'Double standards' by tree police

Last updated 12:07 24/09/2012

Relevant offers

Opinion

Timely promotion for Cunliffe Editorial: Lessons to be learned from pool Consents don't make highway Was Cunliffe the answer? Time to extend Ihakara St Land revalue to save 'red faces' Former councillors deserve mention Paula Bennett's bells and whistles NZ: 100 per cent vulnerable Wgtn voters smarter this time

Time and again we read about the council slamming residents for crossing the line.

Perfect example, the ngaio tree (Seeds of doubt over pruning natives, September 10).

Why don't they think back a year when they gave the go-ahead in a rushed decision to cutting down our norfolk pine trees for the airport consent. Last time I checked they were protected.

With the promise of $2500 if I recall properly to be donated by the landowner of the airport to be put back into revamping the area where the trees were. How come the council wasn't fined? Why weren't they fined for each tree being topped? Should each of the council members who agreed to the cutting down of the norfolk pine trees be fined individually?

Should the arborists also have been fined? Double standards if you ask me.

Chris Ward

Raumati Beach

Removing the trees breached the council's management plan for the reserve, which said mature trees there should be 'protected and maintained'. But under the Reserves Act the council can cut any trees in the interests of safety for people near reserves. The decision was made on the agreement that the airport company paid for the work - editor.

Removing the trees breached the council's management plan for the reserve, which said mature trees there should be 'protected and maintained'. But under the Reserves Act the council can cut any trees in the interests of safety for people near reserves. The decision was made on the agreement that the airport company paid for the work - editor.

Ad Feedback

- Kapiti Observer

Comments

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content