The maximum penalty for such offending was a $300,000 fine, but Tee argued that the starting point should only be $25,000.<\/p>\n
Trees illegally trimmed in Takapuna. Photo \/ Dean Purcell<\/p>\n
The two trees at the centre of this case are at the other end of the beach from those at The Strand apartments, The Sands, reported on<\/a> in February.<\/p>\n Auckland Council<\/a> records Fallwell\u2019s place as having a $15.7m rateable valuation.<\/p>\n The sentencing report said a member of the public alerted the council to the trimming in March, 2024.<\/p>\n The council\u2019s compliance team visited and found that a p\u014dhutukawa at the end of an accessway and one on Fallwell\u2019s property had been pruned.<\/p>\n Large branches were cut from both and there were flush cuts, stub cuts and bad finishing cuts.<\/p>\n The canopy had been lion-tailed, meaning the inner foliage had been removed, stripping branches and limbs bare.<\/p>\n The alteration works did not meet arboricultural best practice.<\/p>\n A council officer spoke to Fallwell, who confirmed he had contracted to have the alteration and trimming works undertaken.<\/p>\n Fallwell had contacted the owners of two neighbouring properties to discuss trimming the p\u014dhutukawa. They did not object, but the other four owners on the accessway were not contacted.<\/p>\n One of those accessway property owners said they did not know about the alteration works nor give permission for the works to occur to the p\u014dhutukawa.<\/p>\n Fallwell did not provide the details of the contractor, but he did initially say the works had been done for safety reasons, the sentencing said.<\/p>\n However, a council arborist found no visual signs of decline that would warrant removal of the alteration.<\/p>\n Fallwell later admitted he had done the work to both trees \u201cbecause they were obstructing his view of the beach and sea views\u201d.<\/p>\n The council investigated and found Fallwell had paid an amount of $6000.<\/p>\n The sentencing said such tree work would have required a resource consent but no resource consents had been obtained or granted.<\/p>\n The indigenous trees were taller than 3m and the tree on Fallwell\u2019s property was scheduled as notable.<\/p>\n A search warrant was granted so council arborists could go on to Fallwell\u2019s property and examine the tree there.<\/p>\n Both trees were at least 80 to 100 years old, so the ecological importance of the affected environment was significant.<\/p>\n The trees had ecological and amenity values.<\/p>\n \u201cThe alteration works have negatively affected the health and stability of the two p\u014dhutukawa trees. These effects are more than minor,\u201d the sentencing said.<\/p>\n \u201cP\u014dhutukawa struggle to fully seal or occlude large cuts from pruning.\u201d<\/p>\n Tee submitted that Fallwell\u2019s offending fell into the category of careless but not gross recklessness or gross carelessness.<\/p>\n There was no dispute that Fallwell genuinely believed he could trim up to 10% of the trees without consent but he also accepted that he should have checked before proceeding.<\/p>\n That admission was reflected in his early guilty pleas.<\/p>\n The council\u2019s lawyer, Cordelia Woodhouse, said the starting point for a fine should be $35,000.<\/p>\n Tee said there was no commercial motivation for the offending. Fallwell\u2019s home had been a much-loved place for 40 years and there was no intention to sell it.<\/p>\n Nor was Fallwell motivated to increase the value of his property or get any financial gain.<\/p>\n The judge wrote: \u201cI accept that there is no evidence of commercial motivation, but the fact remains that Mr Fallwell, having initially advised the council that he contracted for the works to be undertaken for safety reasons, later admitted to council officers that he had undertaken the alterations as both p\u014dhutukawa were obstructing his view of the beach and sea views\u201d.<\/p>\n The $21,000 fine took into account his good character, that he had no history of offending and showed remorse.<\/p>\nTakapuna Beach, where the property is on the waterfront. Photo \/ Sylvie Whinray <\/p>\n
Owner of 2a Gibbons Rd, Takapuna sought a better view so had trees trimmed. Photo \/ Dean Purcell<\/p>\n
A man has been sentenced for illegally having two Takapuna p\u014dhutukawa trees trimmed. Photo \/ Sylvie Whinray <\/p>\n
District Court sentencing was this month for a man who illegally trimmed trees at Takapuna. Photo \/ Dean Purcell<\/p>\n
Judge Sheena Tepania handed down sentencing in the Auckland District Court over the illegal tree trimming.<\/p>\n
A contractor was engaged to illegally trim two p\u014dhutukawa trees, one on a Takapuna beachfront property. Photo \/ Sylvie Whinray <\/p>\n