Tom Roser a professional Arborist with nearly 20 years’ experience in the arboricultural industry said that: -

“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.” He is quoted further in the newspaper article, see the link at the bottom of the website. Although employed as a tree officer by a London Borough, Tom Roser is expressing his own views only.

Link to the Petition https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/237/560/791/

The link below is for the open letter where the Arborist speaks his mind. There are thirty one trees which we believe died or suffered serious harm as a result of how they were managed. We have provided photos demonstrating our concerns.

The next link shows photos of over 345 trees that appear to have been felled or left as a high stump in the recent past.

The following are some of the trees outlined in the letters.

Oak tree, near Kingston Gate, tagged 0772. 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. His fears were justified, after further pruning the tree dies in 2018. In the Arborist’s view the tree could have been made safe and kept for many more years with more sympathetic treatment. There cannot be many trees of this age in England. The death of this tree represents a real loss to our natural heritage.

Oak tree, near Kingston Gate Tag 4189, girth 4.8m, (15.75ft) estimated age just under 300 years old. Historical context George 1st, the time of the first Jacobite rebellion. This tree has been pruned repeatedly. However the last time the tree was pruned, the dead limb was left and the healthy limb was pruned to a single live twig. The Arborist fears that the chance of the tree surviving now is negligible; he cannot understand why the tree was not simply fenced off thus removing the reason to prune the tree in the first place. This is standard practice. Given this tree’s age surely it deserved far more care, as there are few trees of this age in London.

Horse chestnut tree, no tag. It is near the drive to White Ash Lodge. Girth of the stump 4m (13.12ft). As you can see from the photo’s there are no paths near this tree and it was not within falling distance of the road. Wouldn’t this tree have posed a low risk? The Arborist was surprised that this tree was pruned so hard. He inspected the tree and saw little wrong with it apart from a branch that had snapped out. In his view the work did the tree serious harm, as a number of limbs died following the pruning. You can understand the Arborist’s astonishment when this tree was subsequently felled when it was still alive. Very few people go anywhere near this tree. In the Arborist’s view fencing the tree off as the Royal Parks had done in 2012 was all that was required to ensure safety. He cannot understand why the tree was subsequently pruned so hard then felled by the parks Authorities.

How the situation stands at this stage.

Everyone agrees that The Royal Parks have a responsibility to ensure safety. The Arborist firmly believes that there were far more sympathetic methods of preserving the trees and ensuring safety. In his view a lot of the work was completely disproportionate and trees have been lost that could have lived for many more decades. He is appalled as this is a real loss to our national heritage.

The Royal Parks state that this is the word of one Arborist against the word of another. We would disagree with this assessment as we have made our case. By contrast The Royal Parks have not responded to our concerns over the individual trees in the open letter.  To break the impasse, we are asking for an independent investigation into how the Royal Parks have managed the trees in the letters; this will break any deadlock.  We are not linked with The Friends of Richmond Park. This is a grass roots campaign therefore without your support this campaign will go nowhere.

How you can help

Please Sign the petition link below and put the link on your Facebook page and on social media.

https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/237/560/791/

Breaking news 12th September 2024

The newspaper My London published an article as the arborist believes further trees have died as a result of excessive pruning by the Parks Authorities.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/tree-surgeon-claims-richmond-park-29902357

Breaking news 13th September 2024

The news outlet Teddington Nub News Wrote an article as the arborist never received an answer to the questions set out in the petition from the Royal Parks.

Tree specialist raises concerns over pruning of trees in Richmond Park | Local News | News | Teddington Nub News | by Tilly O'Brien

Breaking news

The local newspaper Richmond Nub News has written an article in which Tom Roser, the arborist gives his heart felt account on why he put his career on the line in order to speak out over what he believes is going on in Richmond Park. https://richmond.nub.news/n/richmond-arborist-launches-petition-against-34ruthless-pruning-regime34-in-richmond-park

Breaking News

The Richmond and Twickenham Times have released an article, but we were not given a chance to respond to the statement from The Royal Parks.

 Previously Tom Roser, our Arborist, had a meeting with the Parks management. In his view, the Royal Parks refused to talk about any of the trees individually. They evaded his questions and they said they managed the trees to, “an exceptionally high standard,” even though Tom had a dossier of trees which in his view suffered harm and died directly as a result of the way they have been managed. It was this arrogant attitude by the Parks Authorities who refused to listen to Tom’s legitimate concerns which was the reason for Tom to speak out in the first place.

 When you read the article you will see this same attitude reflected. The Royal Parks did not take the opportunity to respond to any of the questions in the petition. The Royal Parks refuse to consider that anything may be amiss even though Tom’s case was expressed very clearly in the open letter. In our view The Royal Parks patronised the Arborist and belittled our groups attempts to get an independent investigation. If like us you believe that this was unacceptable please sign the petition.

 There is one final point to consider; why would Tom Roser risk his professional reputation unless he had serious concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed? All this is why we are asking for an independent investigation in order to get our questions answered.

 A lot of people have expressed concern over the way trees in Richmond Park have been managed including members of the arboricultural industry, the public at large, and a tree surgeon who worked with the trees in Richmond Park.

https://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/19441486.richmond-park-defends-tree-pruning-regime/

In the petition 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 works 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?

1000 signatures will get a debate in Richmond Council who have an interest in the Parks.  We are also looking to submit this to parliament; this requires ten thousand signatures.

We would like to thank Google Street View, as this allows us to show what the trees looked like before The Royal Parks pruned them.

The Arborist wants to underline the fact that the contractors who work for the Royal Parks have an excellent reputation and they are well respected in the industry. They were only following orders.