Editorial: Kauri debacle shows lack of sensitivity

Protester Michael Tavares high up in the branches of the kauri tree. Photo / Chris Gorman

Opinion

An ancient kauri in Titirangi has been saved from the axe amid a cacophony of self-serving claim and counter-claim. It took Conservation Minister Maggie Barry to get to the nub of the issue. She expressed surprise at the Auckland Council's decision not to notify the public of the process to remove the tree.

So often this has been the backdrop when the council has found itself at odds with protesters over environmental and heritage decisions. Absent has been anything like the required level of sensitivity to likely public concerns, making the backlash all the greater.

Ms Barry urged the council to re-examine the processes that led it not to notify the public. Yesterday, the council's development committee agreed to this. The Deputy Mayor, Penny Hulse, suggested, meanwhile, that a can-do council had become too keen to push through resource consents.

That, in itself, could be a response to recurring claims that councils are prone to dragging their feet. Ms Hulse's reasoning does not, however, totally explain how the council could be so insensitive to the case of a kauri reckoned by some estimates to be 500 years old. This when even its own landscape planner had advised that removing the kauri and a rimu would involve "modification of the highest quality vegetation".

Insensitivity does not lie solely with the council, however. Architects John Lenihan and Jane Greensmith, who wanted to develop the property, were caught in the middle of a furore thanks to the council's decision. Finally, they have bowed to the protesters and the trees will not be felled. They spoke yesterday of having wanted to help Auckland's housing crisis. Yet they must have known what the outcome would be if their plan was notified publicly.

It was, therefore, disingenuous of them to insist they had merely followed the letter of the law in achieving consent without notification. Similarly, they did their cause no favours in hitting out yesterday at Auckland's "very complex and ... outdated planning" laws. Their experience suggested there was nothing particularly complex about gaining the most favourable of consents if the right approach was adopted.

All along, the council has indicated that it did not wish to revoke the consent. Chief operating officer Dean Kimpton spoke glowingly of its recognition of "the right to build while taking the environment into consideration".

And Ms Hulse was not about to take any Government criticism lying down. She suggested it had been responsible for removing tree protection rules. The council, however, retains the power to grant or decline resource consents. When the subject is an ancient kauri, notification represents the minimum step.

The drive for housing intensification and a can-do council attitude cannot excuse what happened in Titirangi. The kauri almost joined a long list of inappropriate demolitions. In such matters, the views of local communities should be sought and they should have a meaningful say. When these communities detect the use of stealth, it is no surprise that they react vehemently.

Debate on this article is now closed.