David Cochrane v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, compensation is payable where the use of public works causes specified physical factors to increase and that increase depreciates the value of a qualifying interest in land. Where an existing highway is altered, the assessment must address depreciation caused by use of the altered carriageway and any relevant intensification of use. The valuation exercise compares the market value at the first claim day with the value that would have existed without the relevant increase in physical factors. Market evidence must be scrutinised carefully, particularly where the road already existed, comparable properties differ materially, and sale circumstances or floor areas are uncertain. A modest award may be appropriate where depreciation is established but its precise amount cannot be determined with confidence.

This was a reference under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The claimant, formerly a joint owner of a house on Longsight Lane, claimed £25,000 from the authority following improvements to the A34 and A555 forming part of the Manchester Airport Relief Road scheme.

The relevant highway improvements included widening the A34 and altering junctions. The claimant alleged increased noise, vibration and traffic fumes, causing depreciation in the value of the property. The agreed first claim day was 16 November 2019. The central issues were whether physical factors had increased because of the highway improvements and, if so, whether they had caused depreciation and in what amount.

1. Entitlement. The claimant established that noise had increased and air quality had reduced at the property as a result of the scheme. This satisfied the requirement that relevant physical factors had been turned up by use of the highway improvements.
2. Altered highway. The claim concerned an existing highway which had been altered. Section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 therefore governed the relevant date and required consideration of depreciation that would not have been caused but for the alterations, including relevant intensification of use of the existing road.
3. Valuation. Compensation was assessed by comparing the value of the property at the first claim day with its hypothetical value without the increase in physical factors caused by the scheme. The statutory open-market valuation rule applied. Evidence of comparable sales was relevant, but the Tribunal treated it cautiously because the properties were not closely comparable, their floor areas were uncertain, and the circumstances of sale were insufficiently documented.
4. Amount. The authority’s evidence did not safely establish that there had been no diminution. The claimant’s suggested £20,000 depreciation was also insufficiently reliable. On balance, the increased physical factors were likely to cause a further marginal discount. Compensation was assessed at £10,000, equivalent to approximately 2.3 per cent of the estimated unaffected value.

The claimant was awarded £10,000.