Mayoral aspirant wants council apology over pōhutukawa wrangle

5:33 pm on 1 July 2025
Councillor and mayoral aspirant Max Brough draws a line between two survey pegs he says indicate the pōhutukawa is on council land.

Councillor and mayoral aspirant Max Brough draws a line between two survey pegs he says indicate the pōhutukawa is on council land. Photo: Robin Martin

A New Plymouth mayoral aspirant wants council to apologise for the treatment of his daughter who has been caught up in a wrangle over who is responsible for a 100-year-old pōhutukawa tree.

Alana Brough owns a property on Ballance Street where contractors have reduced a 15-metre pōhutukawa to an ugly stump to protect the electricity network.

She called in McKinlay Surveyors to peer review an earlier survey of the property to confirm the tree was on council property and therefore its responsibility to maintain and keep out of the power lines.

Alana Brough said it was a matter of principle.

"I just want to make it 100 percent clear where the boundary line is and that the tree is on their land."

Council Manager Parks and Open Spaces Conrad Pattison has been adamant this week that council was not responsible for the tree.

"We didn't plant the tree, nor did we seek its removal. As it is primarily on private land and is not protected, the landowner can have it removed at their own cost."

Pattison said council used GIS mapping to determine that the tree trunk was located and the peer-reviewed survey would not change its position.

Alana Brough was has been battling council over a giant pohutukawa now faces a $1000 fine for planting fruit trees in the berm outside her home.

Alana Brough. Photo: RNZ / Robin Martin

The McKinlay Surveyors peer-review was unequivocal.

"I certify that the position of the boundary splay for Lot 1 Deposited Plan 8306, being 50 Ballance Street, Lower Vogeltown, New Plymouth, was surveyed and confirmed under my direction on 1 July 2025, and that the base of the pōhutukawa tree close to that boundary is located wholly outside the boundary of Lot 1 DP 8306."

First-term councillor and mayoral aspirant, Max Brough, who had an interest in the property via family trust, now wanted an apology from council.

"The survey very clearly shows that the tree is on council land and has always been on council land. I feel that council have behaved in a manner that is unbefitting of a large organisation. It's caused a lot of hate in the community, a lot of anger has come out.

"What's gone on here is wrong. The tree not straddling the boundary, it's not on our property. It is not the responsibility of myself or my daughter. Real simple."

Pattison said the Broughs' peer-reviewed survey made no difference.

"It is her right as a private landowner to get a survey done at any time. We didn't do a survey but used GIS mapping to determine that the tree trunk was located on a shared boundary with the road reserve.

Pattison said council's primary consideration from the start was that the tree posed no safety issue that would require council to remove it, which was why Alana Brough was advised she could remove the tree, but at her own cost.

"The updated survey information has no bearing on the decision made."

Max Brough said he was preparing a letter for council with his lawyers.

Council said it had not received anything official from councillor Brough to respond to as yet.

A sign warning an emergency protection order has been made for the tree.

A sign warning an emergency protection order has been made for the tree. Photo: Robin Martin

"We stand by our decision and used the tools available to us to inform that decision, and the advice provided to Ms Brough."

A sign has also appeared on the tree warning an application for an emergency tree protection order has been made and no further work could be done to remove the trunk pending a decision from council.

The NPDC said it was not aware of the sign and the council did not place it.

Meanwhile, a pōhutukawa specialists and director of Thrive Spaces and Places, Geoff Canham, questioned whether putting the power lines on Ballance Street underground had been considered.

"Typically in this situation what used to happen was power companies would underground their power lines and have a programme that meant this didn't become a problem for residents and councils.

"Once upon a time there was a programme for our most beautiful streets and communities, which are revered, to not have utilities and services that look ugly anyway, affecting the very nature and human habitat where we live."

Canham, who had four decades' experience in the parks and recreation sector, said prior to regulatory changes in the 90s power companies would invest more heavily back in the network.

"One of their main roles was to ensure that their network was resilient and we used to use resilience language around making sure that some streets that were heavily tree-lined were undergrounded and that power went underground both for aesthetic reasons and resilience, but mainly so the power company wouldn't have issues when the wind blew."

Canham said that changed when power companies became shareholder-owned businesses.

A prophetic banner that has appeared on the tree in recent days.

A prophetic banner that has appeared on the tree in recent days. Photo: Robin Martin

"Once you're on the stock market those imperatives change. It's all about profit. It's not about what's good for the system or for communities. And that was a dramatic change, and I worked for councils then, and everything completely turned around in terms of the role of a power company in your community."

Lines company Powerco, who's contractors removed the Ballance Street pōhutukawa's limbs, said moving power lines underground was an expensive exercise.

"With more than 29,000km of electricity lines and cables connecting homes and businesses, including rural areas, placing all existing overhead electricity supply underground would be very costly - a cost that would need to be shared by all our electricity customers through their power bills."

The company said underground power lines could also be more challenging and expensive to maintain and repair compared to overhead lines.

"When issues arise, it is often easier and quicker to access and fix overhead lines."

The process of undergrounding power lines also involved significant logistical challenges and certain terrain and environments were not suitable for underground cables.

Powerco said power supplies at all new subdivisions in its network area were, however, placed underground.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Get the RNZ app

for ad-free news and current affairs