Kauri battle: Consent processes correctly followed - council report

Protestor Michael Tavares spent three days in a kauri tree. Photo / Dean Purcell

Consent processes regarding the removal of a mature kauri tree on a Titirangi section were correctly followed, a report by Auckland Council has concluded.

The proposed removal sparked protests, with one protester spending three days living in the 22-metre kauri tree in March and former Labour leader David Cunliffe threatening to join him.

The tree at 40 Paturoa Rd in Titirangi was spared as a result and negotiations between owners John Lenihan and Jane Greensmith and Auckland Council continued.

A report on the granting of resource consents to develop number 40 and 42 Paturoa Rd, which the couple also owns, was ordered by the council's development committee.

Both sites were zoned as "Bush Living" and "Managed Natural Area" in the District Plan, which seek to merge houses with existing bush.

While the council's chief planning officer concluded that the resource consents given were appropriate and it was within commissioners rights not to notify the public, several concerns were outlined in the report.

The report said the public reaction to the consents highlighted the tension between "the reasonable expectations of landowners" and community concern about the clearance of native bush in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area.

While the owners of the property had consulted with the local iwi, they did not inform them that their plans involved removing a kauri.

Paturoa Road was in an entrenched kauri dieback disease zone, with the disease confirmed on at least four properties on the street.

Despite this, a specialist ecologist from the council's biodiversity team was not asked to review the application.

However, the report found that although the removal of the tree was "regrettable", changing the location of the house would result in the removal of even more mature trees.

It also said that changes to the Resource Management Act in 2009 which removed council's ability to place general urban tree protections in their district plans did not affect the outcome, as the sites were not classified as urban sections.

The report concluded that the resource consent applications were "not unusual or out of the ordinary" and appropriate processes were followed.

It was recommended that resource consent applications should use clearer language and processes would be established for local boards and iwis to provide feedback from local people on consent applications.

The report will be discussed by the Auckland Development Committee on Thursday.