202403476 A2 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1384

The appellant caused or permitted the unlawful felling of at least 132 trees on land known as Debden Hall, Ripley View, Loughton, Essex between 1 and 18 March 2021. That land was the subject of a TPO containing 35 individually specified trees and an “area” order which covered the whole of the land, protecting trees which were present at the time the order was made. The order was confirmed on 24 November 2008.

On 31 August 2016 the previous landowner, Mr Capper, obtained a planning permission for the construction of a 4-bedroom house on the site subject to conditions regarding a number of trees. Mr Capper instructed a tree surgeon to carry out tree works in accordance with that permission. That work was completed by February 2017. In 2020 Mr Capper made an application to the authority for a Lawful Development Certificate that all the necessary tree work in connection with the 2016 permission had been undertaken. The Council confirmed that any such tree works were undertaken between December 2016 and February 2017. Accordingly, the position in March 2021 was that no protected trees on the land could be felled without the prior written consent of the respondent council. The 2016 planning permission did not provide an exemption for any such works and it has not been suggested that any other grant of planning permission did so.

At the time of the offence the appellant was in the process of purchasing the land. On 23 February 2021 he had exchanged contracts with Mr Capper and become the beneficial owner. There was a specific clause in the contract for sale allowing the appellant to enter the land and begin work. On 6 April 2021 completion took place and the appellant became the legal owner of the land.

On 18th March 2021 Melinda Barham, Tree and Landscape Officer for the respondent, made a visit to the site following complaints of tree felling received at the beginning of March. Mr Stimson (a Director of Maintained4U, which was engaged by the appellant as the project manager for the development of the site), Patricia Fox (Director of the landscape design company Aralia instructed by the appellant) and John Ayres (an Investigating Officer for the respondent) were also present. Mr Stimson said that he believed that the work carried out had been covered by the previous planning permission. As we have indicated, the appellant did not rely upon that last point.

Miss Barham walked the site and noted extensive fresh tree felling which she plotted and photographed. A minimum of 132 trees, each more than 20 years old, had been felled, leaving stumps generally less than one metre in diameter. The felling had taken place in the previous four to six weeks. They were distinguishable from all the darker tree stumps on site which related to trees felled in 2016. It was not possible to ascertain whether there were any more stumps under felled trees still lying on the ground.

Miss Barham estimated the area in which the felling had taken place as approximately 1.29 hectares (or 3.2 acres). That was just under a third of the entirety of the land. Miss Barham confirmed that no applications to fell trees had been made and there was nothing to indicate that the felled trees were dead or dangerous, defective or decayed in a way which could have provided an exemption from the requirement to obtain a consent for the works under the 2012 Regulations.

During a previous visit to the land on 15 March 2021 Mr Ayres had spoken to some workers who were setting up fencing. They said that the appellant was their boss, and so Mr Ayres telephoned him. At that stage the appellant said that only trees not subject to the TPO were removed and that his project manager, Mr Stimson, had been very careful to check.

On 16 November 2021 the appellant was interviewed under caution. He said that he had met Mr Capper on site, made him an offer, they shook hands, and the deal was done. The purchase price was £1.5 million. The appellant thought he had planning permission to construct the drive, and so he had asked Mr Capper if he could start preparing the site. Mr Capper had given all the papers to the appellant’s project managers, Maintained4U. The appellant had also passed on any papers from his solicitors to Maintained4U. He said he did not go to the site very much because he was very busy and left it all to the project manager. When he purchased the land his solicitor sent him a copy of the TPO, but during the conveyancing process he made no enquiries himself and left the matter in the hands of Maintained4U, whom he trusted to do everything. He was asked if there were formal papers for the construction of the driveway and said it was all done on the shake of a hand. He said that Maintained4U would be building everything up to and including the house and that he was not really interested in the site until the house was built. He concluded by saying that if he could turn the clock back, he would have been a bit more vigilant and gone through the paperwork and taken advice.

An agreed basis of plea was put before the judge as follows:

“1.

Mr Chamdal accepts that whilst he had the relevant planning permission in place there was a TPO on the land and he ought to have known what trees were or were not covered by the TPO or should have made the necessary checks. Mr Chamdal provided the relevant paperwork to his contractors; he left the detail and execution to those employed and contracted to carry it out. He relied upon their relevant experience and expertise to comply with the terms of these permissions and restrictions.

2.

Mr Chamdal accepts the felling of at least 132 trees on the land as indicted in count 1. However, the actual felling of the trees was carried out by Matthew Watson-Thomas and Jan Lloyd. They have both pleaded guilty and therefore have accepted their criminal liability.

3.

Mr Chamdal did not instruct, directly or indirectly through his project manager Mr Mike Stimson, either Mr Watson-Thomas or Mr Lloyd to fell the trees that are the subject of this prosecution. They had been instructed to clear the land of overgrown hedges, shrubs and such like, so that the land could be better maintained by Maintained4u Limited.

4.

The trees that were felled were all on private land.

5.

At the time of the unlawful cutting down of the trees, Mr Chamdal was not the legal owner of the land but was the beneficial owner of the land. He was however in the process of purchasing the land from the previous owner, Mr Capper. Mr Capper had given Mr Chamdal permission to enter on to the land and begin work.

6.

Mr Chamdal pleads guilty on the basis that under s.210(1)(c) of Act he is guilty on a “strict liability” basis of causing or permitting the trees to be cut down.

7.

This is a one-off, isolated incident. Mr Chamdal is a man of impeccable character and moral decency. He is a successful businessman and employs 100s of people nationally. He has no previous convictions for any environmental or other criminal offences.

8.

Mr Chamdal is incredibly remorseful and offers his sincere apologies for events that have led him to this point, and he thanks the council and the court for its leniency.

9.

Tree Planting Plans and Method Statement acceptable to the Council have been agreed. A draft undertaking to the Court regarding this accompanies this Basis of Plea.

10.

Mr Chamdal has paid all the Council‘s costs and legal fees to date presented to him, circa £80k so far paid. Mr Chamdal intends to pay any yet to be incurred fees in connection with this prosecution including the cost of this hearing.

11.

Mr Chamdal has made no financial gain. Mr Chamdal has spent a considerable amount on legal fees, which if he had been properly advised at the outset could have been avoided. The Prosecution are not as a consequence pursuing a confiscation order against him.”