19 The final ground of the appeal, ground 6, was not argued before the learned judge and was added as a ground of appeal with the leave of this Court. It was argued as an alternative to ground 5 and as submitted by counsel, it asserts that the Tribunal erred in law by determining to dismiss the appeal to it upon the basis that, "balancing as far as possible the heritage significance of the subject building against the extent of financial disadvantage to the appellant if the proposal is refused, the Tribunal considers that the balance lies in favour of preserving the building", without exposing its reasons for considering that Mr Lennard's evidence was relevant and material. It was argued to the Tribunal that his evidence was not relevant because the Tribunal was not entitled to take into account heritage issues. For the reasons I have given, the Tribunal was entitled to have regard to those issues and it did so, determining the appeal against the appellant. Mr Lennard's evidence was relevant and material to heritage issues. The fact that the Tribunal did not explain why that was so is of no consequence. If the Tribunal thought that in some way Mr Lennard's evidence made heritage an issue, as a matter of law, then it was wrong, although I am not persuaded that it in fact thought that. But even if it did, I am satisfied that as a matter of law the Tribunal was entitled to take into account heritage issues, regardless of what Mr Lennard might have thought, and any failure on the part of the Tribunal to explain more clearly the use to which it put Mr Lennard's evidence in no way affects what must be the appropriate outcome for this appeal, which is dismissal.