The owner of Toby Carvery has expressed regret following the removal of a centuries-old oak tree and acknowledged the need to “tighten our protocols” in a letter reviewed by the BBC.

The company dismantled the 500-year-old oak despite a planning document from March 2024 describing it as a “fine specimen.” The local council had also noted that the tree had centuries of life ahead.

On Wednesday, the leader of Enfield Council condemned the tree’s removal as “an outrage” and stated that all legal options are under consideration.

Phil Urban, from Mitchells & Butlers (M&B), remarked: “The decision to fell such a magnificent old tree is incredibly sensitive and not something we take lightly. I sincerely apologize for the distress this has caused.”

The pedunculate oak was removed on April 3 and was situated at the border of an Enfield council-owned park in North London, overlooking a Toby Carvery restaurant.

Mr. Urban, the chief executive of M&B, informed locals that he “only learned about the situation at Whitewebbs Park through media reports.”

He explained: “In this case, a member of our team acted in good faith based on expert advice to authorize the work.”

“However, I fully acknowledge that this was an unusual situation. As part of our review, we have determined that we need to strengthen our protocols to ensure that any occurrence like this in the future can be handled with ample time for comprehensive consultation while protecting our guests, staff, and the wider community.”

On Tuesday, Enfield Council reported the tree’s removal as a potential case of criminal damage to the Metropolitan Police, which has since determined it to be a civil issue and closed its inquiry.

The chief executive went on to reassure the community of their commitment to being considerate neighbors.

He stated: “Personally, I regret the anger and distress caused by this incident.”

“I do not expect my words to change the feelings involved, but I hope you will understand that we strive to act responsibly, and the individuals involved did so with good intentions.”

“We will conduct a thorough review to ensure that exceptional cases are managed differently than routine health and safety issues we encounter daily.”

Initially, an M&B source indicated that the company had permitted the tree’s removal after being informed it was dead.

However, in an official follow-up statement, M&B claimed that contractors advised them the “split and dead wood presented a significant health and safety risk.”

This statement was later retracted in an additional update, although M&B maintained that it took “necessary steps to comply with any legal obligations.”

The tree, with a circumference of 6 meters (20 feet), was a nationally recognized pedunculate oak featured on the Woodland Trust’s ancient tree inventory.

News of the tree’s destruction surfaced just two days after a report from the Tree Council and the Forest Research organization highlighted the inadequate indirect protections for trees, noting several “significant legal gaps.”

The report recommended the establishment of a “robust and effective system” to ensure their protection.