[2025] UKUT 053 (LC)

The conclusion of the MWA report has been provided earlier, but it is important to note that the report relied on the technical data from the CET report and the Crawford Addendum Report, in which there was an error. In one important respect, as underlined below, it is agreed that the MWA report misrepresented the technical data on the depth at which roots (by implication those that had been identified) had been found, by stating:

“Roots were observed to a depth of 5600mm bgl in borehole 1 and recovered samples have been positively identified (using anatomical analysis) as either Quercus (Oak) or Castanea (Sweet chestnut), the origin of which will be T1 confirming the influence of this vegetation on the soils below the foundations. The root samples recovered were found to be very juvenile which would explain why no starch was present.”