Mark Goodman & Ors v Transport for London

Under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, compensation is assessed by comparing the open-market value of the property with the public works in use against its value on a switched-off basis. Technical evidence about noise informs, but does not replace, the valuation exercise.

Where reliable market transactions are available, they may carry greater weight than agreed valuations and settlement figures. A significant increase in road noise, including an adverse change in its character, may depress value even where pre-existing railway noise remains. The question is the effect on the hypothetical purchaser's bid for the individual property.

Settlements generally provide no reliable evidence of diminution because they reflect compromise and litigation risks.

Twelve consolidated references sought compensation from Transport for London under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The claims concerned dwelling houses near the Coulsdon Inner Relief Road, which opened to traffic on 18 December 2006. The statutory valuation date was 19 December 2007.

The claimants alleged depreciation caused principally by increased road noise, and in some instances vibration, dust and artificial lighting. The parties agreed switched-off values, but disputed whether the physical factors caused a reduction in open-market value. The Tribunal considered acoustic evidence, valuation evidence, actual transactions, and settlements of other claims.

A later costs addendum determined the basis and apportionment of costs among successful and unsuccessful claimants in the consolidated references.

1. Compensation was awarded. The Tribunal held that Part I required an assessment of the diminution in each interest's open-market value caused by physical factors from the use of the relief road. The comparison was between the agreed switched-off value and the value with the road in use.

2. Acoustic evidence was relevant but secondary to valuation evidence. Adopting the approach in King and others v Dorset County Council [1997] 1 EGLR 245, the Tribunal held that the ultimate question was for the market, not for acoustics experts. It accepted the residents' consistent evidence and preferred road-noise data to a combined road-and-rail comparison. The relevant effect was the substantial increase in road noise during formerly quiet intervals between trains, together with its changed character.

3. Actual market transactions were preferred to settlement figures and, where available, to comparisons with agreed valuation opinions. Settlements were approached with caution because they reflect compromise, costs exposure and risk rather than useful evidence of diminution. The sales of 46 Cordrey Gardens provided persuasive evidence of a loss in value after the road opened.

4. The Tribunal found a 4% depreciation for the elevated properties in Cordrey Gardens and Deepfield Way. Increased road noise, with only a minimal effect from dust, would reduce a hypothetical purchaser's bid. Artificial lighting was not shown to have reduced their value. At 79 Brighton Road, the altered character and level of traffic noise and, to a lesser extent, brighter street lighting justified a 1% reduction, rounded to £3,000.

5. In the costs addendum, the successful claimants received costs on the standard basis, not the indemnity basis. Their unaccepted offers did not displace the Tribunal's discretion, and Transport for London's defence was not unreasonable. Common costs were to be apportioned over time by the ratio of successful or unsuccessful references then continuing; Transport for London was ordered to make a £350,000 payment on account.

not stated in the judgment.