Case: R v Chamdal [2025] EWCA Crim 1384 (Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), 3 November 2025)
Statute: Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.210(1)(c) (contravention of TPO); s.206 (replanting duty).
————————————————————
1. Facts & Procedural History
– Appellant pleaded guilty on re‑arraignment to contravening a TPO at the former Debden Hall Estate, Loughton.
– At least 132 trees within an area TPO (confirmed 2008) were felled over ~1.29 hectares between 1–18 March 2021.
– Appellant exchanged contracts before the felling; completed purchase in April 2021. Two arborists also pleaded and were each fined £20,000.
– At first instance (30 Aug 2024) the judge imposed a £300,000 fine, reduced by one‑third for the early guilty plea to £200,000 (default term 3 years). Appeal was against sentence as manifestly excessive.
2. Issues on Appeal
1) Whether a £200,000 fine was manifestly excessive given strict‑liability nature and absence of proven financial gain.
2) Whether replanting/remedial steps (including the statutory s.206 duty) should mitigate the fine.
3) How harm, culpability and the offender’s means interplay in sentencing TPO offences.
3. The Court’s Reasoning
(a) Offence nature, culpability & strict liability
– s.210 is strict liability; intention or knowledge of TPO need not be proved.
– But strict liability does not equal “no culpability”. On the facts, the appellant knew of the TPO and caused site clearance without proper checks. Failure to check = negligence. Reliance on contractors is not a shield where a TPO is known or ought reasonably to be known.
(b) Harm is central
– Sentencing focuses on harm: the scale of loss (132 trees), age/maturity, amenity, biodiversity and carbon‑storage value.
– Replacement planting does not restore the amenity value of mature trees nor undo biodiversity loss.
(c) Mitigation – replanting and remediation
– The statutory replanting duty under s.206 is remedial and is not mitigation for the purposes of calibrating the fine.
– Lack of financial gain does not compel a nominal fine; deterrence and environmental harm remain central.
(d) Wealth/means & deterrence
– Fines must bite, especially for high‑net‑worth offenders. A sentence should not be a mere “cost of doing business”.
(e) Outcome
– £200,000 (post‑plea) fine upheld. Not manifestly excessive given negligent culpability, large‑scale harm and offender means.
4. Practical Implications for Tree‑Law Practice
– Harm‑centric sentencing: Prepare evidence on number/size/age, amenity assessments, biodiversity impacts, and carbon storage loss.
– Culpability via compliance: Land‑owners/developers must evidence pre‑works checks: TPO searches, arboricultural advice, written instructions to contractors, supervision logs.
– Replanting ≠ mitigation: Manage client expectations: replacement planting and s.206 compliance won’t necessarily reduce fines.
– Means matter: Advise HNW clients that fines will be set at levels that deter.
– For insurers & LAs: Use this authority when advising on enforcement approaches and when calibrating settlement positions for related civil claims.
5. Suggested Practitioner Checklist (for files where TPO works occurred or are proposed)
1) Designation checks: Is there a TPO/conservation area? Record dates, map layers, and order wording.
2) Scope of works: Who instructed what, when? Obtain written instructions, site photos, felling invoices, machine logs.
3) Culpability factors: What did the land‑owner know? What checks were undertaken? Were contractors supervised?
4) Harm dossier: Tree count/species/DBH/age class; amenity analysis; habitat/biodiversity notes; carbon storage/seq estimates.
5) Remedial context: s.206 replanting plan, enforcement notices, ecology restoration — clarify that these are remedial, not mitigation.
6) Means evidence: Company accounts / personal means where relevant (to ensure fine “bites”).
7) Sentencing references: Chamdal (this case); local sentencing remarks where available.
6. Authorities & Sources (for reference)
– Judgment: R v Chamdal [2025] EWCA Crim 1384 (3 Nov 2025)
