut trees in question, and they're neither native nor protected.
Let's also remember the council is currently juggling issues far weightier than this.
I'll also throw in that I'm a big fan of brand Bostock; it's innovative, trail-blazing and, best of all, organic.
But being organic (and hence more vulnerable to pestilence) shouldn't mean we lower the threshold for garroting mature, nut-yielding, public amenities on public land.
Should an orchard's organic or otherwise status be material to council's decision?
Even if due diligence was followed there'll always be a natural community outcry when private enterprise trumps public fare - in this case, where fruit precludes the nut.
A follow up statement from council yesterday only added confusion: "It appears Bostock NZ was under the impression it had permission to fell these trees. Regional Council staff believe they did not give such permission".
Steven Joyce's ambivalent political line, "we think it's pretty legal", springs to mind.
If this trio of walnuts posed an identifiable hazard then the law of nuisance places emphasis on the trees' owner - the public, who have instead been blindsided by Walnutgate.
The take-home message from council's internal gaffe - and the lingering confusion between it and Bostock - suggests a shonky process.
