[2025] UKUT 053 (LC)

The CET report comprised 12 pages of technical data, without index or narrative. It formed the basis of subsequent reports submitted with the applications and it has formed the basis of analysis by all the experts in this case. The data included:

The expert engineers agreed that the findings of the CET report showed the extension foundations were supported on soft clay at 900 mm below ground level. Above the 500mm thick foundation was a 150mm layer of made ground, a 70mm concrete slab supporting 50mm stone, 200mm sand and 50mm block pavers. Beyond the edge of the foundation the made ground was 700mm thick (550mm + 150mm). The description of the soil below foundation level in BH1 was typical of London Clay. Laminations of orange silt and fine sand were noted between depths of 1.1m and 1.9m; pockets of orange silt and fine sand were noted below 4.0m. Water seepage was noted in BH1 at 4.0m depth.

The subsoil tests confirmed the clay subsoil below 900mm had a plasticity index (PI) varying from 44% to 52%. Mr Freeman considered that the subsoil was devoid of desiccation. Mr Allen considered that the results indicated possible desiccation between 2m and 2.5m depth, but not severe desiccation from 1.5m to 6m as had been stated by Crawford (see below).

The arboriculture experts agreed that the two root samples taken from TP (underneath the foundations) and the two root samples taken from BH1 between 1.1m and 2.0m were identified as oak and therefore from an oak on Golf Club land, most likely T1 but possibly T2 also. All samples were less than 1mm in diameter and none contained starch, although that would not necessarily be present in live juvenile roots in early summer. The presence of identifiable roots confirmed that they had been active. Mr Pryce described T1 and T2, just 6m apart, as a co-dominant pair with individual crowns hard to distinguish, and likely to have a combined root system. The dead and decomposing root fragments to 5.6m depth were not identified.