A decision to remove the tree was made at last Tuesday’s council meeting, but not without debate.

A heated argument occurred between councillors Roberts and Weate about their respective decisions to cut down or save the tree. At the start of the discussion Cr Gill moved that the pool be shifted 2 metres to keep the tree. This motion was later amended by Cr Roberts who wanted the tree cut down and three native trees planted away from the development site.

“I think the amendment is outrageous,” Cr Weate said.

“Cr Roberts deletes the right of anyone except the proponent. Doesn’t the environment have any rights?” Cr Weate said.

The development plan was addressed earlier this month at the Development Control Unit meeting.

In their recommendations to the DCU, council staff had recommended moving the pool 1m to save the tree.

This recommendation was not followed by councillors.

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Carter, will erect a 14m, 84,000L in ground swimming pool so they can swim laps for medicinal purposes.

Addressing council, Mr Carter said he would prefer not to consider narrowing the pool, and would like to remove the ironbark.

“This will allow us to have the original length of the pool and have it closer to the house,” Mr Carter said.

Explaining his position, Cr Roberts said he didn’t believe the ironbark would be registered on a significant tree register if they shire had one.

There are six other ironbarks on the property.

“My advice is to get rid of that one tree and let’s get them to plant three more,” Cr Roberts said.

“I think a mature grey ironbark tree on the foreshore is significant; by moving the tree 2m we are retaining the tree and the applicants are getting what they want,” Cr Gill said.

The grey ironbark is a browse tree for the swift parrot during its irregular winter visits to the area.

A final vote saw Crs Tuffy, Roberts, Stephens, McCaskie and McWilliams vote for the amendment and Crs Weate, Gill, Hutchinson and Vaughan vote against.