Background
Mr Dieu Quang Tran and Mrs Phung De Tran jointly owned a five-bedroom detached house at 167 Stanley Road, Cheadle. The rear garden was about 100 metres from the improved A555, part of the A6 Manchester Airport Relief Road project completed by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council in 2018. The owners alleged that use of the improved highway increased noise at their property, particularly in the rear garden, and reduced its value.
The owners sought £50,000 under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, using 15 October 2019 as the agreed first claim day and valuation date. The council denied that the scheme had increased noise or caused depreciation. The Upper Tribunal determined the statutory compensation reference on written representations, considering traffic data, noise modelling, technical evidence and the parties’ valuation material.
The Court’s Holding
The Tribunal held that the owners had not proved an increase in noise at their property caused by use of the altered highway. Although traffic on the A555 had increased substantially, the council’s models indicated that quieter road surfacing, reduced speed limits and lower traffic on the nearby slip road offset that increase. The modelling suggested a slight noise reduction at the rear façade and in the garden, with no perceptible change at the front.
Because there was no reliable evidence that the relevant physical factor—noise—had increased, the compensation provisions in Part I of the 1973 Act were not engaged. The Tribunal therefore found no basis for compensation. It also reviewed the valuation evidence but found neither side’s analysis persuasive: the owners’ report did not isolate depreciation caused by a statutory physical factor, while the council’s evidence produced the anomaly of a higher value in the supposed “turned up” noise scenario.
Key Takeaways
- A Part I claim requires proof that use of the altered public works increased a specified physical factor, such as noise, and caused depreciation.
- A substantial rise in nearby traffic does not by itself establish increased noise where other changes, including quieter surfacing and lower speeds, may offset it.
- Valuation evidence must isolate any loss attributable specifically to the qualifying physical factor at the statutory valuation date.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that subjective experience of greater road noise, without reliable supporting evidence of an actual increase attributable to the highway alteration, will not engage the statutory compensation regime. Technical modelling may be decisive where direct before-and-after measurements at the property are unavailable.
It also illustrates the evidential difficulty of separating noise-related depreciation from the many other influences on residential market value, particularly when undertaking a retrospective valuation.