Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust writes of the public outcry over felled ancient oak in London, and its similarities to the Sycamore Gap Tree on Hadrian’s Wall

The public outrage over the felling of an ancient oak on the edge of a restaurant park in Enfield highlights the connection many of us have with ancient trees and the natural world more generally, writes Erin McDaid of the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust.

Equally it underlines that more must be done to ensure the true value of the natural world and its role in supporting our health, wellbeing and economy are better recognised and protected.

The controversial felling of the oak, which some say could have lived for hundreds years more, has echoes of the high-profile felling of the Sycamore Gap Tree - sometimes known as the Robin Hood Tree due to it featuring in the film Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves - alongside Hadrian’s Wall in 2023.

Oaks are amongst our most long-lived trees and this longevity is a key element of why oaks play host to more species of wildlife, from fungi to insects to birds and mammals, than any other UK tree.

While on my university placement as a trainee ranger, an experienced ranger explained that an oak might live as long as 600 years; with a third of its life growing, a third thriving majestically in the landscape and a third slowly dying.

While the arguments as to whether the oak in Enfield was dead or not rage on, in purely wildlife terms, this long period of ‘decline’ can see veteran trees at their most valuable for nature as they increasingly host deadwood invertebrates, whose larvae in turn provide food for woodpeckers and other species, while cavities in the tree provide niche habitat for nesting birds and bats.

Incidents such as these high-profile cases highlight that our cherished trees are, in the most part, without specific legal protection. Unless covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), trees have no dedicated legal protection.

Instead, they are treated as simple property, as illustrated by the accused in the Sycamore Gap case being charged with criminal damage.

TPOs themselves have limited application, usually applied where trees are growing in Conservation Areas or on nature reserves. In many cases they are relatively easy to circumvent legally.

Ironically, even the term Conservation Area illustrates the imbalance with how built structures carry implicitly more value than natural features in our legal system – the designation largely relating to architectural features or an area's historical value.

Our colleagues at the Woodland Trust have long campaigned for ancient trees to qualify for protection in the same way as heritage buildings. According to a YouGov Poll, 88% of the population support legally protected heritage status for ancient trees, and 85% think national government and its agencies should be responsible for their protection.

When it comes to the issue of value, ancient, veteran and trees of other special interest serve many functions – supporting huge biodiversity, helping to clean our air as well as providing a sense of wellbeing and connection. In many cases, such as the Sycamore Gap Tree or our own Major Oak, they also contribute directly to the local economy through tourism.

There is even a standard formula for calculating the financial value of such trees – with the Sycamore Gap Tree and the Enfield Oak being quoted by various sources as being worth somewhere in the region of £600,000 and £1million respectively.

Although such financial valuations may usefully be part of any decision-making process linked to the merits of protecting a given tree or calculating compensation where trees are damaged – placing a financial value on natural assets, for me, is a double-edged sword.

While a figure of a million pounds might suggest a tree is worth protecting, in the absence of robust, dedicated legal protections there will always be cases where simple economics mean hugely valued trees will simply be sacrificed in terms of what some might call progress.

At some level, the plight of ancient and special trees represents the balance that must be struck by the Government in framing the current planning reforms to ensure that the environmental and societal value of species and habitats is not automatically boiled down to a simple choice driven by economics.