Mr McKinlay, a public policy analyst, said the argument for the felling was inherently commercial and granting the application would set a precedent that put every notable tree at risk of felling.
All someone wanting to remove a protected tree would need to do was to argue it was interfering with their preferred use of the land, he said. "This application must be declined if the council's trees policy is to have any integrity whatsoever."
The tree was at the end of a row of three London plane trees, all of which were registered as notable on the council's city plan.
Association witness and landscape architect Richard Hart said the three trees, together with the trees in the Belvedere Reserve, provided the backbone to the treescape and character of the neighbourhood.
He said removing the tree would create a precedent and encourage requests to remove the other trees. It was unfortunate that the layout of the house lots in Edwin Grove had put the trees in such close proximity to houses.
Evidence was given by planner Keith Frentz, who led the challenge to the council's plan to reduce the number of notable trees in Tauranga from 1850 to 250. He succeeded in adding 80 trees to the register and to include protection for groups of trees.
Mr Frentz said the only type of removal contemplated by the notable tree policy was in an emergency.
He said the first question that should have been asked was not how to get rid of the tree but how to work around it. The commissioner reserved her decision.
Arguments to fell the protected notable tree
•Balance skewed to protection at expense of property owner
•Tree too large for conventional residential sections
•Felling would create minor landscape and visual effects
What do you think?
Have your say below or email editor@bayofplentytimes.co.nz, go to our facebook page, text 021 241 4568 BOP (message) or write to Private Bag 12002.
Response may be published.
