[2024] UKUT 00279 (LC)

The FTT heard evidence about the site from Mr Madge, an officer of the appellant, and from Mr Clark. Both spoke about the condition of the site and the services provided there; Mr Clark also said that an increase in line with the RPI would cause hardship because of the cost of living crisis.

In its decision the FTT set out the relevant law. It noted that the pitch fee had not been changed since 2019 and therefore determined that it was reasonable for the local authority to seek an increase and went on to consider what that increase should be.

The FTT said:

“46.

In terms of ‘Decrease in amenity’, the Tribunal adopted the definition of ‘amenity’ as set out by Kitchen J in the case of Charles Simpson Organisation Ltd v Redshaw (2010) 2514 (CH):-

“In my judgment, the word “amenity” in the phrase “amenity of the protected site” in paragraph 18(1)(b) simply means the quality of being agreeable or pleasant. The Court must therefore have particular regard to any decrease in the pleasantness of the site or those features of the site which are agreeable from the perspective of the particular occupier in issue.”

47.

The Tribunal accepted Mr. Clark’s evidence that the site had become very much less of a pleasant place to live during the relevant period, as he described abandoned vehicles, vandalism, anti-social behaviour and dangerous dogs being allowed to roam unchecked. Whilst there was evidence from Mr. Madge that the Council had tried to tackle these problems, and Mr. Clark had some sympathy for the Council’s position, the reality was that Haldon Ridge had ‘got worse’.

48.

Accordingly, although it is right that the deterioration was as a result of the behaviour of certain individuals, the reality for Mr. Clark was that the Council had not succeeded in managing or preventing these problems and he had to live in a less pleasant and agreeable environment. The Tribunal therefore found that there had been a decrease in amenity such as to displace the statutory presumption of a pitch fee increase in line with the RPI.

…50. The Tribunal noted that it was significant that Mr. Madge conceded that there had been difficulties with sending staff to the site to deal with general maintenance because of health and safety issues and anti-social behaviour. Therefore the Tribunal was minded to accept the evidence of Mr. Clark that the caretaking and maintenance had been less effective during the relevant year.

51.

In terms of any reduction or deterioration in the rest of the services provided, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr. Madge that in fact the Council had devoted more time and energy in trying to manage the site and maintain the services than ever, and therefore no finding was made that there had been a reduction or deterioration in the actual quality of those services.

52.

Finally, the Tribunal found that the RPI increase (of 13.4%) in that particular year (to December 2022) had been exceptional, and there had been less extreme fluctuations in the years before and after the Review. It was clear that the rise in the cost of living had impacted those living on limited income most severely, and the Tribunal found that this was a factor of significant weight in determining the appropriate pitch fee increase in this case.

The FTT concluded that there was good reason to depart from the statutory presumption because of issues relating to the condition and amenity of the site; they were not so severe as to warrant a nil increase but the correct adjustment would be an increase of 8% rather than the proposed 13.4%.