Tom Roser, a Professional Arboriculturist with 15 years' experience in the arboricultural industry says: "In my professional opinion a number of trees in Richmond Park appear to have been subjected by The Royal Parks to a ruthless pruning regime. This appears to me to have resulted in a number of trees either dying or suffering a great deal of harm directly as a result of the works carried out." Although employed as a tree officer by a London Borough, Tom Roser is expressing his own views only.
Photos above are of an Oak Tree, near Kingston Gate. Girth 6.10m (20ft) estimated age, 400 years old, historical context round the time of Elizabeth 1st. Before 2008 this tree was pruned so hard that in the Arborist's view serious harm was inevitable. The tree died in 2018. In the Arborist's view the tree died directly as a result of the pruning by the Parks Authorities. He believes that it could have been kept for many more years with more sympathetic treatment. Bearing in mind the age of the tree, and the fact that Richmond Park is the National Nature Reserve, a site of Special Scientific Interest, and a Special Area of Conservation.
The link below will take you to a website. There are photos of 345 trees that have been felled in the recent past with thirty one trees that look to have been pruned excessively by the Parks Authorities and appear to have suffered serious harm and even die as a result. There are photos and descriptions outlining our concerns for these trees. https://open-letter-to-royal-parks.co.uk/
The Royal Parks have a responsibility for safety. The Arborist believes that there were far more sympathetic methods of preserving the trees and ensuring safety. He is appalled because in his view the work to a significant number of trees were completely disproportionate.
We are asking for an independent investigation to answer the following questions.
1. Why did the Royal Parks go against the recommendations of their independent consultants by accelerating the work programs to a number of ancient trees? The Arborist heard a member of The Royal Parks state the works were being accelerated. He fears that work originally recommended by the consultants to be undertaken over the course of many decades are being accelerated to a dangerously short period of time.
2. Why did the Royal Parks continue with the accelerated work program on these trees when the works appeared to be causing a number of trees harm? The trees did not appear to have time to recover. Additionally, were there alternative ways of preserving the trees?
3. Were the trees in the open letters, (see link above,) pruned excessively by the Park's Authorities? Were there more sympathetic methods of maintaining them? Could the work undertaken have caused the tree harm as a result of these works?
4. Did the Royal Parks go against best arboricultural practice, as recommended by The Forestry Commission, by felling oak trees that were in decline without monitoring them to see if their health improved?
