Conclusions
Disposal
For the reasons which I have given both appeals are allowed. It is not possible for this Tribunal, which has not seen the Parks, to substitute a decision of its own on the appropriate new pitch fees and it is therefore necessary for both appeals to be remitted to the relevant tribunal for reconsideration. There is no reason why the same tribunal panel should not redetermine the cases. The parties may first wish to consider whether agreement can be reached on a compromise and I therefore direct that within six weeks of the date of this decision Wyldecrest should apply to the relevant tribunal for further directions.
Martin Rodger KC,
Deputy Chamber President
27 February 2024
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Parks
- The legislation
- The issues in the appeals
- Issue 1: Loss of an amenity to which there is no contractual right and where removal is consistent with planning permission and site licence conditions
- Issue 2: Should the tribunals have considered (a) the extent to which individual pitches were affected by the loss of amenity, and (b) whether some increase may be justified even if not the full infla
- Issue 3: Were the tribunals entitled to find that there had been a relevant decrease in amenities when those changes had occurred before a previous pitch fee increase?
- Issue 4: What approach to valuation should be applied to the determination of a new pitch fee where there is found to have been a loss of amenity?
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 55 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)