Ancient oak tree cut down by Toby Carvery - F to pay respects in the comments

Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewgypewepno
Credit: Tony Grew & Harry Low, BBC News
Archive: https://archive.ph/OqVNy



The cutting down of an ancient oak in north London was ordered on health and safety grounds by the pub chain that owns Toby Carvery after it was told the tree was dead.

The felled oak, estimated to be about 500 years old, was found by council workers at the edge of Whitewebbs Park in Enfield earlier in April. An emergency tree preservation order has now been imposed on what remains of the tree, which is near a Toby Carvery.

The tree, with a girth of 6m (20ft), was a nationally significant pedunculate oak listed on the Woodland Trust's ancient tree inventory.

A spokesperson for Mitchells & Butlers said: "We took necessary measures to ensure any legal requirements were met."

'Not Bill from maintenance'​

The pub chain spokesperson added: "This was an important action to protect our employees and guests as well as the wider general public, to whom we have a duty of care."

Earlier, a Mitchells & Butlers source said the company had "done the decent thing" although they apologised to locals who loved the tree.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said: "This is not Bill from maintenance who turned up with a ladder. We use trusted professional contractors."

Enfield Council's leader, Ergin Erbil, previously said they were treating the matter as criminal damage and had reported it to the police.



The spokesperson for Mitchells & Butlers said: "The tree was cut back after we were advised that it caused a serious health and safety risk.

"Upon further inspection, our specialist arboriculture contractors made the assessment that the split and dead wood posed a serious health and safety risk and advised that the tree was unsafe and should be removed.

"We are grateful to our expert contractors for warning us of this hazard so swiftly, allowing us to act before anyone was harmed."



Benny Hawksbee, a member of the Guardians of Whitewebbs group, said "the tree belonged to Enfield and to our national heritage - I am devastated".

He added: "We have now placed a legal protection (Tree Preservation Order) on the tree and are looking at ways to help it grow back."

The Met Police confirmed it had received a report from the council, but it is understood the force believes there is no evidence of criminality.

Jon Stokes, director of trees, science and research at the Tree Council, said the felling of such a "magnificent" tree was shocking.

He added: "Ancient oaks can live up to 1,000 years old and are as precious as our stately homes and castles. Our nation's green heritage should be valued and protected and we will do everything we can to achieve this."



There was outrage when the Sycamore Gap tree in Northumberland (pictured above) was chopped down in 2023

The Woodland Trust's head of campaigning Adam Cormack said: "This depressing sight is a reminder to all of us that not every ancient tree is in a safe place.

"It is very unusual to see the felling of an oak tree of this size and age. Legally protected status for heritage trees like the Whitewebbs Oak is long overdue."

The trust's Living Legends petition, which aims to secure such status for heritage trees, and which attracted more than 100,000 signatures, was handed in to Downing Street in November.

The issue of tree preservation was highlighted after the destruction of the Sycamore Gap tree in September 2023.

There was outrage when the tree, which stood in a dip next to Hadrian's Wall in Northumberland, was chopped down.

Daniel Graham, 39, and Adam Carruthers, 32, both from Cumbria, are accused of causing criminal damage put at more than £600,000.

The men, who deny the charge, will appear before a jury at a trial starting on 28 April at Newcastle Crown Court.

 

[Bucephalus]

If it was dead, then it should've been cut down. I don't see the issue.

It's not nationally historic. It's a corpse and a safety hazard.

 

[Breadbassket]

The tree did nothing wrong.

 

[Grundlejungle]

Oi mate, do you have a license for that tree?

 

[NoReturn]

How dare they compare removing a dead tree to the murder of the Sycamore Gap tree.

 

[KeyserBroze]

You know the BBC is running out of ways to avoid reporting on Muslim rape gangs when they’re posting this.

The tree dosent look dead from the branching and it’s likely a case of branches getting too heavy and splitting which happens on oak trees. Realistically the tree should come back, you can coppice oaks down to the stump and then will normally regrow.

 

[mindlessobserver]

If it was dead, then it should've been cut down. I don't see the issue.

It's not nationally historic. It's a corpse and a safety hazard.

More importantly, century old oak wood like that is incredibly rare and valuable. It could live on as some really nice furniture. A much better fate then just leaving it to rot and ultimately fall on someone.

 

[Nicholas Gur]

The elites don’t want you to know this but the trees are free you can take them home.

 

[Lone MacReady II]

Love cunts who do nothing but preach national suicide for the environment... cutting down trees. Our local campus just did something similar, but the trees were thriving and healthy. I don't want to hear any more about the environment when China's red rivers and India's shit rivers are never addressed. I expect no less from the mediaberg context creators in these debased days. Now, how about removing the Kosher State-imported Muslim combatants/rapists next - limeys.

 

[Otterly]

If it was dead, then it should've been cut down. I don't see the issue.

It's not nationally historic. It's a corpse and a safety hazard.

It doesn’t look dead from the picture. It needed a survey and probably a part removed. These old oaks kind of hollow out and bits can fall off, so maybe some tree surgery was needed, but that’s not dead looking wood and there seems to be several places starting to bud with leaves.

 

[TheRedChair]

It doesn’t look dead from the picture. It needed a survey and probably a part removed. These old oaks kind of hollow out and bits can fall off, so maybe some tree surgery was needed, but that’s not dead looking wood and there seems to be several places starting to bud with leaves.

Agreed. I've cut down some trees before I see some still healthy growth on many parts they cut down.

 

[Milkshake Sniffer]

On the face of it this is a nothing burger and the council is just flailing around trying to look as if it is doing something meaningful.

If the tree was not in a conservation area, covered by a planning condition requiring retention or subject to a tree preservation order (TPO) the landowner was free to cut it down. If any of these applied the Council would know and be screaming about it. Even if it was in a conservation area or under a TPO these controls are subject to many exemptions including it's dead, dying or dangerous. Putting a TPO on the remains is just dumb. The justification for protection is specimen value and/or contribution to landscape or townscape. I'd expect it to be easy enough to claim that a 500 yr old oak has specimen value if nothing else but claiming what's left meets the criteria is kinda silly. It also seems to be highly likely that that the owner has a lovely shiny report from a qualified arborist confiming it way dead/dying and dangerous and recommending immediate felling.

If it was worthy of protection it's on the Council that it wasn't protected - esp with a 500 year old specimen. The making of a TPO is a two stage process the first stage being the making of a provisional TPO. A Council employee would have been able to do that with immediate effect and without advance notice to anyone (they have pro formas). By the time the owner knows the tree might get protection it's already happened. This is what almost always happens for the obvious reason. If a professional adviser gets a sniff that a TPO might be made on a tree that the owner wants to get rid of he's running the risk of prof negligence if he doesn't advise the owner to fell immediately or if that can't be done, ring bark it or give it the copper nail treatment to kill it.

The criminal damage referral is just as silly. You can't criminally damage your own property. That's why there is a specific offence in the listed building legislation to cover effectively vandalistic damage to your own listed building (the basic control is on "works" and the view taken is that wanton destruction is not covered by that). The Council's referral to the police may be an indication that they know this as they could have prosecuted themselves. Alternatively maybe they're just dumb.