The Forestry Commission has initiated an inquiry into the contentious removal of an ancient oak tree situated near a Toby Carvery car park in north London, amidst emerging questions regarding the ownership of the land on which it grew.

This investigation was revealed by junior environment minister Sue Hayman, who described the recent felling of the 500-year-old tree in Enfield as “horrifying.”

During a session in the House of Lords on Thursday, Lady Hayman remarked, “This incident has struck a chord nationwide about the critical importance of properly safeguarding our ancient trees.”

Mitchells & Butlers Retail (MBR), the operator of Toby Carvery, expressed regret for the distress caused by the tree’s removal, insisting that it was necessary for safety as the tree was either dead or diseased.

The inquiry is set to scrutinize this claim. The commission now holds the authority to impose penalties for unauthorized felling and may consider taking legal action regarding the event.

Hayman elaborated, “Toby Carvery stated that the tree needed to be cut down due to its dead condition and associated health and safety risks. The Forestry Commission is thoroughly investigating what transpired and whether the tree was indeed dead. It appears to be a heavily pollarded tree. We need to further explore whether it was alive or not.”

Experts examining the remains assert that the tree was alive at the time it was removed. A veteran tree study carried out last year by Tottenham Hotspur, which has financial connections with MBR, described the tree as a “fine specimen.”

This assessment, conducted by the Tree and Woodland Company, includes maps indicating that the tree was located on land owned by Enfield Council, just beyond the area leased to Toby Carvery.

Experts suggest that if it is confirmed that MBR did not have a lease on the land in question, it could face prosecution for criminal damage.

Sarah Dodd, founder of Tree Law—an organization specializing in legal matters involving trees—stated, “If the tree stood on someone else’s property, MBR’s defense of acting responsibly as a leaseholder to ensure car park safety would fail. If the tree was outside their leased area, this could constitute trespass and criminal damage, potentially rejuvenating the matter for the Metropolitan Police.

“The Forestry Commission also possesses the authority to pursue criminal charges… They are willing to engage in private prosecutions when it serves the public interest, which this certainly does. However, they must be absolutely clear on the land boundaries before proceeding.”

While the issue has been referred to the Metropolitan Police, they determined it to be a civil matter after confirming that no tree preservation order was in effect.

Dodd noted that even if MBR could demonstrate having a lease for the land the tree occupied, it might still face civil claims for violating lease conditions. Enfield Council has already issued warnings of legal action against MBR.

The Forestry Commission’s investigation will also verify whether MBR obtained the necessary license to fell the tree. According to the commission’s regulations, a license is mandatory for felling any amount of wood exceeding 5 cubic meters per calendar quarter. The absence of a license could result in financial penalties.

Hayman was responding to inquiries from Liberal Democrat peer Claire Tyler, who asked, “Doesn’t this highlight that existing protections for nationally significant trees are completely insufficient? Indeed, they have been characterized as a significant shortcoming by the Woodland Trust. What concrete steps is the government taking to prevent such a disgrace from happening again? Would the minister concur that establishing a national register of heritage trees with protections comparable to those for ancient monuments and listed buildings would be a beneficial move?”

Hayman indicated that the government is examining recommendations from a report by the Tree Council and Forest Research aimed at enhancing protections for ancient, veteran, and culturally significant trees. She stated, “We are actively reviewing those recommendations and are fully aware of the widespread concerns… Clearly, the felling of this tree has shocked many people.”

MBR opted not to provide any comments.

*This article was edited on April 25, 2025. An earlier version incorrectly referred to Sue Hayman as Helene Hayman.*