[2025] UKUT 00018 (LC)

I can deal with this issue briefly. It is said that the FTT took into account matters which it ought not to have done. These were features which it observed during its inspection of the Park (the presence of sandbags), and an obligation in the site licence to provide adequate drainage. It was not suggested that these were necessarily irrelevant facts but that the FTT was not entitled even to refer to them in its decision without first having drawn specific attention to them during the hearing. I reject that suggestion. The FTT was entitled to record what it saw during its inspection, or what it could read in the site licence, without first pointing it out. The parties may be taken to have seen any feature which was apparent to the FTT on its inspection and to be aware of the contents of the site licence which was in evidence. If the FTT considered that something was of particular importance in valuation terms, but neither party had referred to it, it would be good practice to ask for their comments; whether it would be unfair to place weight on such a matter without doing so would depend on the circumstances. But there is no suggestion in the decision that either of these points of detail was thought by the FTT to be of particular importance.