BBCThere was anger and sadness among the people who came during the holiday Easter weekend to protest the destruction of a tree in Enfield that is believed to be up to 500 years.
“This is a crime against nature,” said an activist. “It is a crime against a 500 -year -old being.”
Hundreds of people gathered on Sunday to protest the felling of an old oak in Whitewebbs park in northern London.
The pedunulate oak, which was reduced on April 3, was located on the edge of a park owned by the Enfield Council in northern London and overlooked the Toby Carvery pub.
PA mediaThe Council rented the land in which the tree was on Toby Astervy.
The Council did not discover the felling of the tree until last week.
On Wednesday, the leader of the Enfield Council described the logging “an indignation” and said that all legal options were being considered.
Mitchells & Butlers, the owners of the Toby Carvery pub chain, said they lowered the tree after it was dead.
In a statement, the company said it received the council of the contractors, who said “the divided and dead wood raised a serious risk of health and safety.”
He subconsulated in a subsequent statement that he had tasks “necessary measures to ensure that the legal requirements were”.
Thousands of people have signed a petition that has asked the Enfield Council for an independent investigation into what happened.
These were some of the reactions on the weekend to the logging of the tree.
Independent Tree consultation Russell Miller told the BBC London: “We believe that this is probably less than 100 [trees] In London of this size, it is a very significant loss.
“It is possible that the tree triggers, but it is likely that the wounds in it will be so large that they will decrease, since Althegh will grow, then that because the whole system fails.”
The tree, with a circle of 20 feet (6 m), was a significant pedunulate oak at the inventory of ancient trees of the Woodland trust.
The news of the destruction of the oak occurred a few days after a report of the Tree Council and the Forest Research environmental group warned that the trees were only indirectly protected, with some “significant legal gaps.”
