Phillipa and Darren Bain have urgently requested the Dunedin City Council grant resource consent for the removal of a protected pin oak from their home in King St.
It is their second attempt after they lodged an Environment Court appeal against a council decision last year declining consent.
Mrs Bain said a previously undiscovered crack along the tree’s truck heightened the couple’s fears the 20m tall tree could fall on their home or that of a neighbour.
In the couple’s application, consulting arborist Peter Waymouth said two houses and electrical infrastructure sat in the tree’s "target zone" and potential trunk failure could cause significant harm to people and property.
His assessment began by asking AI-powered answer engine Perplexity for the risks posed by the crack and a branch overhanging electrical supply wires using International Society of Arboriculture methodology.
Mr Waymouth said it was his first time using AI in his work and its findings had been cross-checked by recognised sources.
Perplexity found both defects indicated a "high to extreme risk for the public" and recommended urgent management.
He felt he was clear his assessment was not reliant on it and its use was more akin to a brainstorming tool.
He found the best approach was to consider removing the tree to eliminate undue risk to people and property.
"It is my opinion, and I need to back it by reliable sources, but I just thought that was a new way of looking at things ... by using that technology, but not necessarily relying on it fully."
Mr Waymouth would use AI in his work again, "within reason".
The Bains’ Environment Court appeal was "unresolved" and, as it was still before the court, he could not comment any further on it.
Last month, the couple asked to remove the tree under urgency — without a hearing — but the council declined as it found the tree was not a risk to public safety.
Mrs Bain said she felt "bureaucratic dictatorship" and "colonial behaviour" meant the council was dictating to people what they could do on their properties.
"It’s pathetic that we have to even wait as a family, yet again, more weeks and for someone with a bit of paper and a pen to shuffle around whether we can remove a tree that makes us feel really vulnerable."
She was aware of Mr Waymouth’s AI use and was satisfied it was being used to "fact-check" his findings.
Council corporate and regulatory services general manager Paul Henderson said as the tree was protected, a public process — including notification, submissions and a hearing — was a legal requirement before the tree could be removed.
The council’s consultant professional arborist found no evidence of whole or partial tree failure, concluding urgent removal was not needed.
The council was not in a position to comment further ahead of a hearing.
Public submissions on the application close November 10.
