R v Sukh Chamdal

An offence of breaching a tree preservation order is one of strict liability, but strict liability does not mean that the offender has no culpability for sentencing. The court must assess culpability and harm separately.

For offences under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, relevant harm factors include the number and age of trees, the nature and extent of the damage, and their amenity and environmental value. Personal amenity benefit, wealth and deterrence may justify a substantial fine even where no financial gain or confiscation is established. Statutory replanting is not mitigation. Sentencing comparisons require careful attention to differences in role, means and circumstances.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Chelmsford to causing or permitting the felling of at least 132 trees in breach of a tree preservation order, contrary to s.210(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. He was fined £200,000.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the offence was committed on a strict-liability basis, that he obtained no financial benefit, and that his fine was disproportionately higher than the £20,000 fines imposed on two arborists who carried out some of the felling. The central issue was whether the fine was manifestly excessive.

1. Disposition. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The fine of £200,000, after full credit for the guilty plea, was proportionate and was not manifestly excessive.
2. Nature of the offence. The offence under s.210(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is one of strict liability. The prosecution must prove the existence of the tree preservation order, prohibited works, causation or permission by the defendant, and absence of consent. Knowledge of the order is not an element: R v Alath Construction Limited [1990] 1 WLR 1255; Maidstone Borough Council v Mortimer [1980] 3 All ER 552. Strict liability did not, however, make the appellant’s culpability low or nonexistent.
3. Sentencing framework. The Environmental Offences Guideline could not be used to transfer its harm categories or sentence levels to tree preservation offences. Its culpability descriptions could assist. The court applied the General Guideline and the requirements of the Sentencing Act 2020, including culpability, harm, seriousness, sentencing purposes, deterrence and the offender’s means. Sentencing was fact-sensitive, and purported comparisons with newspaper reports or other sentences were generally unreliable: R v Sandhu [2017] EWCA Crim 908.
4. Relevant factors. Harm may be assessed by reference to the number of trees, the type of damage, the area affected, the trees’ age, amenity and arboreal value, and relevant landscape or environmental designations. The list is non-exhaustive and information should be proportionate. Culpability is at least negligent where an offender knows of the order, ought to check which trees are protected, and fails to do so. Financial benefit and non-pecuniary benefits, including improved amenity or an improved view, may aggravate the offence.
5. Application. The appellant accepted knowledge of the order and the need for checks. Felling at least 132 trees, each more than 20 years old, over approximately 1.29 hectares caused substantial harm. The intended improvement of the site for a large family home was a relevant personal benefit. The absence of proved financial gain did not prevent that benefit being reflected in the fine, and the appellant’s substantial wealth was relevant. Replanting was not mitigation because it was already required by ss.206 and 207 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, separately from punishment. The approach in R v Davey [2013] EWCA Crim 1662 and R v Sellafield Limited [2014] EWCA Crim 49 supported consideration of amenity benefit, deterrence and means. The fine in R (Natural England) v Day [2014] EWCA Crim 2583 was not a benchmark for this different case.
6. Disparity. There was no unjustified disparity with the arborists’ fines. Their means, roles and the number of trees involved differed materially, while the appellant obtained the personal amenity benefit from the overall removal of 132 trees.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against sentence was dismissed on 3 November 2025.
2. Crown Court at Chelmsford — On 30 August 2024, the appellant was fined £200,000 after pleading guilty to causing or permitting the felling of at least 132 protected trees.