This document consolidates historical evidence, council records, and cultural statements regarding the pōhutukawa tree known as Tree 9A, located at 47 The Strand, Takapuna. The intent is to provide a clear factual account of its history, legal status, and the differing perspectives on its significance.
1. Location and Legal Status
• Site: 47 The Strand, Takapuna.
• Council Listings:
- Notable Tree (AUP-OP reference 1409).
- Within a Significant Ecological Area (SEA_T_8251).
• Tree Condition: Fell on 8 August 2022; remains alive and growing horizontally, with myrtle rust present on regrowth shoots.
• Council Process: Documented in the Auckland Council Notification Recommendation Report – TRE60421348 (29 Oct 2024), which recommends public notification and details site history, ecological advice, and cultural heritage input.
Auckland Council Notification Recommendation Report – TRE60421348: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4d5q3nbpe20po3p317hmd/TRE60421348-Notification-Report.pdf?rlkey=2hz5c2prmsdh3ximmzuwdoitt&st=nw6meo5l&dl=0
2. Cultural and Spiritual Significance
The Auckland Council report records the views of mana whenua representatives, specifically Te Kawerau ā Maki, who identify the grove as having both tangible and intangible cultural values. Council’s Māori Cultural Heritage Specialist states:
"The grove of trees has both tangible and intangible [cultural] values… The intangible values consist of values associated with the connection between Mana Whenua and the environment, tangihanga (funerals), mauri of the site (life force/vitality), tapu (sacredness) and noa (normal/profane)… There is a significant amount of tapu associated with the grove as part of the tangihanga process."
This perspective frames the grove as a wāhi tapu (sacred site), where mauri (life force) is believed to connect the trees with the ancestors of mana whenua. The claimed special meaning is therefore grounded in a spiritual belief system — including concepts of tapu, noa, tangihanga, and mauri — rather than in documented historical planting dates.
3. Historical Evidence on Age and Origin
3.1 Pre-1841 Landscape
By the time of the 1841 Crown Grant, the area was already cleared, in scrubland and open grass. If a native coastal forest had existed there in earlier times, it was gone before 1841.
NZ Gazette – 1845 Crown Grant to W.S. Grahame: https://library.victoria.ac.nz/databases/nzgazettearchive/pubs/gazettes/1845/1845%20ISSUE%20006.pdf
3.2 Photographic Record
An 1890 photograph of the beachfront frontage shows no pōhutukawa present — not even young specimens.
Auckland Libraries – 1890 Takapuna Wharf photograph: https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/collection/photos/id/28923
3.3 Subdivision Records
1900 subdivision advertisements describe the land as “laid down in grass” with other mature trees, but no pōhutukawa.
NZ Herald, 11 Dec 1900: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19001211.2.77.1
NZ Herald, 17 Dec 1900: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19001217.2.72.1
3.4 Likely Planting Date
First plantings of pōhutukawa along this frontage appear to have occurred around 1900, most likely by non-Māori settlers as part of subdivision landscaping.
First plantings of pōhutukawa along this frontage appear to have occurred around 1900, most likely by non-Māori settlers as part of subdivision landscaping.
4. Scientific Data
• Pōhutukawa Lifespan: In perfect natural conditions, pōhutukawa can live “perhaps even up to 1000 years” (DOC Science Note No. 100). However, in urban and coastal managed environments, trees are often far younger.
DOC – Conservation Advisory Science Notes No. 100: https://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/casn100.pdf
• Tree Age: No dendrochronology or core sampling has been undertaken for Tree 9A. Any claim that it pre-dates the 1900s is unproven.
5. Media Coverage
Public dispute over the tree’s future has been widely reported.
RNZ – Residents battle iwi over fate of downed pōhutukawa: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/569153/residents-battle-iwi-over-fate-of-downed-pohutakawa
6. Conclusion
The fallen pōhutukawa at 47 The Strand is legally protected as a Notable Tree within a Significant Ecological Area. While mana whenua representatives ascribe significant spiritual value to the grove, historical records and photographic evidence indicate that the tree was likely planted around 1900, not prior to European settlement. The cultural heritage claims are grounded in Māori spiritual beliefs, whereas the historical evidence suggests a colonial-era planting.
References
DOC – Conservation Advisory Science Notes No. 100: https://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/casn100.pdf
Auckland Council Notification Recommendation Report – TRE60421348: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4d5q3nbpe20po3p317hmd/TRE60421348-Notification-Report.pdf?rlkey=2hz5c2prmsdh3ximmzuwdoitt&st=nw6meo5l&dl=0
RNZ – Residents battle iwi over fate of downed pōhutukawa: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/569153/residents-battle-iwi-over-fate-of-downed-pohutakawa
NZ Herald, 11 Dec 1900 subdivision advert: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19001211.2.77.1
NZ Herald, 17 Dec 1900 subdivision advert: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19001217.2.72.1
NZ Gazette – 1845 Crown Grant to W.S. Grahame: https://library.victoria.ac.nz/databases/nzgazettearchive/pubs/gazettes/1845/1845%20ISSUE%20006.pdf
Auckland Libraries – 1890 Takapuna Wharf photograph: https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/collection/photos/id/28923
Judy Gill BSc, DipTchg, is a parent, former teacher, and a staunch advocate for secular education.
8 comments:
Just another false claim made by iwi that this Government continues to kowtow to. We are living in the 21st century for goodness sake.
This information is very useful. We have to remember that Maori spirituality - taught as science in schools and which is sacrosanct in all areas of our lives - is by it's very nature mythological and irrational. Like tikanga, it is largely invented by Maori radicals when it can justify large payments of money. This is a classic example.
Many marae around the country have trees which genuinely do have historic and cultural significance. Often those trees die or fall over onto the marae grounds. When that happens the marae certainly doesn't just allow the tree to lie indefinely across their marae ātea because of its mana.
I'm sure the Takapuna situation will be resolved, the tree's mana restored and the taniwhas will be made happy by a suitable donation to the local bigwigs of the mana whenua. Some of them must be due for a new house suitable for their increased importance.
Get your chainsaws out people.
If the tree was on maori land and not wanted, but preservation championed by non maori, it would likley by now be copiously bleeding diesal.
Humans must be the stupidest animals on earth. Fighting over a tree that has no value other than imaginary value.
There is always another tree to be planted somewhere.
MC
Just stop it please. The truth is what the Iwi say is the truth. Your stupid colonialist records are of no value when compared to an oral history spanning millennia.
From a golf club on cutting down aged/diseased trees:
This was done in consultation with the Council, Local Iwi and the Course Convener - these effected (sic) trees were all rotten internally and presented a danger to all golfers.
The wood from these trees has predominately been gifted to the local Iwi.
So why was council and iwi need to be involved? Could have raffled to raise club funds or donated to charities such— food bank, women’s refuge, plunket….
So another freebie for iwi? Did all iwi benefit or just a handful?
Classic bully techniques by Maori, and authorities that are too intimidated to push back.
It has to stop.
We can all push back, and we will.
Post a Comment