03 - Whitewebbs Oak, Heritage Trees and the Social Contract We Didn’t Know We Had

In this episode of Trees in a Pod, I’m joined by Adam Cormack from the Woodland Trust. Together, we unpack the Whitewebbs Oak felling, the story behind the Haringey Plane, and why certain trees strike such a deep emotional chord with the public.

We explore legal grey areas, the limits of tree protection tools like TPOs, and the urgent need for stronger policy. Adam also shares insights into “tree equity,” why ancient trees fall through the cracks of our current systems, and how high-profile cases like Sycamore Gap are reshaping the legal and cultural landscape.

This is a reflective, in-depth conversation that blends law, lived experience, and the quiet power of trees to mirror our values back to us.

Useful links from todays episode :

Valuing and Protecting Important Trees Outside Woodlands - The Tree Council

Perfect Specimen | Criminal

🎙️ Enjoying the podcast?

I’d love to hear your thoughts. You can leave me a voice message at www.speakpipe.com/treelaw – your questions or reflections might even feature in a future episode.

🎧 Huge thanks to Mike at Making Digital Real for producing and editing this episode to such a high standard.

Transcript

So my name is Adam Cormack, and I work for a woodland conservation charity called the Woodland Trust, where I manage the campaigning team, which includes a few different portfolios and programmes of work, including the Trust's work on urban trees, and also some of the work we do on sort of protection of ancient veteran trees.

And I've been there about six years. Before that, I worked at the Wildlife Trust for about a decade, managing their communications team mostly. I'm really interested in people and nature and the kind of intersection, and especially how that plays out in the world of urban forestry and urban trees.

Excellent. And I came across you, I think, well, I've probably come across you a while ago, but more recently in relation, was it in relation to the Sycamore Gap or the Enfield Oak, I can't remember, or whether a mixture of the two of them? Possibly a mixture. We did a bit of community, a bit of work around responding to the felling of the Sycamore Gap tree when that happened, but I was really involved with the White Webs Oak felling, and yeah, we kind of helped to break the story about that. 

So it's probably that one. Oh, probably. Yeah, that's going to be interesting to talk about. 

I feel like I've spoken about the Sycamore Gap so much. So let's like, let's... Let's talk about Enfield instead. Let's talk about... I'll tell you what, trees are having their moment at the moment, aren't they? They are in the press a lot. 

I spoke to the BBC this morning about the Haringey Plain tree, and actually you mentioned that you had been to see that on the weekend, was that right? That's right. So at the weekend, I went down to London to go and meet some of the local residents at White Webs Park to kind of do some follow-up work, and I met Russell Miller, the arborist who's been doing some work surveying the remains of the tree, and we can talk a bit more about that. But I used that opportunity because I don't live in London, I live up in North Nottinghamshire. 

I thought, oh, well, I'll pop in and see. I knew they were doing an event in Haringey, the plain tree that you're talking about. So I just stopped briefly en route and had a quick word with Gio, who represents the group Haringey Tree Protectors, and saw this very lovely plain tree that I hadn't seen before. 

Yeah, so that's one that's been implicated in subsidence damage, and that had all gone quite quiet. I think it was a claim that cropped up in 2021, I think it was, a subsidence claim in 2021. Insurers wanted the council to fell the plain. 

The council agreed they were going to fell it. Campaigners objected to that. And then behind the scenes, my understanding is the insurers have agreed that they're going to underpin the properties, which seem to take the requirement for felling off the table.

And that's back in the press because the council have launched a new consultation to fell the Environment Act. That's statutory, one of the duty to consult notes on the tree. That's right. 

And I mean, I don't know the detailed background on this tree at all. It's not the case that Woodland Trust has really been involved with, other than watching with some interest, because it's obviously been in the press a bit over the last few years. And we have some links, I know some of the people involved, I know Gio a bit.

So yeah, I don't know the detail, but that was kind of more or less how Gio explained it to me, that there had been a kind of agreement that the house affected would be underpinned, or the part of it that was affected would be underpinned. So I'm not totally sure about what's actually led to the appearance of this notice, because of those other things happening. I mean, you know this from your own work, Sarah, and you know more about this than I do, in terms of subsidence cases being very complex. 

And yeah, it's not things you can get your head around quickly. Yeah, yeah. There's a question mark in my mind, because I'm thinking the time to fell it is almost over. 

If they're underpinning, then that's the solution that's been going to be adopted to stabilise the property, so the tree can stay. So I feel like there's something that I don't know, or there's something that someone else doesn't realise. I'm not sure which one it is. 

So I feel like I need to keep an eye on what happens there. If it's curious. Yeah, I'll get you on your podcast. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Likewise, Sarah. That was kind of more or less my reflection on it, the same thing. 

It sounds like we'll be hearing more about it if you're on the news. Yeah, I was on BBC Radio London this morning, and then that little snippet that I did is going to be on the TV, I think. But I didn't say anything. 

I said the same thing, which is there's something that I don't know, I think. If that's what's now happening, there's a piece of information that I don't know. Either that or the council are adopting, they're continuing with their commitment to FAL, even though that sort of ship has sailed, almost. 

They're just continuing with it, which could also be the case. I'm not quite sure. There's certainly a lot of background. 

You were saying there's some background on this case, goes back about 20 years. I hadn't realised it was quite that long. Yeah, so there is a lot of history in that tree. 

And it seems like, you know, cases like that seem like, why is everybody fighting so hard about one tree on a specific street? But then when you look down the street, it is a tree-lined street of plain trees and similar properties. So you just worry that if you extrapolate out what's happened here all the way down the street, it won't be one tree at risk. It'll be however many trees there are, you know, 30 or 40 or however many. 

I think that's the logic. And Gio was explaining to me on Saturday that I think Haringey has one of the highest incidences of subsidence cases in the country, about the clay soils and the climate. So I think there is a logic there about, effectively, I guess, wanting to try and, from the tree campaigner's point of view, set a positive precedent, you know, those other trees and similarly avoid damaging one. 

I think there's something in what you just said, though, that I think speaks to a point that's been made in the news quite a bit recently and relates to the Sycamore Gap Tree, which is, there's something about an individual tree and the way people connect to it and the way those trees can kind of take on a sort of meaning that sort of transcends their, you know, just being a tree-ness. I definitely think we saw that with the Sycamore Gap Tree for sure. But I think it plays out day-to-day as well, which is that people attach meaning to trees, don't they? And once the tree has a load of meaning in it from the people that spend their lives with it, it does take on a new value or significance, but it's not visible to people a lot of the time, isn't it? That totally resonates, because when I was speaking to the press about the Sycamore Gap, it got a lot of international press attention, particularly from America.

And the journalists in America, I was asked this at least three times, why do Brits love trees so much? And it was one of those questions that stopped me in my tracks. I was like, it seems so straightforward. And I was thinking, I don't know how to answer that.

Like, doesn't everybody like trees? You know, and I didn't come up with anything very scientific. So I thought, I'm going to put this out to my network afterwards. Every time I messed up with any of my tree friends, I'd say, oh, I'm going to ask you a question that I couldn't answer. 

And I got a load of different sorts of answers, really a huge variety. And then I did a post on LinkedIn asking for people's answers. Again, loads of people gave me a huge variety. 

And I reflected on that in a blog. And it's so nuanced and such a rich answer. I sort of categorized all the answers, and they came under sort of eight different categories. 

And I think I'm only adding to that as I keep asking that question to people. And I was speaking to somebody yesterday, and I was thinking almost some trees almost have, you almost have a human to human relationship with them. It's, you know, it's, I know it sounds so cheesy, it's far more than just a tree. 

It's, it is a, almost like a family based human connection. Yeah, so I think what you're saying, and it's quick, it's easy, isn't it, to get into the kind of, the kind of vague, you know, like it becomes too vague or fuzzy or, but I think there's a real kernel of truth in what you said there, which is that, you know, the trees, trees are ubiquitous, aren't they? They're everywhere we look. Some communities live without adequate levels of tree cover, but generally you'll find them wherever you go. 

So they're kind of constant presence. And I do think there's something about that that kind of makes the relationship that people have with them probably materially different to the relationships we have with the other bits of the natural world. You know, I've done things in my life, bird watching, you know, going out looking at rare wildflowers, all that kind of stuff. 

But something about the relationship with trees, as you say, is more, yeah, it's more familial. And I could only put that down to the constant presence, probably, and the familiarity, and then the fact that perhaps trees absorb a load of other stuff that overspills from our lives, you know, and how we're feeling. You know, it's all invisible, isn't it? Until the tree's under threat, then suddenly it arises to the surface, and it's often physical, people will put messages on the trees, won't they, and that sort of thing.

Yes, they're sort of more permanent than birds and flowers, but they're not as permanent as, say, you know, a rock formation or, you know, a land structure like that. And they last and span generations. So they almost can remember our history, you know, when you think, you know, isn't there like certain key documents in our history were signed and, you know, in the shadow of certain trees? Yeah, yeah, you don't have to look too far to find.

Yeah, yeah. And someone made a good point, like when one of my Arbo friends that's based here in Cardiff, and he said often, like, a tree will be used when you're wanting to reflect, I don't know, might be used to signify a course or an agenda, you know, something very intellectual, it's got that sort of intellectual, stable, learning sort of connotation to it. Wise, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, that's it, wise, it's wise, it's our elders. That's what it is, isn't it? It's the tribal elders. So I think there's definitely something about awe that I think is quite fundamental to our relationship with trees, and they generally are bigger than us, you know, once they're older than 20 or 30 years, they're bigger than us. 

And you get that feeling of awe of your place in, well, I don't know if everyone gets it, but I think, you know, you get your sense of your place in the order of things, you know, perhaps the humans aren't the most important thing, I think it's a good reality check for us to get. So I think trees give that fairly straightforwardly, just through their physical presence in the environment. It's not that, I mean, you know, you can get, I mean, you know, it's possible to get awe, I think, from looking at a spider's web in the morning or that kind of thing. 

But I think trees are more and more kind of day to day way of getting that kind of dose of that, which I think is really important. Just to try something out with you, then I think what you were talking about there about the kind of relationship with trees is, so at the Woodland Trust, we're doing a lot of work around this idea of tree equity and looking at kind of levels of urban canopy cover and places that have low levels of canopy cover, and the intersection with other things from life about people on lower incomes, higher unemployment, all that kind of stuff. Yeah, we've, we've, we've sort of adapted this work from work done in the US, where there's been some really interesting studies looking at the relationship between urban canopy cover, and discriminatory housing policies from the 1930s. 

The practice of redlining where red lines were literally drawn around majority black neighbourhoods, so that people living there couldn't get mortgages, things like that resulted in systemic decades of underinvestment in these neighbourhoods. And now, you know, 10s of percents less canopy cover and urban greenery, which has implications for heat, overheating, things like that. So there's something there about trees reflecting, almost being like the mirror, and kind of reflecting some kind of bigger societal injustices in that case. 

Yeah, look at how, you know, just in the middle of a piece of work we're doing the University of Exeter's medical school, looking at the data on canopy cover here, neighbourhood level canopy cover, and the data on the census, so kind of ethnic groups within, within the UK, and also some of the data on things like income from the indices of multiple deprivation. And there's a really clear intersection, it's probably not a surprise to you, which is that the, you know, communities where the indicators of social deprivation are highest, have the lowest levels of tree cover, wherever you look in the UK. There are exceptions to that, but generally the kind of national trend is a really clear one.

Yeah. So there's something about trees kind of, yeah, holding up the mirror, and kind of like reflecting things about us as people. And I think, you know, we plant the trees, don't we? The trees are like a human-made, I mean, I know that you do get bits of self-set trees and natural regeneration things, but generally I think in urban environments, the trees are there because generations of humans have put them there. 

They're a kind of, you know, they're a habitat that's created by us with all of our, well, not prejudices, you know, differences, you know, and maybe, so that's kind of quite interesting, that idea of the trees as the mirror, but it seems to, it reminds, it kind of speaks to what you were just talking about, I think, which is that idea of them being all around us and absorbing meaning from us. That's really interesting. I've got two more things to add to my list now, ore and mirror. 

I'm going to pop them on. It's, the more you think about it, it's sort of a bit mind-bending, isn't it? And that's, it's why, you know, I was stopped in my tracks being asked such a straightforward question and not really being able to do it any sort of justice with an answer. Well, I think there's a lot of obvious answers, aren't there, which you would go to about, you know, that the link, there's links to things like national identity and scarcity of trees, you know, and I mean, I read your post, it's a fantastic summary actually of the, the kind of multitude of dimensions in which people relate to trees, but maybe there is something that's just a bit more unknowable that, like, is hovering in there too, that, yeah, is arising. 

I've had more than one client phoning me crying because a tree has been, or is in the process of being felled, and that, they were very different individuals, and that was a very visceral reaction, one of absolute panic and utter devastation, and that's happened more than once. Yeah, I've come across that, it's, yeah, it's, it's really, really upsetting, isn't it? And both times I knew so much information, I knew that there was no reason for them to be felled, well, not no reason, that makes it sound like a total slam dunk, and they're being felled for no reason whatsoever, but there was a significant justification for retaining them, which, which actually, I, and I don't know whether you find this, and I don't want to take the conversation off in that direction, but I often find that you need some time to tap out, because those experiences are distressing and hopeless, feel hopeless, and you often need to, I feel like I need to go away and recover before I'm sort of replenished, ready to go again for the next episode, do you know what I mean? I do know what you mean, and I think I'm, I'm fortunate in my day-to-day world, you know, I mean, it's mainly about sort of managing people, budgets, doing plans, that sort of thing, getting out into woods and trees whenever I can, but there is, there's a team at the Woodland Trust, Woods and Trees Under Threat team, they're in the, in the sort of bigger team that I lead, and we, we get inquiries every single day about people contacting us for advice on what to do about trees under threat, and it's really hard work dealing with all of that, and the, and the sort of burnout is something we talk about quite a lot in the team, sometimes it feels a bit more on top of it than other times, and it kind of comes and goes a bit, but yeah, it can be really stressful and upsetting to kind of try and, and obviously try to help, so, you know, and, and the team's really professional and, you know, responds to, you know, well, well over a thousand inquiries a year. Oh, I can imagine. 

And giving bits of advice, and then sometimes you get involved in bits of planning, bigger bits of casework, usually around ancient woodland protection, that's more the focus for that work, but the inquiries you get from the public are often about day-to-day, you know, trees and gardens, everyday trees. I often speak to clients who, who I can say, oh, have you spoken to the Woodland Trust, and they generally say yes, they have, and have exhausted that, not exhausted that as an, you know, as an option, but have spoken to the Woodland Trust as part of one of the steps that they have taken. Shall we move on to the White Webs Oak? Yes, let's talk about White Webs Oak. 

Yeah, do you want to, like, you probably know more than me, because I'll tell you what, I've got questions, I've got questions that I could ask about what's going on here. I've got my Sherlock Holmes hat on, let's see if we can thrash this out. Yeah, I became aware of it about a month and a bit ago, where a combination of, I saw a social media post about it with a picture of the tree being cut down, or maybe just after it being cut down, or, you know, severely reduced, because, you know, there's about 10% of the tree still there, and we had a couple of inquiries, or notifications from people we know, saying this looks like a really unusual case, and I think you just get a sense for these things sometimes, about the things that are worth looking into more, you know, and I mean, we get, you know, we get people contacting us with these kind of things all the time, and, you know, often people will think a tree is ancient when it very rarely is, so, you know, when you hear a story about an ancient oak being cut down, you know, the first thought is, well, is it? You know, they want to verify that, really, but when we saw the photographs, you know, you could see from the photographs, it was a large tree, and if it was an oak tree, then, you know, it was potentially quite an unusual case, so I went down to meet the local campaigners from a group called Guardians of White Webs. 

There's a whole other story about White Webs Park, and the big planning application for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, it's building pictures on it, but it's kind of hovering in there, and that's one of the big reasons the Guardians group exists, but they were the people who sort of, the first responders, if you like, in the situation, they kind of found the tree, I think probably the day after all this had happened, or very soon after, and kind of raised the alarm, really, so I went down to see them, and I could, the minute I got there, I could see it was a very unusual case, you know, and it, you know, certainly looked like it was an ancient oak tree, massive remains of the stump, and a really striking situation, and I think that the local, the tree officer from Enfield Council had been there, I think probably the day before, and had cordoned it off with this sort of hazard tape, so it looked like a crime scene, and it was a really striking visual, you know, and I found that was quite, it was both shocking and, you know, kind of heartbreaking, really, to see, but also it was a really strong, visually very strong image of this kind of cut tree with the tape around it, and I met some of the group who were, yeah, really upset about what happened, so we did a bit of, we took a few photographs, and did a little bit of videoing, just to kind of quickly document it, and then went back, this is all on a Sunday, and then we, I think the story that I got, we got contacted on Monday, and something about the Metro, we're going to do a story about it, so I think they spoke to somebody from the Guardians group, so we'd already talked to them about, well, I think we need to find out who's done this, so they didn't know, you know, I think that the original inquiries hadn't really led anywhere, yeah, so I felt like, well, let's help them find out who's done this, as a first port of call, and we'll work back from there, so it's quite an unusual, like, situation to be in, really, in terms of, like, what you might do through the national media, yeah, yeah, so we did a press release, sort of, with some quotes from the group as well, in there, and kind of their input, and input of an arborist who's done some work, sort of, surrounding the tree, and just said, right, who's done this, you know, who's, and sudden, you know, we got a big response, I was on the Stay programme that morning, and, you know, we kind of went through that news cycle that week, you know, you were already involved in this as well, you know, we found out that Mitchelson Butlers, the company that owned Toby Carvery, had supposedly commissioned it, we found that out a day or two later, but then we had the, well, what do we say about that, so, you know, still lots of unanswered questions, and there was an apology from the CEO, you know, it took up a week's worth of news, really. Yeah. So, it was a kind of real-time look at what happened, they raised all the questions that you probably come across in your day-to-day life around tree preservation orders, felling licenses, is it, is it crime to cut down a tree, all those questions flushed right out to the surface, you know, on Jeremy Vine, it's the only time I've been on there, you know, like, with a, and not being head to head, because I kind of, I think the health and safety expert and I agreed on quite a lot, but they tried to make it into a kind of antagonistic debate. 

Standard. I wasn't really trying to argue with him, because Woodland Trust did tons of work on health and safety, to own a thousand woods, like, so we spend a lot of time thinking about health and safety, it's not like we don't care about it, but yeah, it was a Woodland Trust point of view, been running this campaign for several years called Living Legends, about this idea of heritage trees, the heritage trees bill, legal protection, and it suddenly brought all that to the surface again, just like it did when the Sycamore Gap tree was cut down. Yeah. 

So, you know, it's kind of, as these events do, you know, people do want to talk about the bigger picture, how can you stop this happening, as well as the, the kind of details of the incident right in front of us. So, yeah, there's an opportunity to do some of that as well. So, what are your questions? I'll be interested in your sort of reflections on it, really, because, you know, this is your, this is your world, isn't it, Sarah, you know.

So, what do we know about it then, Adam? So, we know it was on land leased to, what are they called, Mitchells and Butler, Toby Carvery? Mitchells and Butler, yeah. I have to say there is some current uncertainty over the precise boundaries of the area of land, which potentially has some quite big implications, and I think it's hard to say much more, because I think that we just don't know, and I mean they literally asked the locals this question on Sunday when I was down there, and there are some different, you know, there are some, some uncertainty looking at the different maps. So, I think that whoever, if somebody could clear this up soon, that would really help.

Yeah. But I think that the story that kind of came out in the press was it was on land that was leased from Enfield Council to Mitchells and Butler, Toby Carvery, and therefore it was on their land, and they were kind of acting, I guess, within their sort of powers as a, as a lease holder, and, you know, and they said it was for a serious health and safety risk, you know, I'm sure your listeners probably know this, but, you know, that was the, that was the explanation that was given. I observe that I hear reference to safety in any of my cases where a tree's been felled, where there's an, there's a suggestion that it shouldn't have been.

That was just, that was an observation that I made when I heard that. An interesting legal point that I think is interesting. So, like, let's pretend there isn't, it's not potentially on a boundary, so let's pretend it's square, or not pretend, I mean, it might well be, it's squarely on the land leased to Toby Carvery. 

The question I think is interesting is actually whether, you know, there'll be terms and conditions in the lease saying maintain the ground, you know, make sure it's kept safe, tidy, et cetera, things like that, standard things on a lease. But my question is, can a freeholder ever lease out a responsibility for a tree? I mean, a tree is an element of permanence, a leasehold interest isn't permanent, it will always end and revert back to the freeholder. So, I feel, there's a question mark, and this is something I'm saying in my own mind, that if that tree could have outlived the lease, the term of the lease, I think that's only, the permanent removal of it, not just the general maintenance, the permanent removal of it is something that I think, arguably, only the freeholder could do, and actually, regardless of the lease, that always remained the council's responsibility, council's right. 

Interesting, yeah, so, I mean, yeah, I mean, that would seem like logical, wouldn't it, right? Like, if you own property and you want to lease it out, you would want to safeguard your assets, and sort of, so, I guess, going with the, continuing with the sort of thought experiment, if you lease a building, you know, which probably to some of that arguments of permanence would obviously apply, you know, what would happen if you removed 90% of the building? I know, yeah, probably a property's got its own set of kind of law regarding leases, and no doubt would be like, probably a lot of details in the lease agreement, but maybe something as obvious as not removing a building wouldn't be, because it would just be taken as read that you wouldn't knock down a building as part of it, it's all damaging. I mean, the response from the council, kind of, I thought, certainly told us something in terms of, you know, the council leader the next day said it was outrageous, and they were kind of considering all their options, you know, about things like legal cases. So, I mean, you know, I think it's quite possible that they probably hadn't had time to go through all these agreements at the time they were being asked to make comments in the media and things. 

So, yeah, probably wait for the detail on some of that, but it does suggest to you that it seemed to be the case that they weren't, you know, they weren't expecting that kind of thing to be happening, nor to give them permission for it, obviously. I think they were pretty categorical about the fact they hadn't given permission. So, there was no TPO on it, was there? Yeah, I mean, that's the kind of, like, the slight irony is the right word, but there is now, so there's a TPO on it now, because it would serve as a TPO to protect the remains, and a very sensible decision by the tree officer to do that, you know, so I'm not critiquing that, because it just highlights the kind of complexity, difficulty of protecting these trees. 

Also, TPO is often a red herring as well, because let's take everything on face value. If that tree was a danger and needed to be imminently felled, then the TPO wouldn't have protected it anyway. It would have been a case of telling the council, the tree is dangerous, it needs to be felled, the council come out, and then it's, so at times it can almost be a bit of a red herring, I think. 

Yeah, yeah, and we, yeah, we come across the kind of shortcomings of TPOs a lot. I would say, you know, they are, I think TPOs definitely have a role in a play, when we try not to, if people really kick TPOs, try and stand up for them a bit, because I think it's really useful that people have got something they can do to help protect a tree in a kind of really situation where there's high jeopardy, but they were never intended as a strategic conservation tool for ancient trees, you know, it's much more practical, legal instrument, isn't it? And one of the things that we, I want to come back to the health and safety thing in a minute, so let me just bookmark that and come back to it. So, we've been, the Heritage Trees Bill that we've been, that we've sort of supported Baroness Young with, this Private Mems Bill, has got a heritage TPO, which is the idea of trying to build something out of what we've already got, because that was the advice from experts, was just try and make something that we've got a bit better, and invent something new, very wise advice, I think, about something that could be served proactively, yeah, and used as a kind of conservation tool of sorts for protecting really, yeah, a cohort of really important trees. 

Back to the health and safety though, you know, I was there on Sunday in White Webs Park, and there's a lot of unanswered questions about that, so the first thing is no one's actually seen the kind of evidence yet, in terms of the the report, if there is one. I mean, Mitchell's and Butler's have had, what, seven, eight weeks to produce such evidence. I mean, the Forestry Commission have opened an investigation out that you'd hope that they would be getting to all these documents. 

Yeah, to a certain extent, that's the next step, really, we're waiting for that. I mean, the locals would like a police investigation, you know, consider it to be a criminal case. Let's come on to that in a minute, is it a criminal case or not? But the health and safety thing, you know, there are a number of other trees around the car park that are much closer to the car park, including a load of dead ash trees that are literally overhanging it. 

So, this tree is a good, you know, perhaps 15 metres or so from the edge of the car park. So, there's a couple of really obvious things that are odd, like why would you, and there's no sort of visual record of other tree safety risk management around the car park. So, if there were lots of other trees that are being managed like this, you might say, well, you know, they've got this one now, but there's no sign of that. 

And Russell Miller, the arborist who's been working a lot around the tree and supporting the guardians group, you know, has gone around and done a fair, you know, pretty extensive survey looking around the car park at other trees in terms of potential risks. It definitely raises questions, why would you work on that one out of all the trees there? And kind of to follow up to that, Russell's done some surveys looking at estimating the cubic metreage of wood and think it's well in excess of five cubic metres. So, would have needed a felling licence. 

Yeah, so there is an exemption for immediate danger, precise words, but there's pretty high burden of proof as well. You have to prove why that exemption, you could kind of cut fell the tree under that exemption. And if you can't prove that, then everyone involved is liable for prosecution.

So, there's some really, you know, I mean, you would think that the Forestry Commission case will get to all of this and, you know, hopefully we'll hear something soonish. But it feels like there's a lot of unanswered questions still. Because I presume as the Forestry Commission are investigating, they're going to be investigating a potential private criminal prosecution, because they'll have criminal powers to criminally prosecute. 

My understanding is that the police have sort of got involved and then said, oh, we'll leave this one, we'll leave this one to you. Yeah, they have, Sarah. And, you know, that kind of speaks to perhaps a problem at the heart of this about valuing trees.

You know, it's disappointing, really, because this is, you know, this is one of London's oldest oak trees, you know. I mean, it's not a tree I knew before it was obviously in this state, so I didn't have got to see it myself firsthand. But you can see just from the remains and what's on the floor, you know, with Russell surveying all the kind of ecological features, veteran habitat on the tree, you know, clearly a really valuable tree. 

You know, you'd think if it was an equivalent of built heritage, there would be, you know, there probably would be a criminal case. But we've got this sort of blind spot that we kind of can't see. Some people can, but we can't all see trees as having that kind of value and role in our society.

I think it was unusual, and people have compared like how this one's being managed versus how Sycamore Gap's managed. And again, I did another blog saying why the Sycamore Gap and the White Web Soak aren't the same. They can look quite similar from the outside, but they are quite different. 

You know, and the police were having, you know, the police led the charge in Sycamore Gap. They led the charge that the CPS that pursued the criminal prosecution, it was dealt with as if, you know, tantamount to a murder scene. And I feel like the Northumbria police sort of led the charge there and have almost role modelled what the public are really expecting or wanting the police to do. 

It would have been an opportunity for the Met Police to not necessarily do the same things, the situations are different, but really establish that it's a crime, a potential crime that will be taken seriously. Absolutely, to send, exactly, to send a message to people about the value of these trees. That's one of the, part of the rationale, we think, for some, you know, Heritage Trees Bill or something like it, that would be about making it a crime to damage or destroy, you know, heritage trees.

It's something that's, you know, a tree that's been identified for its ecological, cultural, historical value or, you know, exceptional value in those cases, as a way of trying to establish that set of values. Now, I think, being realistic, you could probably only do that for a fairly small amount of trees. So, I went out to Poland a couple of years to look at their green monuments scheme, where they protect, have legal protection for about 30,000, just over 30,000 trees like that around Poland. 

It's usually a mixture of ecology, culture and history, but that legal protection, yeah, it's kind of what, what would kind of establish what you and I are talking about here for, to be the case, if you like. So, you know, the criminal, as I understand it, and like you, you know, you're the expert here, not me, you know, whether cutting down a tree like that is a crime or not, then, depends on a few things. It's not a sort of yes-no situation. 

And I think that the public, if you kind of look at what the public think, I think the public would say for an ancient tree, or an ancient oak tree, certainly, would be, it would be like a crime. So, I stood at the White Web's oak on Sunday. It's really interesting, members of the public coming to basically take photographs and look at it. 

We've all seen the media coverage. It's really interesting conversations with people reflecting, I'd say, the prevailing view, yeah, very much that, yeah, a heinous crime has been committed, really, and people really, range of emotions from, you know, say a bit distraught, or people have had weeks to get their head around it, really angry, but a very straightforward response, really, of people, you know, kind of feeling cut up about it. Yeah. 

It's almost like, and someone else likened the day that we woke up to the news that Sycamore Gap had been fouled to the day we woke up to news that Princess Diana had been killed. But I remember that, you know, for some people listening, they may not remember that, but I certainly remember that. And actually, that picture you're drawing there, of people visiting the White Web's oak, is similar to when people go and lay flowers as a mark of respect? Well, people were going to not quite lay flowers, but you're right, it was a sort of equivalent thing to that, and I think people were feeling some emotions of sort of grief of sorts, back to what we were saying earlier about the kind of role in meaning trees take on. 

So, I've got my theory about the Sycamore Gap tree, is that we've got this, the thing that protects most trees, day in, day out, is this social contract we have, that you don't just cut down an old tree for no reason. I'm a pragmatist, you know, we need forestry, we need people to be able to cut trees and make wood, but I think when it comes to the really old trees, and the ones that are iconic and significant, you don't just cut those down for any, for no good reason. And I think the Sycamore Gap felling was such a sort of flagrant violation of that unwritten code, that we all felt it, because we all know that we will somehow, kind of, and not everybody, I'm not a kind of delusional idealist on this, there are some people who really don't like trees and want to cut them down, but I think generally, you know, the prevailing view, if you could say, that perhaps we've got a little glimpse into through the white web, Sycamore Gap, is that people think those trees should stay, you know, get old.

So, there's that, that sort of social contract was, I think, we had that kind of collective feeling of it being broken. Yeah. And it's, you know, it's people's feelings and attitudes that fundamentally are the thing that protect most trees, and the prevailing view of what's right and wrong, I suppose. 

Very nuanced thing, but no wonder, you know, I mean, we sort of then turn that into bits of policy and legislation, don't we? But given the sort of vulnerability of trees and landscape, it's really about what people think and feel about them that matters most, I think. So, in Sycamore Gap, looking ahead to the sentencing on the 15th of July, that's going to get the trees back on the front pages again, international front pages. So, what are your thoughts? And now that the guilty finding has obviously been found, what are your thoughts on what the potential sanction could be, or sentencing could be for the two defendants? I'm kind of reticent about, like, saying a specific thing. 

So, I've heard people talk about different things from ranging from prison sentence to they should be given a year's community service planting trees, you know, like that, you know, like, you know, those sorts of things. And, you know, it's about that latter one that feels like quite opposite, doesn't it? Like, again, like, repair the good in a way. I think, I think, so I've been looking at some of the, you know, interesting watching some of the sort of responses. 

So, I came across a case from Austin, Texas. I don't know if you come across this case of the Arbor, I think it's the Arbor Oak, the Treaty Oak or something like that. Yeah, it's a tree in Austin, Texas, and it was a case of a high profile poisoning incident. 

Oh, yeah. Maybe about a decade ago. There's a really good podcast from the criminal podcast series about this case, but you can find it online. 

And a man was found guilty of poisoning the tree, nearly killing it. And he was doing it as a sort of anti-government protest. So, to him, the tree was a symbol of, I can't remember the nuances of this, maybe like the federal government. 

And he got nine years in prison for that. And there's some really, I came across some really, really interesting news clippings online from the reporting of this, including some comments from the jurors. Oh, yeah.

Saying that there was a massive range of views around about what the suitable punishment was for that tree, ranging from it was a national crime against America, and should be 20 years in prison, to it's just a tree, prison is inappropriate. I wonder what else there is where you get such a range of views on something that had got to court, got to trial, but even then you would get a massive spectrum of views. I think they were saying the nine years was like a medium point in the end. 

Oh, was it? Yeah, yeah. As far as one could be kind of discerned. I'll send them to you. 

I've got some, they're really, really interesting. They're like the nearest thing to this, I think. And it's kind of, you know, obviously from the US.

That'd be great. And I can probably put a link to it in the show notes to this podcast as well, if people are interested in this and took to. I think.

What's your view? Is that possible for you to sort of say as well? Sorry, what? Well, I mean, is there anything similar? Is there like, you know, I mean, I'm just thinking, is there any kind of comparable equivalent where I was trying to, a colleague actually asked me, has anyone been to prison for felling a tree? There was a case a few years ago from South Wales where there's a developer who cut down a really big old. Is that Enzo Holmes? Yeah, that's the one. Yeah.

Yeah, I don't think anyone went to prison there. Yeah, no one went to prison. I think they managed to appeal and get fined, like, massively reduced on appeal.

I think people have likened it to the sorts of sentencing that has been given to protesters who are protesting against the likes of Just Stop Oil, you know, people that like block up motorways and throw paint on pictures. They're getting harsh sentences, two years, whatever, plus prison time as they're trying to set a strong deterrent. But their action, my thought is their actions aren't permanent. 

People are careful to do a disruptive action, but nothing permanent. Whereas this sort of feels like, well, if you're going to sanction that harshly to send a message, then that same level of severity involving a crime that has a permanent impact, which is almost the total opposite, isn't it? There's a total opposite of an environmental campaigner. Surely that would be appropriate. 

But I tell you what, I do not envy the judge's role. So the sentencing hearing is going to be broadcast, so it'll be live streamed. It's only, I think, the 34th sentencing hearing in the UK to be broadcast, which really shows the level of interest over it.

So that's something that happens in cases of high public interest, Sarah. Yeah, so it's done on the basis of an application made by the press. And I went up for one day of the hearing in person, and the press box was full to the brim.

Press was spilling out into the public gallery, and then it meant that everyone that wants to get in couldn't get in. And I think the level of attention that it got throughout and the run up to it throughout and continuing meant that they made the application for the sentencing hearing to be streamed. Makes sense. 

Broadcast. Yeah, yeah, that does make sense, doesn't it? Yeah. So I feel whatever the outcome is, there's going to be people very happy and people very sad.

I think it's, it does, it's something that kind of, I think, would underline the case for some sort of Heritage Treaties Bill or similar, which would let you then set a consistent approach to sentencing in cases like this. And I think without that, it's, you know, you're kind of scrabbling around for their bit, you know, what are the, what's the kind of, what's the deterrent? So like, you know, if people are thinking, should I commit this crime or not? Like, what's the deterrent to put them off? I mean, we see stuff in the press, don't we? Someone chopped down X number of trees so they could get a better view, and then they get fined. And it's a derisory fine you often see in the newspaper. 

And then there's outcry, you know, the fines are too small. This isn't ever going to put off developers. They'll just budget for fines and just carry on. 

So I really think this is a place where the law just needs to catch up, because I honestly think from what we've seen on the public opinion sort of point, I think people think these trees are valuable, really valuable. They don't want them to be cut down. They think, you know, they think it shouldn't happen. 

So I think that this is where the law just needs to catch up. And we have got this kind of gap. And I think that this gap for trees exists because they kind of sit in between the worlds of ecology and wildlife protection, where we have laws that protect national endangered and special wildlife, got loads of them.

And then we've got laws that protect our cultural heritage, you know, our shared ancient monuments, battlegrounds, shipwrecks, all those valuable things. Flickered buildings, etc. And these trees kind of, they just sit in between those two things. 

And I think they fall between the stools in a way. And it's interesting to see, about a year or so ago, Natural England and Historic England signed a concordat about closer working together on protection of natural heritage. If there's ever a project for them to kind of get stuck into, as a start, I would say this would be a great one, because I think these trees really speak to the work that both those organisations do. 

Yeah, I think that there's some kind of rational arguments from this situation and support gap tree that point towards getting a more consistent way of approaching the sentencing and the valuation of the trees. So back to Enfield, Russell Miller has been doing a valuation of the tree there. Oh yeah, how's that gone? Well, he was completing it over the weekend, so I think you'll hear about that fairly soon.

I mean, it was about the same person. Wasn't a million pound bandied around at the beginning? No, I think, yeah, I think somebody said that. I think, so the Sycamore Gap Tree was valued to the CAVAP about £620,000. 

I mean, this is where the financial thing feels a bit inadequate, doesn't it? But let's put a question mark on that, because apparently in the closing submissions, I think one of the barristers said, I don't know where this £620,000 has come from. They sort of suggested that the press had not created the figure, but were talking about the figure as if it was almost a done deal. And I think that's been reduced now down into the £400,000.

I think that was referenced to £450,000. Yeah. I would say, go back to that inadequacy comment, I mean, £400,000, £600,000.

I think certainly in terms of the national response to it, it's a valuable tree. You know, and I think there's a point, isn't there, where money just isn't the right metric for kind of calculating some of these things. I mean, I know you need it in court and it does help to kind of probably get a handle on the kind of severity of punishment.

So I can see the pragmatic reason for it, but it's not the key metric, I'd say, for measuring the value. I mean, we'll have to see from White Webs. So, I mean, the White Webs oak has, you know, ecologically far greater value.

And I say this because I really like it, I do like sigma trees. But, you know, it's clearly an ancient oak full of kind of niche habitat, cubic brown rot, and, you know, all these things that take centuries to develop. That way, you know.

So, yeah, we'll kind of get the results of that, I think, fairly soon. Is CAVAP being used for that? So Russell, I think, is planning to try and use CAVAP. I think, I'm not sure there are any examples of CAVAP being used for a bale tree, perhaps other than the sigma gap tree.

So there's a couple of methods from mainland Europe as well, where they've used survey techniques on microhabitats and trees. Often they fail to calculate their values. So I think Russell's using kind of existing methods, but trying to do a bit of a way of bringing a few different things together to try and produce the most comprehensive and accurate value judgment that could be made.

That's the second most popular question I get asked, or I got asked definitely in relation to sigma gap. When I've spoken a little bit about the White Web ZOKE, is, and clients ask as well, how do you put a money value on a tree? Because the valuation, you know, I mean, if you want to start a debate in any room full of tree people, ask them what they think of a tree valuation system, and then you can just watch that go then for probably 24 hours. But it's not, you know, it's not a one size fits all.

A system might be developed to do a specific thing, and then you might try and shoehorn it for use in a different scenario where it's not quite fit for purpose. And it's, yeah, there is no answer. Yeah, they all have their shortcomings, don't they, these systems, you know, and as you say, they might be developed for a certain set of circumstances, but then a need arises for them to be used slightly differently.

I think that's why Russell's trying to combine a few different things. Yeah, we'll hopefully put some information out about this soon, or I'll send it to you anyway, Sarah, so you can have a look. Thank you, that'd be very interesting.

Certainly, you know, at the moment, I feel like we've had three trees really hitting the national press, which, although it's obviously incredibly sad, and something which you would hope wouldn't happen, it's this level of attention that is hopefully going to drive forward change. Yeah, well, let's get back to the law catching up, you know, I think that, I think if we had another high profile incident, and nothing had been, nothing proactive had been done, I think it would start to look very careless on part of the government. You're almost getting into inquiry territory there, aren't you? Like, what thoughts were had on why was this decision made to do nothing? Well, after the Sycamore gap felling, you know, the Tree Council were commissioned to kind of lead a, you know, a kind of analysis of options for better, you know, how to improve tree protection, and they published that report.

I mean, like, coincidentally, just the day the news broke about the white web soak. Yeah, that's what my forest research and Tree Council that identify gaps in the legal system, we've talked about them during this podcast. Yeah, and a whole range of other things that need to happen, including the kind of incentives for stewardship of these trees.

You know, we work very closely with the Tree Council, great organisation. So, I feel like we've already got quite a lot of insight and analysis of where the gaps are and the things that could be done to address them. And that was all done in response to the felling of the Sycamore gap.

So, we've kind of been there once, had that response. That report's currently with DEFRA, I think. So, you know, maybe all eyes on DEFRA for a response.

Is there a timeline at all? Not the one I'm aware of. Yeah. I think that the one I'm sure the white website will have, you know, it will have illustrated the need in a way that a few things could really.

But I feel like we've got, you know, often these things, you know, a lot of work's been done in the past. There's a lot of insight and knowledge and, you know, amongst tree professionals as well, you know, very much amongst tree professionals in terms of things that have and haven't worked. There are some, you know, talk about new legislation, there are some other basic things that perhaps, so, you know, the fact that felling licences, you know, from what we can see from the work that Russell's done on the white website, estimating it way over the five cubic metre threshold for felling licence.

But yeah, should you, you know, should there be an exemption for a felling of any ancient tree? You know, I think that's probably highly questionable about really the value of having an exemption when it comes to ancient trees. They're not going to be part of productive timber systems, you know, or, you know, and their deadwood habitat things are going to be, you know, probably of a lot of value. So it's not, you know, there are some things that kind of crop up regularly when you talk to tree experts who've worked on these things for 20 years, you know.

I think a lot of this is captured in that tree council report, really. So I think if anyone listening wants to go and have a read. I can put a link to that in the comments as well.

Yeah, that'd be good. I have to work out how to put a link to these things in the comments, but I will. I definitely will.

I think we're nearly at an hour, so I'll draw us to a close there, Adam. That's been so, so, like, beyond interesting. A little whistle-stop tour through the… We got through the three trees, didn't we? Yeah.

We did, we did. And, you know, like, all eyes on Newcastle and what's going to happen next month. I think that's going to, you know, I think all three of them are going to stay in the news, aren't they, for a while? Sycamore Gap, Whitewebs Oak, and also the Haringey Plain implicated in the subsidence damage.

Yeah, so watch this space. Good, well, you know, thanks for all your updates. You know, I mean, I got my updates on the Sycamore Gap case from you, Sarah, you know, so I think they were really, really good updates.

So keep up the good work. Oh, thanks. You know, it was really interesting to do.

I wished I could have dedicated the time to be in the trial every day, but I just, I couldn't do it. But I tell you what, the BBC did amazing sort of minute-by-minute coverage. Yeah, yeah, I know, I used to.

Felt like you were there. Yeah, it was absolutely brilliant. But I will be there for the sentencing hearing, even though it's been broadcast, I am going to go up as well because I want to be there for what could be a historic day, really.

Yeah, well, it'll be really interesting to be in the room. I'm going to get the feeling of the room, definitely. Well, we look forward to hearing more about that from you.

Well, I look forward to that. And I'm ready with my answer when the American press asks me why we love trees so much. I'll be like, right, sit down.

I've got 30 or 30 minutes. I've got an eight-page blog on it. I know.

Put the kettle on. OK, thank you very much, Adam. All right, Sarah.

Thank you very much for your time. Bye. Bye.

Bye.