Estimated to be 80 years old, the Riverleigh Avenue tree was given a stay of execution in October when a local contractor baulked at its removal.

However, on Monday new contractors from Sydney were called in to remove the tree.

Neighbours clashed in the street as works began, a sheet sprayed with the word ‘‘rednecks’’ hung over one balcony as the work took place.

Under the new ‘‘10/50’’ definitions from the Rural Fire Service introduced on August 1, any property owner within 350metres of land zoned as bushfire-prone can remove a tree within 10metres of their house on their land.

Amendments were made on September 1 reducing that to 150metres for ‘‘category 2 bushfire prone land’’.

The new rules have sparked controversy because they have allowed the clearing of large trees on waterfront land – particularly around Sydney Harbour areas – where there is little risk of bushfire but millions of dollars worth of views.

In the case of the Gerroa tree, the property falls within the rules because of a small piece of bushfire buffer zone near the beach.

Property owner Rob Neill said there were several reasons why he wanted the tree removed, such as the tree’s proximity to his home, debris from the tree, the fact it could be a magnet for lightning and he believed it was a bushfire risk. The tree was at the front of his property and the beach at the rear, so  the removal was not about views.

‘‘As much as I like Norfolk pines, the middle of a residential area like this is not an appropriate location for this type of tree,’’ Mr Neill said.

‘‘When this tree was planted, there weren’t houses here.’’

Mr Neill said the Seven Mile Beach National Park had an enormous fuel load and hot south-westerly winds over summer could drive a fire straight over the top of Gerroa.

It was appropriate the tree be removed under a ‘‘risk management’’ policy, he said.

‘‘I ask anyone, would they want to live with a tree like that in their front yard?’’

Mr Neill said the legislation meant there was no need for him to get approval from an authority, while the contractor could confirm the tree qualified for removal under the code online.

Neighbour Bernie Waddell clashed angrily with Mr Neill.

Mr Waddell’s partner, Dorothy Leyshan, 77, said she had watched the tree grow since she was five years old and the tree was used as habitat and a resting place for owls, black cockatoos, lorikeets and corellas.

‘‘Thousands of birds used the tree,’’ Mr Waddell said.

‘‘This is the country, not the city...if you don’t want trees, go back to the concrete jungle.’’

Mr Waddell said debris and seeds from the tree were more likely to fall on his side of the road and he was happy for that to happen. As for  the  ‘‘10/50’’ legislation, he said it ‘‘stinks to high hell and high heaven’’.

KIAMA Municipal Council has called for a freeze on the controversial 10/50 clearing regulations as an urgent review takes place.

However, Kiama MP Gareth Ward has warned against ‘‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’’ in regards to the Rural Fire Service’s new policy as the weather warms and dry conditions make for a potentially hazardous bushfire season.

‘‘Clearly the policy is being used in some ways that it was not designed for but we are doing a statutory review to ensure the bolts are tightened,’’ Mr Ward said.

In its submission to the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Regulation Review, Kiama council said the policy had resulted in a number of ‘‘unintended consequences’’, including tree removal in urban and coastal areas in the municipality that ‘‘on any objective assessment should have a low bushfire risk rating’’.

The council wants the 10/50 clearing entitlement suspended during the review process to allow for ‘‘clear inconsistencies and potential conflicts’’ to be considered and dealt with.

‘‘There is practically no protection for threatened species and endangered ecological communities under the 10/50 regulation,’’ Kiama council’s acting general manager Bryan Whittaker wrote in the submission.‘‘The regulation has already created issues for council where property owners are trying to remove trees under the regulation which are not compliant and council has only become aware of it through the tree removal contractor reporting it to council.

‘‘Landholders are also requesting the removal of council street trees where they know the 10/50 regulation applies.

‘‘This requires council administrative and field based resources."

Mr Whittaker said the council was fielding questions from members of the public about trees being pruned by neighbours under the 10/50 entitlement

The way the regulation entitlement is used is creating conflict between parties and council is expected to deal with the dispute, Mr Whittaker said.