Annette Carr, 78, has appealed a Dunedin City Council decision allowing Belleknowes couple Adam and Anna O’Byrne to remove a 17m-tall silver beech from their property.
Ms Carr says the silver beech is an "amazing" tree which should be retained, and has suggested the owners have ulterior motives for its removal.
The O’Byrnes say her appeal is a "nuisance claim".
They have exhausted other options to keep their property safe and the process is taking its toll on their family, they say.
In their application, Mr and Mrs O’Byrne said their tenants living in a consented unit below the tree felt unsafe, particularly in high winds when they saw branches dropping.
During the October floods last year, the tree’s root system prevented water draining and contributed to flooding of the unit and "a large insurance bill", they said.
Yesterday, Ms Carr disputed this — she said the property’s drains were blocked by debris in October and the couple should use sandbags to prevent future flooding.
"It would be such a great shame for the city to lose another beautiful tree just for a shabby little garage sleep-out."
Ms Carr said she accepted there would be costs in taking the appeal to the Environment Court, done jointly with her brother and sister-in-law, but she felt it was required.
"I’m going to take out a Heartland mortgage to pay for the costs," she said.
"I’m sure they will be significant, but to my mind, it’s important enough to keep that tree."
She was convinced the couple wanted the tree removed for an "ulterior unspoken motive" — to clear the land for building or subdividing, she said.
"They would not be spending tens of thousands of dollars on lawyer’s fees just to stop the flat getting flooded again."
Mr O’Byrne told the Otago Daily Times he had been verbally threatened and the matter was putting his family through "stress and duress".
"We knew there would be an appeal because it’s been personal and vindictive," he said.
Ms Carr denies this.
"Submitters are making it personal about us trying to make money, subdivide, all these sort of things and been spreading a lot of misinformation about our intentions," Mr O’Byrne said.
As owners, the couple had a responsibility to ensure stormwater left the property.
They initially intended to keep the tree and had previously sought resource consent to maintain it.
"It wasn’t until the flooding that occurred that the [council] planner said you have a drainage issue here that you need to solve," Mr O’Byrne said.
"The only way to do that is to put drainage through an area where the tree’s roots are, which will kill the tree."
The council decision to approve the tree’s removal was made by hearings panel of commissioners Kirstyn Royce (chairwoman), Cr Sophie Barker and Cr Steve Walker.
Ms Royce and Cr Barker agreed removing the tree would have a moderate, but not significant, character and amenity effect.
No reasonable drainage solutions were available to the owners and removing the tree would produce "significant positive effects" for effective land use.
Their majority finding formed the panel’s decision.
Cr Walker said there would be significant adverse effects and alternative solutions remained to manage the tree.
