Cake tycoon loses appeal against tree felling fine

Businessman Sukh Chamdal founded the company in 2008

The chief executive of Cake Box has lost an appeal against a £200,000 fine for axing down 132 trees to develop a "super-duper house".

Businessman Sukh Chamdal previously admitted causing or permitting the trees to be felled on the estate in Loughton, Essex, in March 2021.

He had been appealing against a £200,000 fine he received in August 2024, arguing it was "manifestly excessive".

Court of Appeal judges dismissed his appeal, describing the fine as "proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to the appellant's means".

Chamdal had been in the process of buying the land where he wanted to build a new home for his family for £1.5m, the court was told.

The felled trees were discovered by an officer for Epping Forest District Council, which brought the prosecution after receiving complaints.

At least 35 individual trees were subject to a tree preservation order (TPO) at the time, but were axed down to make way for a driveway.

Chamdal was developing land at the former Debden Hall Estate in Loughton

Rebecca Chalkley KC, for Chamdal, told a hearing in October that he "was entirely reliant on others" for the work in developing the area for a "super-duper house".

She said: "There were lots of trees that were in a poorly state, for want of a better word, and so the intention was to go in and, as much as possible, make good the land.

"But he did not intend for that to include trees subject to a TPO to be cut down and that is why he relied on experts."

'Substantial area'

The land being developed by Chamdal was at the former Debden Hall Estate in Loughton.

He founded Cake Box, which sells egg-free desserts, in 2008. It now has more than 250 franchises in the UK.

Lord Justice Holgate, Mrs Justice Stacey and Judge Adrienne Lucking KC all dismissed Chamdal's appeal on Monday.

"Here a large number of trees were cut down over a substantial area of land. They were trees at least 20 years old," said Lord Justice Holgate.

"They had been protected by the TPO because of their amenity value when the order was made in 2008.

"There was no suggestion that they ceased to have amenity value."