Latest news with #MaxBrough
RNZ News
2 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Mayoral aspirant wants council apology over pōhutukawa wrangle
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. 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. 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. 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.
RNZ News
5 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
New Plymouth resident claims moral victory over fate of overgrown pohutukawa
Alana Brough is the daughter of first-term councillor Max Brough. Photo: RNZ / Robin Martin The daughter of a New Plymouth councillor is claiming a victory of sorts, after facing a hefty fine and a years-long battle with council over who was responsible for a massive pohutukawa outside her home. Lines company Powerco has sent in contractors to remove the 15m-tall pohutukawa at no cost, after it had grown through powerlines on Ballance St. Alana Brough, who is the daughter of first-term councillor Max Brough, was overjoyed and baked for the contractors, who were bringing down the tree in the rain. "The tree's coming down, whoohoo," she said. "I had a phone call from Powerco to say it was in the lines, and then [the contractor] Asplundh said they could come and cut it out at no charge." Brough got into a stoush with council, after asking it to trim the branches of the pohutukawa, which had grown in the leafy suburb of Vogeltown for decades, Council said no, because the tree straddled Brough's property and the footpath, and it had not planted it, while she argued it was in the berm and the NPDC's responsibility. After discovering the pohutukawa would cost $10,000 to trim, Brough planted dwarf fruit trees and a vegetable garden in her berm against council rules in an act of defiance, but was threatened with a $1000 fine, plus $50 for each day the garden remained, so pulled it out. She remained defiant as the tree came down. "It's a council tree on council land, it's up to the council to take care of it," Brough said. "Then Powerco have come in and said it is hazardous, because it's up above the power lines." Brough would still have to pay a $1300 bill to mulch the remnants of the tree, but was still happy with the outcome. The pohutukawa would cost $10,000 to trim, but Powerco removed it for free. Photo: RNZ/Robin Martin "I think it's amazing what Powerco are doing, although it makes sense, because it's under their powerlines and, if there's a storm and it comes down, it is a hazard. The contractors have been amazing, working in the pouring rain to remove this tree." Not everybody was thrilled, with one neighbour expressing their frustration on social media. "Absolutely gutted this is happening," they said. "The beautiful pohutukawa tree that we have seen out our lounge window for 25 years is being removed today." NPDC parks and open spaces manager Conrad Pattison said work on trees was prioritised according to the safety risk they posed, either to the public or infrastructure. "We've found no immediate safety issues regarding this pohutukawa, but we'd relook at it if that changed," he said. "This tree straddles the boundary between the public pathway and the private property, but we didn't plant it. If the property owner wants it removed, she can do that, but at her cost." In a statement, Powerco said it monitored trees growing close to powerlines, but it was the property owner's responsibility to keep their trees a safe distance from overhead lines. "Tree owners are sent a 'cut or trim notice', if their tree is encroaching on power lines, which is a safety risk. Powerco will cover the reasonable cost of the first cut, if the tree has not previously been cut by a Powerco contractor. "The tree on Ballance Street is being removed today to eliminate the risk to Powerco's network." Powerco said property owners were legally required to keep trees a minimum safe distance away from overhead power lines under the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003. For more information about trees near powerlines, including Powerco's first-cut policy, click here . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
