KEY POINTS:
An elderly Remuera resident is taking the Auckland City Council to court over a tree he has been trying to get rid of for 20 years.
The 35m London plane tree on the berm of Darwin Lane towers over John Tanner's property, and in winter large branches often
break off, putting his life at risk, he says.
"Most days in winter I manage to fill one of those green bins with all the bits and pieces that fall on to my driveway."
Last year, branches fell on to Mr Tanner's roof, breaking concrete tiles and spouting, and he fears next time someone could get seriously hurt.
Mr Tanner, 80, who was an All Black between 1950 and 1953, had a hip replacement about three months ago and as a result of the surgery has paralysis in one foot.
"I'm not as agile as I used to be. It's dangerous having to live like this."
Mr Tanner, who requires home help because of his medical condition, ran a dental surgery from his home before his operation.
"Patients would come over and say 'I don't like the look of that tree, that's dangerous'."
His battle with the council started in 1987 when he and other neighbours asked for five of the 30 trees in the lane to be cut down.
But the council ordered only that the trees be trimmed, saying they were not dangerous.
Then in 2005 and last year, after constantly alerting the council to his fears, Mr Tanner, who has lived in Darwin Lane since 1981, applied for resource consent to get the tree removed.
The council sent an arborist who said it was not a danger so he was declined consent. Under the Property Law Act 1952, Mr Tanner is entitled to cut the tree back to his boundary, but that would kill it so the council won't allow it.
He is applying to the court for an order requiring the council to remove the tree under the act, which gives as grounds for removal:
* Any actual or potential danger to the applicant's life or health or property, or to the life or health of any person residing with the applicant; or
* Any other undue interference with the reasonable enjoyment of the applicant's land for residential purposes.
Council spokesman Eion Scott said arborists trimmed most street trees every six years, but this tree was pruned "on a much more regular basis due to customer request".
The proposal to remove the tree did not meet criteria for tree removal because it was healthy.
"The tree would be removed if it was considered to be dangerous."
Mr Tanner hopes to see the council in court before Christmas.
