Tauranga City Council has changed its mind about felling a 2nd Avenue pohutukawa tree - granting the tree a reprieve.

Instead of being felled, the tree, which neighbours say is blocking the light and causing flooding, will now be severely pruned.

2nd Ave resident Tony Mangnus wants the pohutukawa outside his property felled.

The council decision overturns the earlier decision of the tree sub-committee to fell the tree outside No.10 and cut back the neighbouring pohutukawa outside No.2.

'This is actually making a laugh out of democracy,” says 2nd Ave resident Tony Mangnus. 'This council was not given the full presentation of the day that was given to the committee. It was unfair of the councillors who had no idea what was presented that day because they only had a picture in front of them.

'What happened was the decision made by the sub-committee was undermined. Why have they got a sub-committee?”

Tony wants the pohutukawa outside his house felled as well, but the sub-committee earlier decided to prune that tree and fell the one outside No.10. Now the tree outside No.10 will also be pruned.

The tree sub-committee's original decision was opposed by members of the public, who spoke against the decision at last month's strategy and policy committee meeting.

Tauranga residents Sandy Scarrow and Keith Frentz were two residents who presented opposition to the tree felling.

Keith's argument was based on his calculations of the Standard Tree Evaluation Method – used to evaluate whether trees should be protected. According to his calculations Keith, who is not an arborist, says the three trees on the southern side of Second Avenue east, equate to 186 points, 156 points and 150 points. A protected tree requires a score of 130 points.

But city arborist Richard Conning's STEM assessment prepared for yesterday's meeting gives the tree outside No.10 a value of 120 points – 10 less than the city plan threshold of 130 points.

'And I had it peer reviewed by a colleague,” says Richard.

A landscape assessment was also prepared for yesterday's meeting – with a comment on the sunlight admission rule in the city plan for the city living zone. Whether the apartments shaded by the tree actually receive the requisite minimum sunlight remains undetermined.

Yesterday's argument was split over whether it was better to spare the tree for now and see if pruning works, or chopping it down.

The about turn was opposed by the tree committee acting chairman at the time, councillors Murray Guy, Larry Baldock and Rick Curach, and chairman Tony Christiansen.

The sub-committee's deputy chair Bill Grainger excused himself because he knows one of the submitters.

'Trees, like people, have a use by date, unfortunately it's always a difficult decision,” says Murray.

Felling the tree will not only allow more light through to the residents, but the additional light will serve to revitalise the two adjacent trees, says Murray.

He says not only was Keith Frentz proven wrong about the trees' STEM value, but he was wrong about the claim the trees were an important part of the city's visual amenity when seen from the water, says Murray.

Murray claims he was unable to see the tree outside No.10 from the water.

Councillor Larry Baldock raised the financial argument, saying keeping the tree alive is going to cost the ratepayers.

The original sub-committee decision was to be at the residents' cost. A decision to spare the tree will cost the ratepayers thousands of dollars, says Larry.

Pruning the tree will involve a crown reduction from the present 15 to about 5m in height. This can be done as a one off or every five-10 years to manage shading.

The costs are; $1500-$1700 plus GST for the initial reduction, and another $1000 at year 10 as the tree grows out. Follow up reduction will cost $1000 plus GST per prune.

The debate became heated as Murray was criticised for using his casting vote to make the earlier sub-committee decision. Councillor Wayne Moultrie said the traditional use of the casting vote is to maintain the status quo. In another recent debate it was made clear there is no legal basis for the casting vote tradition.

Submissions from the public consultation were 35/25 against removing the trees.

But Murray says the submissions against removing the trees are made by people not living with the trees.

Wayne and Terry Molloy were both in favour of keeping the tree, saying once it's gone it cannot be replaced with another mature tree.

Discussions about pruning the tree outside No.2 begin next week, says Tony.