Case No. UKUT-00192-(AAC)

17. It was argued, before us, in line with the content of Ground 3 above, that the proposed activities under the licence in relation to the Operating Centre were already covered by the Certificate of Lawful Use. Further, it was said that there would be no increase in journeys or vehicle movements as a consequence of the grant of a licence and the utilisation of the land as an Operating Centre, over and above the number of journeys and the number of vehicle movements currently being made. There might even be a reduction in journeys in consequence of the use of a larger vehicle rather than a number of smaller vehicles which are being currently used. It was stressed that the appellant is a small operator. 18. Mr Yearsley, for the local authority, asserted that there was a dispute of substance regarding the need, or otherwise, for planning permission before the relevant land could be used as an Operating Centre. That was so whatever the appellant might think about the merits of the dispute. It was not for the TC to seek to “become a Judge of planning law” and adjudicate upon such a dispute. The conclusion he had reached about that was an appropriate one. Nor was it for the Upper Tribunal to seek to adjudicate upon planning matters even if it were to think any planning application ought to be granted.19. Mr M Clark, in closing, suggested that a TC should not involve himself in planning law issues but that that was exactly what this TC had done. Pausing there, we think the point Mr Clark was seeking to make at that stage was that a TC should make a decision regarding the availability of an Operating Centre without having regard to issues or disputes relating to planning at all. 20. There was a suggestion, at the end of the hearing, that a further document which the appellant might seek to rely upon might be submitted to us after the hearing. We indicated we would permit a further 7 days for that to happen, but no such document has been supplied.