The recent felling of the ancient Whitewebbs oak tree, estimated to be up to 500 years old, has sparked outrage and concern over tree protection laws in London. The tree, which is more than six metres wide, now stands defiantly on territory leased by Mitchells & Butlers Retail (MBR). That same company runs the Toby Carvery across the street, and the tree has a place on the Woodland Trust’s list of ancient trees.
Unfortunately, earlier this month contractors on the MBR payroll felled this venerable oak. They didn’t give Enfield Council notice before acting. The council now alleges that it was never kept in the loop as to any plans to cut down the tree. They argue that these actions must be clear and communicated effectively from the start. Council leader Ergin Erbil told The Guardian that he reported the incident to London’s Metropolitan Police. He has called on them to drive out what he said was criminal damage to a valued local asset.
Last month the Metropolitan Police announced that they had closed their investigation. As the council feared, they determined that the matter was civil, not criminal. The absence of a tree preservation order on the Whitewebbs oak added to the mix. Through no fault of the tree itself, this left the tree in danger of removal.
The Whitewebbs oak embodied a rich ecosystem, one now lost, that played home to hundreds of species in danger due to the habitat destruction of these ancient trees. Its loss is viewed not just as a hit to recreational attractions, but rather as a massive loss in local biodiversity. Adam Cormack, head of campaigning at the Woodland Trust, said he was stunned. He proclaimed, “Unfortunately, it is very uncommon to witness the felling of oak tree of this caliber and age.” Legally protected status for trees such as the Whitewebbs oak is long overdue. He emphasized that the incident serves as a reawakening call for more widespread protection of veteran trees nationwide.
This historic tragedy has opened the door to address the loopholes in tree protections. Paul Powlesland, co-founder of Lawyers for Nature, echoed similar sentiments: “This shows the desperate need for better protections for our veteran and ancient trees.” He passionately lobbied for a form that complements heritage listing for buildings in order to protect important trees. He continued, “A building as old as this tree would almost certainly be under consideration for listing, council owned or otherwise. We don’t have a national equivalent for trees, the same kind of rigorous system of enforcement and penalties.”
The MBR spokesperson explained quite matter-of-factly the necessity of cutting down the tree. It was their claim that the lapse created a serious health and safety hazard. Our specialist arboriculture contractors had made it clear that the tree was a serious public health and safety risk. So we really made the conscious choice to trim it down.