David Cochrane v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] UKUT 395 (LC)

[2025] UKUT 395 (LC)

Case Nos: LC-2025-98

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)

IN THE MATTER OF A NOTICE OF REFERENCE

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand,

London, WC2A 2LL

2 December 2025

TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

COMPENSATION – Part I, Land Compensation Act 1973 – dwelling house – depreciation in value due to physical factors caused by highway improvements – compensation assessed at £10,000

DAVID COCHRANE

Claimant

STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

Compensating Authority

8 Longsight Lane,

Cheadle Hulme,

Cheadle,

SK8 6PW

Mrs Diane Martin TD MRICS FAAV

Determination on written representations

Introduction

[1]This is a reference to determine a claim for compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (“the Act”) made by Mr David Cochrane (“the claimant”), who was, until 7 October 2024, joint owner with Mrs Margaret Cochrane of 8 Longsight Lane, Cheadle Hulme, Cheadle SK8 6PW (“the Property”).

[2]The claim arises from the A6 Manchester Airport Relief Road project (“the scheme”) which Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (“the authority”) completed in 2018. The scheme involved the construction of a dual carriageway between the A6 at Hazel Grove and Manchester Airport, incorporating an existing section of the A555 together with improvements to some of the roads connecting to it. Use of the improved A34 and its altered junction with the A555 at Cheadle Hulme is said by the claimant to have given rise to physical factors causing a depreciation in value of the Property.

[3]The first claim day, which is the valuation date for a claim under Part I of the Act, is 12 months after the improved highway reopened to traffic. It is agreed that for improvements to the A34 that date is 16 November 2019. The claimant seeks £25,000 in compensation for depreciation of the Property due to physical factors arising from use at that date. The authority denies that any depreciation was caused by an increase in physical factors.

[4]I held a case management hearing on 16 May 2025, attended by the claimant and the solicitor for the authority, to clarify the requirements for evidence and establish an agreed timescale for filing and serving of that evidence. It was agreed that the matter would be determined under the Tribunal’s written representations procedure, with the authority filing an expert report on diminution in value from physical factors, to which the claimant could respond with submissions. The authority was permitted to serve a supplemental report in reply. The authority instructed Mr Henry Church MRICS FAAV, of CBRE’s compulsory purchase and compensation team, to give expert evidence. Mr Church had been involved with the scheme since 2014 and had given expert valuation evidence to the Tribunal in two cases where property was acquired under the scheme.

[5]It was not possible for me to carry out a site inspection since the claimant no longer owns the Property and cannot give access to it.

Factual background

[6]The Property is a five bedroom semi-detached brick house, constructed in the 1960s and extended to provide an integral garage with two bedrooms over, plus a kitchen extension and conservatory to the rear. The internal floor area is 1,762 sq ft including the garage or 1,557 sq ft excluding it. It is situated on Longsight Lane, which is an unmade road serving at least 17 properties and farmland. Longsight Lane runs parallel to the stretch of the A34 between Stanley Road and the A555 which was improved under the scheme. The properties on Longsight Lane are situated on the west side of the lane, with back gardens facing towards the A34, which is on the other side of a grass bund, around 5m in height, with shrubs and trees growing on it.

[7]As part of the scheme, improvements were carried out to the A34/Stanley Road roundabout and to the A34/A555 roundabout, and the A34 behind the Property was upgraded from a dual carriageway to three lanes in each direction (“the highway improvements”). The widened road is now 5m closer to the Property, at a distance of 72m from the rear façade and 50m from the end of the garden. The bund between the Property and the A34 was reduced in footprint to accommodate the new southbound lane, but unaltered in height. Vegetation was retained on the unaltered bund.

[8]The aerial photographs below show the situation before and after the works.

Statutory provisions for entitlement to and assessment of compensation

[9]Section 1 of the Act sets out the right to compensation as follows:

“1. -Right to compensation. (1) Where the value of an interest in land is depreciated by physical factors caused by the use of public works, then, if - (a) the interest qualifies for compensation under this Part of this Act; and (b) the person entitled to the interest makes a claim after the time provided by and otherwise in accordance with this Part of this Act, compensation for that depreciation shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, be payable by the responsible authority to the person making the claim (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”). (2) The physical factors mentioned in subsection (1) above are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke and artificial lighting and the discharge on to the land in respect of which the claim is made of any solid or liquid substance. (3) The public works mentioned in subsection (1) above are – (a) any highway; … (4) The responsible authority mentioned in subsection (1) above is, in relation to a highway, the appropriate highway authority… (5) …the source of the physical factors must be situated on or in the public works the use of which is alleged to be their cause. … (9) Subject to section 9 below, “the relevant date” in this part of the Act means – (a) in relation to a claim in respect of a highway, the date on which it was first open to public traffic.” (a) the interest qualifies for compensation under this Part of this Act; and (b) the person entitled to the interest makes a claim after the time provided by and otherwise in accordance with this Part of this Act, compensation for that depreciation shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, be payable by the responsible authority to the person making the claim (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”). (a) any highway; … … (a) in relation to a claim in respect of a highway, the date on which it was first open to public traffic.”

[10]S.9, referred to in s. 1(9), covers the situation where a highway already open to public traffic has been altered, which is the situation in this claim: “9. Alterations to public works and changes of use. (1)This section has effect where, whether before, on or after the commencement date— (a ) the carriageway of a highway has been altered after the highway has been open to public traffic; … (2) If and so far as a claim in respect of the highway … relates to depreciation that would not have been caused but for the alterations … this Part of this Act shall, subject to subsection (3) below, have effect in relation to the claim as if the relevant date (instead of being the date specified in section 1(9) above) were—(a) the date on which the highway was first open to public traffic after completion of the alterations to the carriageway; … (5) For the purposes of this section the carriageway of a highway is altered if, and only if— (a) the location, width or level of the carriageway is altered (otherwise than by re-surfacing); or

(b) an additional carriageway is provided for the highway beside, above or below an existing one; and the reference in subsection (2) above to depreciation that would not have been caused but for alterations to the carriageway of a highway is a reference to such depreciation by physical factors which are caused by the use of, and the source of which is situated on, the length of carriageway which has been altered as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, as the case may be, the additional carriageway and the corresponding length of the existing one mentioned in paragraph (b) above. …” (a ) the carriageway of a highway has been altered after the highway has been open to public traffic; … (a) the date on which the highway was first open to public traffic after completion of the alterations to the carriageway; … (a) the location, width or level of the carriageway is altered (otherwise than by re-surfacing); or (b) an additional carriageway is provided for the highway beside, above or below an existing one;

[11]Section 2 sets out the types of interest which qualify for compensation. It is not in dispute that the claimant had a qualifying interest at the relevant date. Section 3(2) deals with the first date for making claims, which is agreed to be 16 November 2019, and section 4 deals with the assessment of compensation as follows:

“4. – Assessment of compensation: general provisions (1) The compensation payable on any claim shall be assessed by reference to prices current on the first claim day. (2) In assessing depreciation due to the physical factors caused by the use of any public works, account shall be taken of the use of those works as it exists on the first claim day and of any intensification that may then be reasonably expected of the use of those works in the state in which they are on that date. … (4) The value of the interest in respect of which the claim is made shall be assessed— … (b) subject to section 5 below, in accordance with rules (2) to (4) of the rules set out in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961; …” … (b) subject to section 5 below, in accordance with rules (2) to (4) of the rules set out in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961; …”

[12]Of the rules referred to in section 4(4)(b), only rule (2) in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is relevant in this case:

“(2) The value of land shall … be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise…”

Physical factors arising from use of the highway improvements

[13]In order to establish a claim under the Act it must first be demonstrated that one or more of the relevant physical factors has increased as a result of use of the highway improvements. In a case such as this, where use of the existing roads and junctions was already giving rise to physical factors, it can be helpful to refer to the level of the physical factors being “turned up” by the use of the highway improvements.

[14]The claimant’s case is that at the Property, particularly the rear, there has been a general increase in noise, vibration and traffic fumes from the new layout on the A34, together with more noise from the substantially increased traffic on the A555. He supplied evidence of an email exchange with the authority in March and April 2020 in which he had requested that a noise mitigation fence be installed on top of the bund behind the Property.

[15]Mr Church included in his valuation report evidence of traffic monitoring, noise surveys, and air quality monitoring extracted from publicly available documents produced as part of the development and monitoring of the scheme. The findings are summarised below.

Traffic

[16]Any increase in noise, vibration and traffic fumes will depend on there being additional traffic as a result of the highway improvements. Mr Church appended to his report a technical note prepared for this claim by Ms Julie Felton, a transport scheme evaluator at AtkinsRealis, who provided monitoring and evaluation of the scheme to the authority from 2014 onwards.

[17]Traffic surveys were undertaken at 80 sites across the scheme in autumn 2014 (the baseline survey), in autumn 2019 (one year after opening) and in autumn 2023 (five years after opening). Count data was collected in each case for 24 hours per day over a two week period. The closest sites to the Property were said to be site 80 on the A555 east of the Property, site 21 on the B5094 Grove Lane, and site 79 on the A34 north of the Stanley Road roundabout, as shown on the plan below:

[18]In summary, Ms Felton’s report confirmed that one year after opening the traffic flow on the A555 (site 80) had increased over the baseline by 60%; at site 21 it was slightly reduced and at site 79 on the A34 it had increased by 6%.

[19]Mr Church acknowledged that an increase in traffic flows would have contributed to an increase in noise.

Noise

[20]Noise monitoring against a baseline was undertaken for the authority as part of the monitoring and evaluation of the scheme. Mr Church appended to his report a technical note provided for this claim by Ms Vicky Wills, a Fellow of the Institute of Acoustics, of AtkinsRealis.

[21]Ms Wills visited Longsight Lane on 17 June 2025. She commented in her note that when listening to noise at the front of the Property, on Longsight Lane, the A555 was the most dominant source of noise, with noise also audible from Stanley Road. Noise from the A34 was less perceptible at that point due to noise screening by the houses on Longsight Lane and the bund between the gardens and the road. It was not possible for her to gain access to the rear of the Property or the bund to experience noise levels there.

[22]An Environmental Statement prepared in October 2013 included a predicted short term increase in noise (i.e. at the opening year) of 1.0-3.0 dB LA10,18h for the part of Longsight Lane where the Property is located. This is considered, within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, to be a minor increase in noise and not a significant change. The plan below shows the location of noise monitoring positions on the A555 closest to Longsight Lane, from which results were published at one year and five years post-development.

[23]Ms Wills noted that none of the monitoring sites is representative of the situation at Longsight Lane, but commented that the results of the measured noise level changes at all three sites were better than those predicted by the modelling. She concluded from this that it was reasonable to expect the noise impact at the Property at the valuation date to be smaller than minor increase predicted, and therefore unlikely to be significant.

Air quality

[24]Air quality monitoring and evaluation was a further part of the Environmental Statement prepared for the authority in 2013. Ms Jennie Godwin, a chartered scientist and member of the Institute of Air Quality Management at AtkinsRealis, designed the five year monitoring and evaluation air quality survey for the scheme. She produced a technical note for this claim which Mr Church appended to his report. The plan below shows the three air quality monitoring sites closest to the Property: STJ1, STJ2 and MO28:

[25]Ms Godwin’s note stated that modelling, based on predicted traffic at year one compared with the 2014 baseline, had predicted a change in annual mean Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2) concentrations at the Property of between +0.4 and +<2µg/m 3, classed as a “small increase” magnitude change. For PM 10 (a measure of particulate matter) the modelled concentration increase was between 0 and +0.4µg/m 3, classed as a “negligible” change. She explained that the forecast figures assumed flat terrain, so reflected a worst case scenario assuming that there was no bund between the Property and the A34.

[26]Monitoring of NO 2 at the three sites shown on the plan, to compare with baseline monitoring in 2014, revealed an increase at year one at STJ1 of 5.1, which is described as “large”. At STJ2 the change was a small decrease of 0.9 and at MO28 a medium increase of 2.7.

[27]Ms Godwin confirmed in an email to Mr Church that the large increase at STJ1 was likely to be mainly affected by the 6% increase in traffic on the A34. Since the Property is 70m from the A34 she said that those vehicle emissions would be dispersed across that distance and that the bund would cause further dispersion of air pollution. The increase would, anyway, be lower than forecast because the traffic flows were 5-7% less than predicted.

[28]Monitoring of PM 10 was not carried out in the vicinity of the Property.

Discussion of physical factors

[29]In his report Mr Church stated that he had considered only the impacts arising from the “…new section of the highway – rather than intensification of the previously existing highway.” He subsequently acknowledged that section 9(5) requires intensification of use on the existing road to be taken into account and confirmed that the technical data had been assessed on that basis.

[30]The claimant submitted that the noise monitoring reports had little relevance to his claim because there had been no noise monitoring points on the A34 behind the Property.

[31]Regarding air quality, the claimant pointed out that the evidence supplied by Mr Church relied heavily on forecasting, modelling and opinion, which did not address the issue of air quality in the back garden of the Property. The large increase in NO 2 measured at point STJ1 could only be due to the increase in traffic on the A34.

[32]In his supplemental report Mr Church recognised that traffic volumes on the A555 and A34 increased over the monitoring period, that noise levels may have increased slightly and that there was a small increase in NO 2 levels.

[33]I accept the claimant’s evidence, which is not contradicted by the measurements and opinions expressed by the authority’s consultants, and I conclude that at the valuation date there was an increase in noise and a reduction in air quality at the Property as a result of the scheme. The claimant has established the conditions for a compensation claim, that physical factors were “turned up”, but whether he is entitled to compensation requires a determination that the increase in those factors caused a depreciation in value of the Property.

Valuation evidence

[34]The figure of £25,000 claimed by the claimant is based on a letter dated 4 June 2024 from Mr Karl Craig, branch manager of Knutsford estate agents Bridgfords, expressing his opinion that:

“…the opening of the A555 road and expansion of the A34 running directly behind the property reduces the true value of the property in the context of the current housing market by a figure in the region of £25,000. This is due to noise and other environmental impact concerns.”

[35]Mr Church addressed the question of whether any depreciation in value of the Property had been caused as at 16 November 2019 by the increase in physical factors arising from the scheme by starting with the sale of the Property, in October 2024, for £560,000. Photographs in the sale particulars show that the Property was in good modernised condition at that time.

[36]HM Land Registry data (the UK House Price Index) show that the average price of all properties across the borough of Stockport increased by 29.18% between November 2019 and October 2024. Growth in the average price of semi-detached properties over that period was very similar at 30.15%. Mr Church used a figure of 30% growth to adjust the sale price of the Property back to a November 2019 (rounded) equivalent of £430,000. He took that figure as reflecting the value of the Property at the valuation date with the increase in physical factors caused by the scheme in place.

[37]To assess whether the physical factors arising from the scheme had created any diminution in value to the Property Mr Church used two approaches. First, he looked to value the Property without the scheme in place, by analysing the sales of three other five-bedroom semi-detached properties in the locality which would not have been affected by the scheme. Secondly, he considered whether any diminution in value was evident in the sales of three other properties on Longsight Lane after the valuation date, i.e. with the increased physical factors in place.

[38]In the first approach the sale prices of three comparable properties were adjusted to the valuation date using the same HM Land Registry data Mr Church had used to reach an adjusted price for the Property. The features of the comparable properties are shown below, together with the adjusted sale prices sorted into ascending order. Prices per sq ft must be viewed with caution since some are based on the floor plans provided in the available sales particulars and some on EPC measurements, which were referred to by Mr Church but not provided in evidence.

[39]20 Newlands Avenue is located in a residential street and sold for the lowest adjusted price. It had a second bathroom, but no garage because that had been converted to provide a sitting room and dining room. 76 Malmesbury Road is also located in a residential street. It had a single bathroom, a converted garage and no conservatory. 13 Pingate Drive is significantly larger, but located in a tight corner plot in a residential area. It had the benefit of three bathrooms, with one bedroom and bathroom on the ground floor, but no garage or conservatory.

[40]Mr Church acknowledged that none of the comparable properties benefited from the open aspect at 8 Longsight Lane, but neither were they affected by the existing A34 or the A555. He concluded that the adjusted prices provided evidence of the tone of values for five bedroom semi-detached properties at the valuation date which suggested a value for the Property at the valuation date without the increase in physical factors of £430,000. This is the same as the adjusted sale price achieved with the increased physical factors in place and so in Mr Church’s opinion the Property had suffered no diminution in value.

[41]Mr Church’s second approach was to consider the sale of three other properties on Longsight Lane after the valuation date, i.e. with increased physical factors in place, and to compare those sold prices with prices achieved in the locality at the same date for similar but unaffected properties. The analysis is summarised below, although prices per sq ft must be viewed cautiously, for the same reason set out above.

[42]40 Longsight Lane and 10 Moss Lane are both detached properties in semi-rural locations with large plots (0.5 and 0.3 acres respectively) which sold in March 2022. 40 Longsight Lane had been modernised, whilst 10 Moss Lane was in need of some modernisation. The latter sits 250m north of the A555, so is less affected by traffic than 40 Longsight Lane. Mr Church concluded from the higher sale price achieved per sq ft at 40 Longsight Lane, for a smaller property located near a busy road, that its value had not been impacted as a result of the scheme.

[43]12 Longsight Lane and 111 Grove Lane are smaller detached properties which sold in July 2023 at similar prices. 111 Grove Lane is situated in a more built up area, away from the A34 and the A555. It has a smaller rear garden, but a better configuration with all four bedrooms on the first floor, whereas at 12 Longsight Lane the fourth bedroom is in the loft. The price per sq ft achieved at Grove Lane is considerably higher but it is not clear whether Mr Church considered that this demonstrated any impact on the price achieved for 12 Longsight Lane.

[44]18 Longsight Lane is a link-detached property with a conservatory which sold for £575,000 in May 2022. Mr Church compared the price achieved with those at 4 Spath Walk, a semi-detached property situated a similar distance north of the A555 but unaffected by the A34, and 1 Glastonbury Avenue, a small detached property in a built up area some way from the A34 and A555. 18 Longsight Lane achieved a higher sale price and a higher price per sq ft than 4 Spath Walk, although Mr Church acknowledged that the lower price for the latter would reflect the fact that it is semi-detached, required some modernisation and lacked a conservatory. 1 Glastonbury Avenue is a smaller detached property, also without a conservatory, but with a higher specification and new kitchen. It sold for less than 18 Longsight Lane, but a higher price per sq ft.

[45]Overall Mr Church concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate a loss of value of the three properties sold at Longsight Lane after the scheme was in place.

Discussion

[46]I give credit to Mr Church for using two different approaches to look for evidence from the market that the value of the Property at the valuation date was depreciated by an increased level of physical factors arising from the scheme. It is important to acknowledge the challenge involved in discerning from market evidence any element of depreciation arising from increased physical factors, particularly where a road was in existence before the scheme.

[47]The analysis of comparable evidence under Mr Church’s second approach was an attempt to determine whether there was any market evidence to suggest that property prices in general on Longsight Lane had been affected by increased physical factors arising from the scheme. The analysis relied on comparisons of sales on a price per sq ft basis, which may be compromised by the unreliability of the floor areas used. Whilst it can be helpful to compare similar properties which sold in the same month and year, I consider that the individual nature of these properties, and a lack of information on the circumstances of each sale, make it unsafe to draw any conclusion on whether there was any depreciation at Longsight Lane due to physical factors arising from the scheme.

[48]When considering what the value of the Property would have been at the valuation date without the scheme, Mr Church looked at three sales of comparable sized properties which took place between November 2016 and May 2021. Even after adjustment to the valuation date, the prices spanned a wide range from £335,000 to £475,000. The range of prices per sq ft was narrower, from £236 to £285, but those figures would be more helpful if the floor areas were known to have been measured on a comparable basis. Whilst all three properties were, like the Property, five bedroom semi-detached houses, none was in a comparable semi-rural location and there is again a lack of information on the circumstances of each sale.

[49]It has been explained to the claimant that the letter from which he derived his claim of £25,000 is not a valuation. He is entitled to rely on it as a statement of the opinion of a local estate agent, no doubt knowledgeable and experienced in his field, on the impact of the scheme on the value of the Property in the housing market at the time it was written. But it was not written by a chartered surveyor or other person with understanding of the limited nature of a claim under Part I of the Act and, in particular, the opinion was given in the context of the housing market in June 2024. HM Land Registry data shows growth of 26.5% in average prices in Stockport between November 2019 and June 2024 so, when adjusted to the valuation date, the suggested depreciation would be £19,763, or £20,000. The claimant also made submissions based on sale prices that fell short of their original asking price, and on the movement of asking prices over the period between the valuation date and the sale of the Property. But asking prices are never indicative of values, which are only established by market transactions.

[50]The claimant’s adjusted depreciation figure of £20,000 at the valuation date can be tested in this way. If it is reliable, then the Property would have sold in November 2019 for £450,000 in the no-scheme scenario, rather than £430,000. This would place it near the top of the range of comparable sale prices. The Property does have a locational advantage over the comparable properties, but it had only one bathroom and, even without the scheme, it would have been affected at the rear by some road noise from the A34. However, the lack of information on the circumstances of each comparable property sale, and the significant adjustments which have to be made to account for the sales taking place over a timespan of four and a half years, mean that there is very little basis on which to alight confidently on a no-scheme value for the Property – whether £430,000 as concluded by Mr Church or £450,000 in support of the claimant’s position. It could just as easily be £440,000, reflecting depreciation of £10,000 at the valuation date.

[51]On balance, given that the existence of an increase in physical factors is established, I consider that it is likely that this would lead a prospective buyer of the Property to obtain a further marginal discount, and that a sum of £10,000 would reflect that discount, being equivalent to 2.3% of £440,000.

Determination

[52]I accept the claimant’s own first hand evidence that there was an increase in physical factors, particularly noise, at the Property as a consequence of the scheme, which is supported by the compensating authority’s technical evidence (albeit to a degree which is described technically as slight).

[53]I award the sum of £10,000 as compensation for depreciation arising from the increase in physical factors. Mrs Diane Martin TD MRICS FAAV Right of appeal