Scores of trees have been removed from the Winchmore Hill site over several decades but the owners insist all work has been done with consent from the council, reports James Cracknell and Finn Logue

The Church Hill site and (inset) plans by GPAD-Acre for three homes — The Church Hill site and (inset) plans by GPAD/Acre for three homes

A planning application for “three woodland houses” in Winchmore Hill has sparked anger from local people – who point to the clearance of a large number of trees on the same site.

The developer of the Church Hill site, near Grovelands Park, states in planning documents it wants to build “new homes nestled in the woodland clearing” which would create “a sanctuary in the woods for the resident families”.

But existing residents in the area have pointed out the “woodland clearing” is itself the result of numerous trees being felled, going back many years, and that this clearance has turned an extension of woodland on the edge of Grovelands into a more sparsely wooded area.

Residents point out that a tree survey in the 1980s recorded approximately 100 trees on the site, while the most recent survey for the new planning application showed only 33 remained.

A previous 2020 application for three homes at the same site was refused on appeal by a planning inspector, who cited the “impacts on trees” and “effect on biodiversity”.

The latest plans for Church Hill, by development team GPAD/Acre, state that “existing trees to the site’s edges are retained and reinforced with additional tree planting to enhance the woodland-like setting”. However, the plans show that 13 more of the existing trees are proposed to be removed if permission is granted.

Trevor Beadle, whose family has owned the site for five generations, does not deny many trees have previously been removed but points out that there’s been no tree work for the last four years and that all prior removal work was done with consent from Enfield Council.

The Church Hill site is partly located within Winchmore Hill Green and Vicars Moor Lane Conservation Area and is also partially covered by a tree preservation order (TPO). But under the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) Regulations 2012, exemptions for tree felling within a TPO include the “removal or pruning of dead or dangerous trees or branches”.

Beadle points out that the Grovelands TPO is designated for its oak trees, and that by removing other types of diseased or dead trees from his land, his family has been able to protect the remaining oaks and enable them to “recover, rebalance and thrive”.

The most recent works in 2022, Beadle said, took place after a fatal accident in Muswell Hill was caused by a tree falling on a car during a storm. “Even now, trees lean over and towards the road, unbalanced and uncontrolled,” he explained.

The Dispatch approached the council to ask whether all tree removal work on the Church Hill site had been authorised. A spokesperson said: “Any work to protected trees must either have permission from the council or meet specific legal exemptions. In this case, the tree works were either approved by the council or were allowed under those exemptions.”

In his own statement, Beadle insisted his family were “responsible neighbours” and said: “The site has been cherished, protected and enjoyed by our family for five generations. Whilst other adjacent properties have been built up on land where oaks of the same provenance once stood, over the decades and continuing, our land has been maintained to manage and protect the oaks, in the context of being a family garden.

“For just under 100 years our family have responsibly nurtured the trees with the best advice, including from multiple tree officers and taken responsible decisions to preserve all aspects of the land, the trees and the safety of the locality.”

However, local residents still have concerns about the impact of the three homes now being proposed for the site. Ted Knight told the Dispatch the “decimation” of the woodland was “awful” and said: “How on earth can a designated oak wood in the middle of a conservation area even be entertained by the council for development?

“What’s the point of having protection orders? […] It’s just crazy.”

Neil Littman, a member of Winchmore Hill Residents’ Association, added: “It is the principle of it that gets me; either it is a conservation area that must be protected, or it is not.”

Max Plotnek, a planning agent for the project, responded to criticisms of the plans and said: “The current applicants only became involved with the site in 2025 and we have no direct knowledge of what works may or may not have taken place prior to our involvement […] What we can say is that our proposals have been developed based on the existing tree constraints as they stand today.

“A detailed arboricultural survey has informed the layout so that the new homes are designed to respond to root protection areas, and the scheme includes measures to safeguard retained trees, alongside replacement planting and longer-term woodland/landscape management to be secured through the planning process.”

More details of the plans can be found by entering reference number 25/04193/FUL in the council’s planning portal.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.