Toby Carvery to pay for orchard planting after causing outrage by felling 500-year-old oak

The UK restaurant chain Toby Carvery has settled a legal dispute over taking a chainsaw to an ancient oak tree without permission, by agreeing to pay to restore a lost orchard.The unauthorised partial felling of the 500-year-old oak next to a Toby Carvery car park in Whitewebbs Park, Enfield, north London, in April last year, prompted widespread public outrage and questions in parliament.Earlier this year Enfield-council" class="entity-link entity-organization" data-entity-id="143928" data-entity-type="organization">Enfield council, which owns the land, started eviction proceedings against the restaurant chain over what it described as “a reckless act which caused huge damage to the tree and cut its expected lifespan”.But on Wednesday, Mitchells & Butler Retail (M&B), which runs Toby Carvery, announced it had settled the dispute after agreeing to pay for the replanting of an orchard in the borough and the council’s legal costs.The company also agreed to pay for treatment of the remains of the oak, which experts say has little hope of surviving owing to the damage done by M&B’s contractors.In April, the Guardian revealed that the work was done by Ground Control, based in Billericay, Essex, which describes itself as “a leading maintenance business and biodiversity expert”.In joint statement as part of the settlement M&B said it “sincerely apologises for the upset this [the felling] has caused”.The company has always maintained that chainsawing the tree was necessary for safety reasons because the oak was dying – a claim disputed by tree experts.The agreed statement said: “Enfield-council" class="entity-link entity-organization" data-entity-id="143928" data-entity-type="organization">Enfield council recognises that M&B acted on the recommendation of reputable, professional advisers in taking the steps that it did, for the purpose of mitigating any health and safety risk to guests, team members and the wider public arising from the condition of the tree.”M&B’s undisclosed financial settlement will pay for the restoration of an orchard in Enfield’s Ridgeway corridor as part of the council’s Enfield-chase-landscape-restoration-scheme" class="entity-link entity-topic" data-entity-id="143932" data-entity-type="topic">Enfield Chase landscape restoration scheme. The statement said: “This will re-establish a publicly accessible community orchard, restore landscape character and biodiversity, and provide locally grown fruit for residents and visitors.”The settlement will also pay for the planting of 1,000 trees near the orchard.The statement concluded: “The parties now consider this matter closed.”Last year Enfield-council" class="entity-link entity-organization" data-entity-id="143928" data-entity-type="organization">Enfield council referred the felling of the tree to the Metropolitan police but the force refused to investigate, stating it was a civil rather than criminal matter.M&B is majority-owned by the investment company Enic, which has strong financial links to Tottenham Hotspur football club. In its 2024 annual accounts, M&B disclosed that it had entered into an option arrangement with Spurs to buy the lease from Enfield-council" class="entity-link entity-organization" data-entity-id="143928" data-entity-type="organization">Enfield council on the Toby Carvery site.The club has denied that the felling of the oak had any connection to its plans to build a women’s football training academy on 17 hectares of adjacent land in the park.The Guardian of Whitewebbs, a campaign group set up to protect the land from development, has been granted a judicial review against Enfield’s decision to grant planning permission for Spurs’ training complex in the park. It will be heard later this month.Russell Miller, an ancient tree expert and a member of Guardian of Whitewebbs, said: “It’s very disappointing that Enfield-council" class="entity-link entity-organization" data-entity-id="143928" data-entity-type="organization">Enfield council have chosen to settle on the basis of an implausible story about tree risk being a motivation for the felling, given all the irregularities that were involved.”