Case No. UKUT-00192-(AAC)

23. Certain of the grounds we have summarised above may be dealt with shortly. We shall address the ones which fall within that category first of all. 24. As to ground 1, the local authority had, in fact, raised issues concerning environmental factors but also issues regarding the lawfulness or otherwise of the use of the relevant site as an Operating Centre. In any event, the TC was tasked with deciding whether or not the requirements set out at Section 13C(5) were or were not satisfied. As such, assuming this was the appellant’s contention, the TC did not err in determining such matters. Indeed, he was statutorily obligated to do so and would have erred in law, had he not done so. We reject this ground of appeal.25. As to ground 4, the TC’s reasoning, as set out above, was succinct. But succinctness, of itself, is not to be criticised. The key issue upon which the decision was based (the availability of the operating centre given the planning dispute) was a narrow one. It is readily apparent from what the TC said why it was that he had concluded that he could not be satisfied as to availability given the circumstances of the dispute. There was no inadequacy of the reasoning and we reject this ground of appeal.26. Ground 5 amounts to an allegation of bias. However, no evidence of actual bias has been provided. Further, it is not apparent to us that an informed and independent observer might find any reason whatsoever to perceive bias. The ground as put, in our view, simply amounts to an allegation that the TC must have been biased because he did not resolve matters in favour of the appellant. But, of course, that simply does not follow. We reject this ground of appeal. We would add, more generally, that an allegation of bias is necessarily a very serious allegation even if entirely unmeritorious and such really ought not to be made absent very careful thought and good reason for making it. 27. We now turn our attention to ground 2 which merits a little more by way of explanation and evaluation. The ground is best understood, we think, as a contention that the TC erroneously overlooked failings on the part of the local authority to lodge and notify its objection to the TC and to the appellant.28. Section 12 of the 1995 Act relevantly provides:12. -