Kauri protest: Protected trees included in 'vegetation'

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

Letters sent to west Auckland iwi and local board members about a proposal to fell two large kauri trees in Titirangi did not mention the protected trees would be included in "vegetation" to be removed from the site, it has emerged, as Auckland Council admits it could have handled the issue better.

The decision to fell the trees, including one that was estimated at the time as being 500-years-old, sparked protests at the Paturoa Rd properties in March - with one activist climbing into its branches and refusing to move until the developers promised not to chop it down.

Michael Tavares, who positioned himself 25m up the tree, has since pleaded guilty to trespass.

The protester was sitting in on a council development committee meeting this morning where the chief planning officer presented a report in which he admitted the controversial issue could have been handled better. But Roger Blakeley was adamant due process was still carried out in making the decision.

Letters were sent to seven local iwi, as well as the Waitakere Local Board about the request to remove the trees from 40 and 42 Paturoa Rd in order to build residential dwellings on the sites. However, the letters stated the owner was seeking consent to "remove vegetation" from the properties, and did not mention that an established kauri tree was growing there, in what was part of an area of special protection.

Dr Blakeley recommended "better summaries" be sent to local board members and iwi in the future.

Meanwhile, members of the Waitakere Local Board also gave a presentation to the committee, in which they said they had raised concerns with planners about the plans to fell the kauri tree numerous times, but felt their objections - and those of the local community - were ignored.

Board chairwoman Sandra Coney said: "We don't understand why out letters weren't put in front of the consent department."

The concerns of the local community, outlined in the letters, were not passed onto the planners, she said.

Board member Saffron Toms told the meeting: "I'm clear that the decision was wrong, and the process was wrong."

However, the consent process was defended by the council's chief operating officer Dean Kimpton, who told the committee: "Nothing that we have heard suggests the process was flawed. It was fraught, but it wasn't flawed."

Albert-Eden-Roskill councillor Cathy Casey said she was "surprised" the planning team was confident that due process had been followed, given the letters had failed to mention a notable kauri tree would be felled.

But Mr Blakeley said the parameters of the report were whether processes were followed, and not whether the decision was the right one.

The planners who made the decision - a different planner for each of the two properties - were "fully aware of the concerns around the kauri tree", he said, even if the local iwi and local board members "would have liked to have been better informed".

Penny Hulse, deputy mayor and chairwoman of the committee, said the report seemed to be saying "let's take a little more care in these contentious issues" in the future.

The report and its recommendations - including to provide more detailed summaries to iwi and local boards - were voted in with a majority vote.