Restaurant boss halfwits should have no powers to chop down trees
17 April 2025, 12:41
The felling of an ancient oak tree has understandably put local residents and conservationists on a collision course with the Toby Carvery restaurant chain.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
Toby Carvery's website states, "We take pride in everything we do". I have no doubt they know their onions when it comes to their Yorkshire puddings or slow roast gammon, but when it comes to nature, specifically trees, there can be no "pride" in hacking down a 500-year-old tree.
The operators, Mitchells and Butlers, are well established. The parent company have operated for an admirable 125 years since the 1890s, meaning they should know better and are mere whippersnappers compared with such a grand, old oak.
A clear arrogance oozes out of a decision to legislate, seemingly on a whim, the future of a majestic oak tree. That they had this power seems baffling and needs to be urgently reviewed.
Enfield Council own the land, and leases it to Mitchells and Butlers, so how can it be right that the freeholders claim not to have been consulted at all?
The local authority also says "a team of experts" checked the tree in December 2024 and found it was "healthy and posed no risk to the neighbouring car park and its users". How, therefore, can the private company seemingly hire different 'experts' to garner a different conclusion?
Companies come and go, pubs change hands but outliving them all has been the 'Guy Fawkes Oak', which has towered over Whitewebbs House for centuries, observing its transition from the home of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, to a Toby Carvery.
In my view, the restaurant chain should feel privileged to operate at such an historic site.
Toby Carvery should focus on chopping the 11,000 tonnes of potatoes they get through every year, not hacking down trees they deem inconvenient.
________________
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk
