Published: Wednesday, 16th January, 2008 12:30
Housing plan sparks row over old oak tree
By Jamie MacDonald
Comments (0)
Print Article
Councillor Kenny Earle has attacked opposition councillors, claiming they are favouring a tree over much-needed social housing.
A DECISION to fell a 280-year-old oak tree on the site of a social housing development in Alloa has sparked a furious war of words.
Labour councillor Kenny Earle accused opposition members of putting a tree before the needs of people stuck on housing waiting lists – provoking an angry response.
The row follows a decision at last week’s regulatory committee meeting to approve plans by Ochil View Housing Association for 40 affordable homes on the site of the recently-demolished flats at Ash Grove in the Mar Policies.
The application was successful thanks to the support of the Labour councillors on the committee – Kenny Earle, Derek Stewart, Bobby McGill, Harry McLaren and George Matchett.
But the plans were opposed by SNP members Gary Womersley, Mark English and Walter McAdam, and the committee convener, Conservative councillor Alastair Campbell, as it meant one of two ancient oak trees on the site would have to be chopped down.
They preferred a proposal put forward by the council’s own planning department recommending that the tree should be kept at the expense of two housing units.
Independent councillor Craig Holden also spoke at the meeting in favour of retaining the oak tree, but he did not have a vote as he is not a member of the regulatory committee.
Following the meeting, Mr Earle launched a scathing attack on those who wanted to keep the ancient oak.
He told the Advertiser, “It saddened me to listen to opposition councillors, and Councillor Holden, who, it would appear, would prefer to have a tree rather than social housing that would go a long way to address the serious problem of a lack of housing in an area of high social and economic deprivation.”
That view was backed up during the meeting by Mr Earle’s Labour colleague, Mr Matchett, who said, “In this area of high deprivation a lot of work needs done. The well-being of a community far exceeds the importance of a tree.”
But Mr Womersley hit back, saying, “I am particularly disappointed by Councillor Earle’s attempts to criticise those councillors who did not vote for the Ochil View planning application and firmly refute the insinuation made that we are all ‘Swampy-wannabes’.
“By trying to personalise his criticism of fellow councillors I feel that this reflects more on Councillor Earle.”
He added, “It is over simplistic to say that those who voted against the application were against the development and the introduction of affordable housing, but it is perhaps that there were a lot of subtle and succinct points at play which has caused the difficulties here.”
Mr Holden was also angered by Mr Earle’s comments.
He told the Advertiser, “Before the meeting, I did my job and went out and spoke to residents in the Mar Policies area to find out their views – and they wanted to keep the tree.
“It is a pity Councillor Earle did not take the time to speak to those in the Mar Policies to find out their views, but then he has never been interested in the area.
“The fact the Labour councillors voted on mass against the tree suggested they were instructed how to vote.”
Mr Earle, however, claimed the decision was taken on a non-party and non-political basis, and it just happened that members of the Labour administration agreed to remove the tree.
He added that as part of the Bowmar Master Plan – looking at the regeneration of the Mar policies – the plans were drawn up in discussions with the public.
Mr Earle said, “The committee was placed in something of a dilemma but after a long discussion the head ruled the heart.”
The development also falls in the ward of Mr English, who said, “The tree would have lasted another 270 years, but once it has gone it’s gone.
“It is not of the sort you could go out and buy another one tomorrow.”
And the SNP councillor was also annoyed that, during the meeting, a representative of Ochil View stated that keeping the tree would lead to delays caused by the re-drawing of plans, and that this could result in the loss of Ł400,000 in grants.
Mr English went on, “Ochil View were made aware of the council’s concerns in September and October last year but they still went ahead with plans and ignored the advice given.
“They effectively threatened the council that funding would be removed.
“The planning department had taken a very responsible balanced view. We very much want social housing down here but it was also possible to keep the tree.”
The remaining oak tree will be a centre piece of the development.
p SNP councillor Tina Murphy, a member of the regulatory committee, had to declare an interest in the application due to her role with Ochil View Housing Association. This meant she was not allowed to vote on this application.
Had she been allowed to vote, and voted against the development, the vote would have been tied – and convener Alastair Campbell’s casting vote would then have saved the tree.
A request to have Mr Holden substituted for Ms Murphy was turned down.
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumbleupon
Woolies closure leaves 19 jobless