At the corner of Great North Road and Ash Street in Avondale, a 150-year-old macrocarpa stands its ground at the centre of what’s becoming a politicised spat.
Defenders of the tree have been lodging themselves in its branches for weeks, in defiance of an Ockham Residential development being given the green light to remove it for a high-density housing project.
No one disputes the city’s need for high-density housing, but concerns are being raised about the lack of transparency around decision-making from Auckland Council, and what protesters believe is a discrepancy between councils’ stance on the climate emergency and their removal of environmentally beneficial trees.
Ockham says it’s had assessments done showing the tree has few years left to live, while protesters say it could live for another century.
The company, which is developing the project in partnership with Marutūāhu iwi, maintains the 117-unit ‘Aroha’ development both clears the proper process and aligns with climate goals – helping the city avoid the much more damaging impacts of urban sprawl.
The project, which includes 47 KiwiBuilds, will sit on a site that was sold by council-controlled organisation Panuku to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development for residential development. The site is to be onsold to Ockham Residential, partnered with the iwi, under the Ministry’s Land for Housing Programme.
The developer applied to remove the tree to make way for its plans on November 6, and was granted approval by Auckland Council chief executive James Stabback on December 23.
“Let’s keep this macrocarpa standing, and let Ockham continue to be true to its brand of being one of the more conscientious developers. If we’re going to solve this climate crisis, we need to keep big trees standing.”
– Steve Abel
However, members of Mana Rākau – the protest group formed to save native forest on neighbouring Canal Road and which is now defending the macrocarpa – say removing the tree goes against the Council’s stated climate objectives.
Ockham has defended the project, pointing out it is “fully in accordance with the city’s housing and climate goals”; the product of thousands of submissions and years of consultation.
Environmental activist and Mana Rākau member Steve Abel says it’s not a question of whether or not the city needs affordable housing in a high-density zone. “It just doesn’t have to be one or the other.”
He believes the developers could make changes to incorporate the tree into the design. “They could very readily make slight modifications to their swimming pool, the corner of which touches the edge of where the tree is now so that they can accommodate the tree. The development can largely proceed as is designed with some minor adjustments to allow the tree to keep standing.” (Ockham has said this isn’t possible.)
Incorporating the tree could be an asset for the development, rather than being seen as a hindrance, he says.
“They could start being seen as on the vanguard of change in the development community in how we look after trees. Let’s keep this macrocarpa standing, and let Ockham continue to be true to its brand of being one of the more conscientious developers. If we’re going to solve this climate crisis, we need to keep big trees standing.”
Ockham chief executive Mark Todd says the company is only trying to fulfil core government policy on delivering quality housing.
“The argument we’ve heard most consistently for the retention of the tree – that we are in a climate change emergency and cannot afford to lose a single great tree – doesn’t hold up. Building Aroha in Avondale will save at least six hectares of rural sprawl, along the incalculable carbon savings for generations to come.”
– Mark Todd
Todd says he’s “reasonably supportive” of the discussion that scheduled trees be protected, but this isn’t the way.
He believes the financial and environmental costs of the alternative – urban sprawl – would far outweigh the benefits of keeping it.
“The argument we’ve heard most consistently for the retention of the tree – that we are in a climate change emergency and cannot afford to lose a single great tree – doesn’t hold up. Building Aroha in Avondale will save at least six hectares of rural sprawl, along the incalculable carbon savings for generations to come.”
Read more: In thrall to the sprawl: How Aroha can cure Auckland’s addiction – Mark Todd
Member of the Canal Road Avondale activist group and former Waitakere Parks Department employee Mandy McMullin says the Council’s decision to remove the macrocarpa doesn’t fit with its climate emergency declaration.
“Decisions are being pushed through that will have significant long-term effects on our environment without community input, examination or discussion.”
– Mandy McMullin
“The bigger picture for me is that on one hand there’s a climate emergency and I don’t see that reflected in tree policy. For little money, Council could actually do something about climate change and I don’t see them doing it. Obviously there is a problem with housing – no one is disputing that – but the way they’re going about it is really bad for the environment.”
McMullin says the number of trees cut down on public land is devastating and she has been largely stonewalled by the council on questions of how it evaluates which trees must go.
“You ring council and you get nothing … I’ve asked them about their climate change policy, how their trees are evaluated. I just don’t get any response.”
People generally acknowledge the urgent need for new housing in Auckland, she says, but the issue has been politicised and used to justify what she sees as entirely unnecessary tree removal.
“Decisions are being pushed through that will have significant long-term effects on our environment without community input, examination or discussion.”
And the environmental impacts of removing trees aren’t negligible.
Urban ecologist Margaret Stanley says the large-scale removal of trees since changes to the Resource Management Act in 2009 – an attempt to address the housing crisis – has had significant consequences.
A report done in 2018 found some areas in Auckland had experienced a 30 percent tree canopy loss, and that 75 percent of all cleared trees had no statutory protection.
The University of Auckland expert says benefits include flood protection, soaking up air pollution, supporting biodiversity, reducing depression and stress, lowering blood pressure and improving mental health.
Large trees, the majority of which were now largely on public land, were especially good resources.
“There are lots of opportunities to have trees, but you plant them and they’ll take probably 100-150 years to get those same benefits.
“While [the macrocarpa] may not be a native tree, these large trees – native or exotic – play a massive role and we’re losing them all over Auckland.”
Meanwhile, questions are also being raised by some of the members about Panuku chair Paul Majurey’s involvement with Ockham.
Majurey is listed in the Companies Register as a 50 percent shareholder in MO5 properties – set up in November 2020 – of which Mark Todd holds the other 50 percent. The registered office for MO5 properties is listed as Ockham Residential.
“This development is part of a transformative programme for Avondale, an area in need of more homes for its growing number of residents. Well-planned development on brownfields sites like this, that have good connections with community services and public transport, are key drivers of the council’s Auckland Plan.”
– Dr Claudia Wyss
Asked about Majurey’s involvement with Ockham projects, Auckland Council maintains the connections are all above board.
Dr Claudia Wyss, director of customer and community services, says a query made by a protester about the link had been referred to Panuku, and the Council would have a response in “due course”.
“It is important to note that in accordance with the Council’s Appointment and Remuneration Policy all board chairs and board members of council’s controlled organisations are subject to a conflict of interest vetting and declaration process.”
Directors’ interests and the management of any potential conflicts are also considered as part of every Panuku board meeting, she says.
About the macrocarpa specifically, the Council is resolved in its decision, with Wyss describing the developers’ commitment to plant 21 mature trees on the site and retention of three other poplars as “over and above”. A central tenet of protecting the environment from the impacts of climate change is to manage urban development well, she says.
“This development is part of a transformative programme for Avondale, an area in need of more homes for its growing number of residents. Well-planned development on brownfields sites like this, that have good connections with community services and public transport, are key drivers of the council’s Auckland Plan.”
However, it appears the Council had to consider reputational risk and legal threats when it made the decision to remove the tree.
“If we do want to be strategic after we’ve stopped chopping, there are areas where there’s plenty of opportunity to add trees. So there’s a lot of school grounds which have very few trees; there are sports fields that have just one or two oak trees around the outside rather than having good urban forest all the way around.”
– Associate Professor Margaret Stanley
Stabback notes in his decision:
“The developer has threatened legal action if tree owner approval is not provided.
“The developer has also indicated that it will seek to recover any costs it incurs as a result of council refusing its application or by delaying this project further. As such, there is a financial risk to Council if a decision is made to refuse the application, and if there is any further delay in taking a decision.
“As noted by the developer, there is also reputational risk to Council if the application for tree-owner approval is declined on the basis that such a decision is arguably inconsistent with council’s support (through Panuku) of this development and more generally, to increasing affordable housing and supporting growth in Auckland.”
So what might be some ways to deal with the wider tree removal problem looking ahead?
The University of Auckland’s Margaret Stanley says public spaces like schools should have deliberate tree-planting strategies.
“If we do want to be strategic after we’ve stopped chopping, there are areas where there’s plenty of opportunity to add trees. So there’s a lot of school grounds which have very few trees; there are sports fields that have just one or two oak trees around the outside rather than having good urban forest all the way around. We’re talking about multi-functional spaces.
“The street tree stock we have in Auckland is only half full.”
Editors note: After this story was published, Ockham clarified the role and interest of Paul Majurey in the Aroha development.
In a joint statement with Marutūāhu Iwi it said: Paul Majurey represents the Marutūāhu Rōpū in a governance capacity for the development entity of Aroha. He has no personal financial interest in the development entity, in Aroha itself or in any other Ockham project.
The Marutūāhu Iwi represented by the Rōpū comprise Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Whanaunga and Te Patukirikiri. The Marutūāhu Rōpū is the majority investor in the Aroha project in Avondale. Paul Majurey is Chair of the Marutūāhu Rōpū, and he has no personal financial interest in the Rōpū. He is also chair of Panuku, Auckland Council’s development CCO.
During the negotiations between Panuku and Ockham over the Development Agreement for what would become the Aroha project, Paul Majurey (who was then deputy chair of Panuku) declared his interest at the outset and recused himself from all related Board discussions and decisions.
The Aroha site has not been sold to Ockham Residential; it remains under the ownership of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and is being developed by Ockham in accordance with the Development Agreement.
– Ockham Residential is a foundation supporter of Newsroom
