Jump to content

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Hen123 said:

You can’t help but wonder how often this happens - chainsaws wielding “experts” hacking down the wrong tree in the name of health and safety and saving children’s lives?

To be fair, do we know who put the notice on the wrong tree?

The people wielding chainsaws almost certainly won't be the experts  who identify  the problems with the trees? They just go along and hack down what they're told to hack down?

I might be wrong, but whilst actual tree surgery needs expertise, I wouldn't have thought hacking down a whole tree did? Apart from knowing how to use a chainsaw, obviously.

To clarify a few points-

I didn't just happen to be passing, I saw the workmen setting up equipment worryingly close to the tree from my front window, so put my shoes on and headed over there as quickly as possible just in case. Unfortunately they had already lopped a few branches off in the two minutes it took me to get there.

Although I didn't see them attach a notice, the wording on the notice pictured above has the same terminology that they used with me - fungal brackets - so presumably it was them. I have no idea who removed the sign, or why.

Also worth mentioning that they were third party contractors, carrying out work orders from the council.

I'm a bit confused by the 'mistaken tree' comments, as Councillor Renata Hamvas posted on a Facebook thread that she had raised the issue with the relevant council officers, and that the response she received is that the tree does have a fungal infection. So there seems to be conflicting info there, and I'm concerned that the tree is still in danger.

  • Sad 1

In the park this morning I spoke to one of the workers who's been there years, he told me there is a cherry tree which is diseased which is due for removal,  but it is in the wooded area. So it seems there is confusion over which cherry tree? So I think we do need to keep our eyes on what is happening in the park and question things that don't seem right and contact either FoPRP, the park manager or our councillors to make sure mistakes don't happen.   

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Suggest all eyes kept on this tree until Gala event completely over this year. Also monitor for further branch lopping. If they keep hacking off branches, it will get diseased.

It is entirely possible this tree could 'accidently' get cut down because of a mixup. 

In those pictures, if recent, the tree does not look diseased at all.

Not sure location of tree in relation to new proposed increased Gala event footprint? Does it get in the way of proposed track, or something?

  • Haha 1

I am occasionally involved in a charity that helps manage a wooded area.  I hope that all of you who are posting their concern about the cherry tree also volunteer their time in similar organisations.  I expect that this would be better use of your time. 

  • Like 1
2 hours ago, first mate said:

Not sure location of tree in relation to new proposed increased Gala event footprint? Does it get in the way of proposed track, or something?

It's the tree near the triangle. If the proposal for the enlarged festival site is approved (or should I say when...) it should be in less danger than previously, as the giant green shield wall will just skirt the south side of it, rather than go around it - which was where the lopping happened. It also looks like it will be surrounded by "Heras" fencing, which I think is the sort of stuff used during the recent flood alleviation works. But of course there is a huge scope for "misunderstandings"...

Screenshot_20250130-152335-251.png

GALA 2025 site plan.pdf

  • Agree 1
2 hours ago, alice said:

There is a strong possibility that this tree is currently diseased, currently dangerous and has been earmarked for removal for quite some time. 
Could we be a little more logical and stop with the romanticising?

I'm not sure I understand your point? Ie being logical and not romanticising. There seems to be confusion over which tree is diseased and thus for felling. And people,  quite rightly in my opinion,  are concerned that the wrong tree is not cut down! 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
7 hours ago, first mate said:

Suggest all eyes kept on this tree until Gala event completely over this year. Also monitor for further branch lopping. If they keep hacking off branches, it will get diseased.

It is entirely possible this tree could 'accidently' get cut down because of a mixup. 

In those pictures, if recent, the tree does not look diseased at all.

Not sure location of tree in relation to new proposed increased Gala event footprint? Does it get in the way of proposed track, or something?

It isn't necessarily possible to tell if a tree is diseased just by looking at it.

It depends what the disease is. It could be in the roots, for example, or inside the main part of the tree where it can't be seen.

  • Like 1

Hopefully a final post on this thread (for now...)

Alerted by the horrible sound of a chainsaw this morning from near the cherry tree, I scuttled over to the park to make sure there hadn't been another "misunderstanding".

The contractors were removing a 'double' tree from the triangle area nearby. I asked them about the cherry, and they confirmed that they wouldn't be removing it.

We were then joined by a very worried looking man who turned out to be the tree officer for the park. He had apparently been on a walk around with members of FoPRP, had also been alerted by the proximity of the chainsaw, and was also relieved to see it wasn't the cherry being removed.

He also confirmed that they wouldn't be removing the cherry, but that it was diseased in the lower trunk / roots and therefore would fall over at some point. To this end they are investigating methods to provide it with some support, to hopefully prolong it's life. He definitely understood & appreciated the importance of & affection for this particular tree.

Hopefully someone from FoPRP can provide us with updates as & when they occur. I've suggested before that maybe Gala could contribute some cash towards it's protection, especially as they caused some damage to it last year...

Edited by fishboy
spelling & syntax
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
8 hours ago, alice said:

The affection for that tree seems to be overriding the safety of that tree. it is the tree that children climb. It is also a tree that could fall down. Let’s hope the two things don’t coincide.

It would probably help if the Park Run didn't start and end by it - lots of kids out for/with the run seem to climb it. Hopefully the tree officer can get it properly supported and with a notice not to climb. 

  • Agree 1

I thought this was interesting re the importance of trees in urban areas, though a bit off topic, sorry.

It's a short reel about two trees in a station car park in Petersfield, absolutely filled with pied wagtails on a cold, dark, wet night.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BEzpKfYXf/

Edited by Sue
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

I looked at the tree that they did cut down and there was some very minor fungal infection but tree wouldn't have been at risk for many years. Fugal infections are part of the natural life cycle of trees. Cutting trees down unnecessarily or prematurely isn’t a good use of council money or good for bio diversity in general. The risk of injury in parks is incredibly low - even the HSA accept this. These trees are not near buildings or parked cars - the paranoia about them is unwarranted. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 2
On 06/02/2025 at 13:34, alice said:

The affection for that tree seems to be overriding the safety of that tree. it is the tree that children climb. It is also a tree that could fall down. Let’s hope the two things don’t coincide.

What have you got against this tree?! 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
On 06/02/2025 at 13:34, alice said:

The affection for that tree seems to be overriding the safety of that tree. it is the tree that children climb. It is also a tree that could fall down. Let’s hope the two things don’t coincide.

perhaps suggest the council put a fence around the tree then?

And a sign saying do not climb'?

Its a beautiful tree not a climbing frame I'm sure more people get pleasure just seeing it than the amount of children who climb it.

there are great climbing frames outside for children specifically designed for the purpose like the one in the playground by Goose green.

I'm not anti kids, I just think trees are living things and should'nt be looked upon as playgrounds.

Edited by NewWave
edited
  • Agree 3

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...