A Temuka couple faced a fine of up to $300,000 or a jail term for cutting down a rotting tree on their property.
Whose property was it? Theirs.
Whose tree was it? Theirs, but it was protected.
However, they didn’t know it was protected and their lawyer says there was nothing on the property title referring to the tree or its status.
In light of the background to felling the tree, the council agreed not to prosecute, but only if the Wests agreed to pay $3000 compensation.
The amount covered what would have been paid for getting resource consent and for the compensation for the loss of “amenity value” of the tree.
The council may have been within the letter of the law to prosecute but to do so in these circumstances would have been ridiculous.
And while $3,000 may be a fraction of what the couple could have been fined, it still looks like a very steep price to pay for resource consent and the amenity value of a rotting tree.
If the council wants to protect trees, it has a responsibility to ensure those whose properties they are on are aware of that.
There must be a schedule of protected trees, how hard would it be for the council to ensure they are noted on property titles?
They should also think about the costs of protection.
Presumably a tree is protected so that the community, rather than the property owner, can enjoy its amenity values. In that case, doesn’t the community have a responsibility for any costs associated with its care including, when the time comes as it does for all living things, its end?
Sadly not. This is a case where the public get the benefit and the private property owner pays the price.
Hat Tip: SOLO.
Homepaddock 
This is bureaucracy at insanity levels. Even had the poor(er) buggers been aware of the status of the tree they would have not only had to get a consent to remove it but to overturn the status, an arborists report would have been necessary, they are a rort to boot and don’t come reasonably priced, let alone cheep.
Of course had the tree, in a decayed condition, caused damage, then the owners would be liable not the freekin council and their tree hugger advisors.
This is erosion, nay removal without compensation, of property rights and I was under the mistaken impression that the Key government was going to address this sort of gross stupidity.
Before we actually took possession of our current property but after the contract became unconditional we were served a noxious weed notice in our name to remove scattered gorse, how hard to advise a new owner of such nonsense as tree protection.
If a council at the behest of interfering nanny statists wish to protect a tree, and there are a few that IMO could qualify, then three things are essential.
1 The protection order must be on the title to be discovered before title search is completed
2 Full compensation to be paid to coincide with the proclamation and title notice.
3 the council making the order takes full responsibility for the said tree to keep it safe and should removal become necessary or it should cause damage then the council will do what is necessary at no cost to the property owners.
Nearly every time I have purchased property in my lifetime their have been trees in inappropriate positions that I wish removed and if I buy unaware then I will be somewhat disappointed to put it mildly.
With this rant BTW, I claim what I consider a conservation minded citizen who has planted many more trees than I have removed but all too often a sensible planting can become a disaster and moving a mature tree is not easy
LikeLike
$3000?
Thats about 35 hours at consultant rates the Council is claiming. Thats clearly a rort and could never be justified. Add in rates and this function should be free.
JC
LikeLike
Yes, so many acts they COULD repeal…
LikeLike