Mitchells & Butlers: Birds Migrate to Wetherspoons!
- DDL Ltd
- Apr 25
- 4 min read
Date of publication on LinkedIn: 25th April 2025 @ 9.47am
LinkedIn post link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mitchells-butlers-birds-migrate-wetherspoons-sunil-chadda-7bcxe
In an article published on the BBC’s website on 17th April, Toby Carvery's owner apologised over the upset caused after the company felled an ancient oak tree, admitting, ‘we need to tighten our protocols’.
The owner admits that the protocols need to be tightened. That such a need exists is indicative that certain steps may not have been taken.
The company cut down a 500-year-old oak tree despite a March 2024 planning document that called it a ‘fine specimen’, and the council stating it had centuries to live.
Given that a planning document had stated that the tree had centuries to live, this likely points to the need for the protocols to be tightened. This is in line with the subsequent public outcry.
Enfield Council's leader branded the felling ‘an outrage’ adding that all legal options were being considered.
For legal options to be considered indicates that something is amiss. It questions whether ‘protocols’ were indeed followed.
Phil Urban, the Chief Executive Mitchells & Butlers (M&B), which owns the Toby Carvery restaurant chain, wrote to local residents explaining that he ‘only became aware of what had happened at Whitewebbs Park when it was reported in the media’. He added, ‘Clearly the felling of a beautiful old tree is a very emotive subject and is not something any of us would undertake lightly. I can only apologise for all the upset that it has caused’.
The Chief Executive’s priority is to distance himself from ‘what happened’ by saying he ‘only became aware of it when it was reported in the media’. He admits that it was an action which could arouse intense reactions but not one which ‘any of us,’ would undertake lightly. This is passive and future conditional. It doesn’t tell us what actions were taken. We would question, given the need for the tightening of protocols, how seriously the decision was taken to cut down the tree?
He said: ‘In this instance, one of our team acted in good faith in response to expert advice and authorised the work to be done’.
One individual is referenced as taking the decision to cut down the tree based on the expert advice provided. The expert advice provided appears to contradict the observations of the planning document. The Chief Executive doesn’t say what information the individual had to hand in making the decision. It is this which could have led to Enfield council considering all legal options.
‘However, I would totally accept that this was an exceptional circumstance, and as part of our review, we have already concluded that we need to tighten our protocols to ensure that if something like this were to ever happen again, that we could still protect our guests, team members and/or general wider public from harm but have time for a fuller consultation’.
The Chief Executive minimises the event by referencing it as ‘an exceptional circumstance.’ The shortest answer is the best and is the equivalent of saying, ‘we haven’t cut down any other trees of a similar age,’ emphasising what he sees as a potential positive outcome.
Despite concluding that protocols need to be tightened, he allows for the possibility that something similar may happen again. If it does, could this lead to an even further tightening of the protocols that are already being tightened?
Even if it does happen again, the focus is on protecting guests, team members and the general wider public - which is last in the Chief Executive’s priorities. The priority is the business. Despite the tightening of protocols, similar actions could happen again in order to protect the business.
The Chief Executive admits that a fuller consultation was needed. Was the decision rushed due to time constraints and if so, why?
He added he wanted ‘to assure you that we do try to be good neighbours’. The word ‘try’ can mean to attempt and still be unsuccessful - which appears to be the case in this instance.
He said: ‘On a personal level, I am very sorry for all the anger and upset that this incident has caused. I am not expecting my words to resolve the depth of feeling, but I do hope that you will accept that we do try to always be responsible operators, and that the people involved did act in good faith and with good intentions. We will complete a thorough review and ensure that in future, exceptional situations are treated differently from the more regular health and safety issues that arise on a day-to-day basis’.
The Chief Executive is not sorry for what they have done but for the reaction it has caused. The word ‘try’ is repeated, thereby increasing the sensitivity of what is being said. Despite previously saying that part of the review has already concluded a need to tighten protocols, a thorough review will be completed to ensure that ‘exceptional situations’ are treated differently from the more, ‘regular health and safety issues’ which arise on a day-to-day basis.
The felling of a 500-year-old tree is not a day-to-day activity. This statement is indicative that it was treated as such, hence the need for a change to the protocols and for Enfield Council to consider all legal actions available. Protocols were not necessarily followed which may have led to the ‘expert advice’ provided which was acted upon.
There is no guarantee that the cause for a similar situation to happen again will be avoided, despite thorough reviews and tightening of protocols. It leaves the fact that, ‘exceptional circumstances like this...’ may still happen.
Tree down, plates up!
All blog subjects are identified, validated and written by the DDL Team. See www.ddlltd.com for more on Deception Detection Lab Ltd. If you have any words that you would like us to look at, then please get in touch. We are happy to give you a blog credit or else publish anonymously, if you would prefer.
Photo Credit: Unsplash.com - Kakasi Kriszta
