IT was somehow fitting that on a cold winter morning when it was hardly light and under the cover of freezing fog the life of a healthy young oak tree on Whitcliffe Common was ended.

As the chain saw did its worst a tree that could have brought pleasure to locals and visitors to the beauty spot for another century was consigned to memory and photographic images.

This is not to mention the loss of a vital habitat for birds, insects and other wildlife.

No this was not the work of cowboy developers out to clear a site to make a quick buck on a housing project but a deliberate decision taken by two bodies, Shropshire Wildlife Trust and the Friends of Whitcliffe Common, both entrusted to protect our threatened natural environment.

For many people this act of what has been described by eminent international zoologist Dr George McGavin as well as other as an act of ‘environmental vandalism’ was a breach of that trust.

Doubtless people will be considering their membership of both organisations and if they are worthy of donations and other legacies in view of what has happened.

Because whilst a beautiful and by tree standards an infant oak has been reduced to wood chips the reputation of both the Friends of Whitcliffe Common has also been pulped.

There was no widespread public consultation has had been claimed just the responses to a planning application and a couple of behind closed doors meetings.

However, there was an opportunity for a proper public consultation because the planning consent provided a two year window for the felling of the oaks.

It is hard not to believe that both the Trust and the Friends did not want a proper public consultation probably because they know all too well which way it would go.

But they did know that Ludlow Town Council and all three elected Ludlow representatives were against the felling of the tree and that a petition had been signed by more than 100 people and that there were many emails against the felling and that people had said that if a tree came down they would withdraw their support from both organisations.

The evidence such as it stands is that the majority was against the felling and how Shropshire Wildlife Trust can claim that opinion was evenly divided is hard to know.

But much is hard to know as both the Wildlife Trust and the Friends of Whitcliffe Common had by the end stopped responding to legitimate requests for comment from this newspaper.

The Advertiser even offered the friends a column in which to explain its thinking but again this met with no response.

It may be that the actions of the Trust and of the Friends could result in complaints under the Companies Act and to the Charity Commission. The directors of the Trust and Trustees of the Friends have a duty to act in the best interest of the organisations they lead and this is surely open to question.

There are many matters for others to consider but whatever happens there can be no bringing back a glorious young oak tree felled before its prime seemingly for no better reason than the subjective view of a few that it spoilt a view.