[2025] UKUT 00018 (LC)

This issue raises a question of interpretation of paragraph 18(1)(aa) in circumstances where, at least in relation to Nos. 4a and 16, the pitch fee freeze , or nil increase, was justified by a factor which was specific to an individual pitch.

The whole Park was affected by the accumulation of water in front of No. 4a, but Nos. 4a and 16 were particularly affected by the drainage problem not simply because of the condition of the access but additionally by the inundation of the pitches themselves. The evidence was that this inundation caused damage to the paving, fences, steps and a greenhouse at No.16. In the case of No. 4a there was water damage to the hatches in the floor of the home which necessitated remedial action by Mr Young including the construction of a drainage channel across the pitch and small dams to divert water into it.

Miss Osler submitted that the only decrease in amenity which was capable of being relevant for the purpose of paragraph 18(1)(aa) was a decrease in the amenity of the site, and that a decrease in the amenity of an individual pitch was irrelevant. I do not accept that submission. The FTT is required by paragraph 18(1)(aa) to have “particular regard [to] … any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the site”. The site includes each and every part of it, and therefore includes each individual pitch, and I can see no reason why “any decrease in the amenity of the site” should not include a decrease in the amenity of a single pitch. After all, the purpose of the exercise is to set a new pitch fee for a particular pitch and it would be illogical to leave out of account a deterioration or decrease which seriously affected that pitch, just because it had no impact on any other pitch.

Miss Osler suggested that it would still be possible to take account of the condition of an individual pitch because the factors listed in paragraph 18(1) are not the only matters to which the FTT may have regard. But they are the matters to which the FTT is directed to have “particular regard” and I can see no reason to give them a restricted interpretation when a more natural reading of the statute is available.

Of course, it is not every deterioration in the condition of the site or deterioration in its amenity which will displace the presumption of an RPI increase; the deterioration or decrease must be sufficient (when considered together with any other relevant factors in paragraph 18(1)) to make it unreasonable for the presumption to apply (see paragraph 20(A1)). The implied terms leave it to the FTT to determine whether any particular deterioration or decrease is sufficiently serious to have that effect. The FTT was therefore entitled in this case to find that there had been a relevant decrease in amenity for specific plots and to rely on that decrease as displacing the presumption of an RPI increase.