[2025] UKUT 00018 (LC)

I have already briefly explained what the FTT decided and the basis on which it did so. It included in its decision a detailed discussion of the relevant legal principles. It described what it had observed during its inspection, when it had been raining moderately, and said that it had “found the site to be in reasonable condition”. It went on to refer to a number of “ongoing improvements” including the removal of an old shed and some garages, which had freed land for additional parking, and some repairs to roads and paths and recent road markings and signage around the Park.

The FTT then observed that many former open areas of the Park had been paved over which had exacerbated drainage issues, including an absence of storm drains to cope with surface water. These problems had become worse and had “arisen incrementally rather than being caused by a particular event”. It was now clear from the photographic evidence “that there are now particular problems on Mr and Mrs Burden’s property (Plot 16) and in front of Miss Saxon and Mr Young’s property (Plot 4a).” The FTT’s critical findings were in paragraph 86 and 88 of its decision, namely that the flooding in front of 4a was:

“serious enough to qualify as a deterioration in the amenity of the site as it particularly affects Plot 4a. Accordingly the Tribunal determines that the amenities for Plot 4a are sufficiently prejudiced to justify a freeze of the pitch fee at its previous level of £216.27 per month.”

As for 16:

“[T]he flooding of Plot 16 as shown in photographs, and the effects of that flooding, was also serious enough to constitute a deterioration in the amenity of the site for that Plot, sufficiently prejudiced to justify a freeze of the pitch fee at its previous level of £191.56 per month.”

The FTT then considered the application on the other two pitches and reached this conclusion:

“During its inspection the Tribunal had found the Park to be generally in reasonable order and noted that some improvements had been made over time, although there was clearly scope for future improvements.

[T]he flooding issue on the access road does affect everyone entering or leaving the site, albeit less severely than Miss Saxton and Mr Young, and has now become serious enough to qualify as a deterioration in the overall amenity of the site. The Tribunal considers it reasonable for the park home owners to expect the park owner to provide adequate and serviceable drainage as described in the park licence.

Accordingly the Tribunal determined that the increase in pitch fee for Mrs Bird (Plot 13) and Miss Fay (Plot 69) shall be limited to 50% of the proposed figure, that is an increase of 5.7%.”