Rex v Sukh Chamdal [2025] EWCA Crim 1384
Chamdal TPO fine is an important Court of Appeal decision on sentencing for the unauthorised felling of trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
The court upheld a £200,000 fine after at least 132 protected trees were cut down. The judgment confirms the seriousness with which large-scale TPO breaches can be treated, even where the offence is one of strict liability and the prosecution does not establish that the works were carried out for financial gain.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2025] EWCA Crim 1384
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
- Judgment date
- 3rd November 2025
- Judge
- Lord Justice Holgate, Mrs Justice Stacey and HHJ Lucking KC
- Case number
- 202403476 A2
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
What Chamdal decided
Mr Chamdal pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to contravening a Tree Preservation Order contrary to section 210(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The offence involved causing or permitting the cutting down of at least 132 protected trees. The sentencing judge imposed a £300,000 fine, reduced by one third for the guilty plea to £200,000, with three years’ imprisonment in default.
Mr Chamdal appealed against sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the appeal and held that the fine was not manifestly excessive.
Section 210 can impose strict liability
The basis accepted for sentence was that the appellant’s liability was strict rather than a case of deliberate defiance of the TPO.
The Court of Appeal explained that for an offence under section 210(1)(c), the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant knew the trees were protected. It must establish the existence of the TPO, the prohibited works, that the defendant caused or permitted them and that the necessary consent was absent.
That does not make a breach minor. Culpability and harm remain relevant to sentence even where knowledge of the TPO is not an element of the offence.
The environmental harm was substantial
The court treated the scale of the tree loss as serious. Protected trees provide visual amenity but may also provide wildlife habitat, carbon storage and wider environmental benefits.
Replacement planting could mitigate future effects, but it did not erase the harm already caused by the loss of mature protected trees.
This is an important practical point where defendants argue that replanting has put the site back into an acceptable position. Remediation can matter, but it does not mean the original offence caused no harm.
No financial gain did not make the fine excessive
One ground of appeal was that the offence had not been committed for financial advantage.
The Court of Appeal accepted the absence of proven financial gain but held that this did not make the £200,000 fine manifestly excessive. Financial profit is only one sentencing consideration.
The personal benefit associated with clearing land intended for a family home, the seriousness of the environmental damage, deterrence and the offender’s financial means were all capable of being relevant.
An offender’s means can support a very substantial fine
A fine must be capable of having a real economic impact. The sentencing court was entitled to consider Mr Chamdal’s substantial financial means rather than treating the fines imposed on less wealthy defendants as a ceiling.
This explains why comparisons with other TPO prosecutions can be misleading. The same physical offence can produce very different fines because culpability, harm, plea, means and mitigation differ.
The £20,000 arborist fines did not create unfair disparity
Two arborists involved in some of the felling had previously been fined £20,000 each. Mr Chamdal argued that the much larger fine imposed on him created an unjustified disparity.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. The arborists’ involvement and financial circumstances were materially different, so their sentences did not provide a direct benchmark for the appellant’s fine.
Why Chamdal matters for owners and contractors
The case is a stark reminder that anyone commissioning significant tree work should establish whether a TPO or conservation-area control applies before works begin.
Landowners should not assume that employing an arborist transfers all planning responsibility to the contractor. Likewise, contractors should verify the consent position rather than relying solely on informal instructions from the owner.
Planning Geek’s guide to Tree Preservation Orders explains the consent and offence regime. Our wider planning and trees guide covers conservation areas and other tree controls.
Read the full Chamdal judgment
The full Court of Appeal judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Chamdal TPO Fine Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026