Spurs contractors judged felled Enfield oak to be ‘fine specimen’


An ancient London oak controversially felled earlier this month was assessed to be a “fine specimen” last year by tree experts working for Tottenham Hotspur as part of the football club’s plans to redevelop parkland next to the site.

Mitchells & Butlers Retail (MBR), which owns the Toby Carvery in Whitewebbs Park, Enfield, apologised on Thursday for the “upset” caused by the felling of the tree.

The company’s financial links with Spurs have raised questions about how much the club knew about the decision to fell the tree.

Spurs and MBR are majority-owned by the investment company Enic. In its latest annual accounts, MBR disclosed that it had entered into an option arrangement with Spurs to buy the lease on one of its retail sites, believed to be the Toby Carvery in Enfield.

Spurs have submitted a planning application to build a women’s football training academy on 17 hectares of adjacent land in Whitewebbs Park. It also submitted plans to build an access road from the training ground to the Toby Carvery. The plan for an access road has since been replaced with a scheme for a footpath across the site where the oak, which was up to 500 years old, stood.

As part of the planning process, Spurs commissioned the Tree and Woodland Company to produce an arboreal impact assessment on the veteran woodland in the park.

In a report submitted to Enfield council last July, the company assessed that the now felled oak was a “fine specimen” that was expected to live for at least another 50 years. It recommended conservation measures for the tree as a high priority.

MBR claimed its contractors felled the tree on 3 April for safety reasons after assessing it was dead and diseased. In a letter to Enfield residents on Thursday, its chief executive, Phil Urban, said: “I can only apologise for all the upset that it has caused.”

It said: “We are obliged to act on all health and safety issues where expert advice warns us of a direct risk to life or serious injury. We will complete a thorough review and ensure that, in future, exceptional situations are treated differently from the more regular health and safety issues that arise on a day-to-day basis.”

Enfield council has threatened the company with legal action and imposed a tree preservation order on the whole Toby Carvery site.

The Woodlands Trust, which objected to the training facility plans because of the impact on ancient trees in the area, said Spurs and MBR had more questions to answer.

Adam Cormack, the trust’s head of campaigning, said: “There is some uncertainty about whether the ancient Whitewebbs oak that was felled is or is not part of development plans for Tottenham Hotspur FC’s new training facility and we’d like to seek clarification from the club on this.”

Cormack welcomed Toby Carvery’s apology but said it did not go far enough. He said: “Toby Carvery must now be fully transparent with their paperwork and work with local authorities as they investigate. Did they know about the Spurs tree survey, which called the oak a ‘fine specimen’ and makes recommendations for its conservation? Did they consider any alternatives to felling, and if not, why not?”

skip past newsletter promotion

Russell Miller, an expert on ancient trees who visited the oak before it was felled and has inspected it since, said: “I refute the claim that the tree was dying and dangerous. I have looked at the structural integrity of the tree and I saw it in December. There was no logic to touching that tree other than wanting an ancient tree out of the way because of some financial interest.”

Police closed their investigation on Tuesday after deciding it was a civil matter.

MBR decline to comment.

A Spurs spokesperson said: “The tree and the decision to fell it has no connection to the club as the tree sits outside of our lease demise for our proposed women’s and girls’ training centre and academy.”

The club confirmed it had an option to lease Toby Carvery’s land within Whitewebbs Park but stressed this was just an option. It also claimed it was “ridiculous” to suggest the tree was felled to make the land easier to develop.



Source link

Related Articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Stay Connected

0FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Latest Articles