Belleknowes couple Adam and Anna O’Byrne have applied to the Dunedin City Council for resource consent to remove a 17m-tall silver beech, in "fair health", from their Preston Cres property.
The tree was protected by the council’s Second Generation District Plan and 14 of 19 submissions were against the tree being chopped down — one submitter called it a taoka [treasure].
However, others disagreed, saying the tree was an "eyesore" and had outgrown its site.
In their application, the couple said the tree was "causing fear" for tenants living in a consented, converted garage under it and the tree blocked light to a second property at the back of the section.
"As landlords, we need to provide a warm home that is free of danger and feels safe for our tenants.
"Our last tenants will testify that they felt unsafe under the silver beech and witnessed many branches dropping in high winds."
Arborist William Hagendorn was contracted by the couple and said overall, the tree was in "fair health".
He was concerned the tree had developed two main stems and had a "moderate" amount of deadwood and several broken branches caught in the canopy.
Mr Hagendorn recommended the tree be monitored by an arborist, be pruned every three to five years and a cable support system installed.
Beth and Ben Ryan opposed the application to remove the "magnificent tahina [silver beech]".
"Current owners must take responsibility as kaitiaki [caretakers] and do their best to ensure the tree is maintained.
"When we asked our children, aged 7 and 9, how they would feel if they woke up tomorrow and the tree was gone, they said they would feel sad and disappointed.
"The removal of this taoka would detrimentally impact not only our generation but those to come."
Michael Butchard said the O’Byrnes had bought the property and converted the garage knowing the tree was protected.
"Alternative solutions need to be found to solve the issues the property owners identify.
"If the issues cannot be resolved, the mistake was converting the garage to accommodation.
"The tree is not the mistake here," he said.
Laurie McNeill also opposed the application.
"[The tree] has been here longer than any one or thing in the neighbourhood and connects us with our past."
Brett Little backed the tree’s removal — it was "an eyesore" and overgrown.
"The branches are too large, some are dead and it poses a danger to the public."
Katie Montgomery said the tree was a documented risk to nearby people and property, particularly in extreme weather when debris fell.
"The tree’s size shows it has clearly outgrown its location.
"The decision to remove a protected tree is not one that should be taken lightly, but in this case, the risks clearly outweigh the benefits of keeping it," she said.
