Case No. UKUT-24-(LC)

7.At this hearing the Appellant was represented by Luke Wilcox, and the Respondent by Guy Williams. We are grateful to both counsel for the assistance they have rendered to us by their written and oral submissions.8.In terms of evidence there was a single witness statement of Paul Goodson. Mr Goodson is the Site Manager of the Power Station. He has held this position since his appointment in October 2012. Mr Goodson first joined the Appellant, as Engineering Manager at the Power Station, in 2009. Mr Goodson’s evidence was not challenged by Mr Williams, but we had some questions of our own for Mr Goodson, and he was therefore called to give oral evidence. We have no reason to doubt the honesty of Mr Goodson, and his evidence was not challenged. In these circumstances we accept the evidence of Mr Goodson in his witness statement, as supplemented by his answers to our questions in oral evidence. 9.Each party also instructed an expert valuer. The expert valuer instructed by the Appellant was Keith Norman FRICS, a partner in the firm of Gerald Eve LLP. The expert valuer instructed by the Respondent was Mark Holliday MRICS, who works for the Valuation Office Agency and is national valuation lead on rating matters for thermal generation sites. Each expert valuer provided a written expert report, and Mr Norman also provided what was described as a rebuttal report, responding to points in Mr Holliday’s expert report. On the Respondent’s side there was a letter to the Tribunal from the Respondent’s solicitor, explaining that it was not considered necessary to serve any rebuttal report to Mr Norman’s expert report, while also making it clear that this did not signify acceptance of any particular statement in Mr Norman’s report. 10.The parties elected not to call any oral evidence from the witnesses. The reasons for this were (i) that Mr Norman and Mr Holliday had succeeded in agreeing an extensive statement of facts and issues, which was considered by the parties to be sufficiently comprehensive and detailed to avoid the necessity for oral evidence, and (ii) that counsel considered, correctly in our view, that the remaining issues between Mr Norman and Mr Holliday were more a matter for submissions than for expert valuation dispute. We will refer to this agreed statement of facts and issues between Mr Norman and Mr Holliday as