Dieu Quang Tran & Anor v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

A claim under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 requires evidence that depreciation was caused by an increase in a specified physical factor attributable to the use of public works. A rise in traffic alone does not establish increased noise. If the evidence does not establish an increase in the relevant physical factor, the compensation provisions are not engaged.

Mr Dieu Quang Tran and Mrs Phung De Tran, joint owners of a house beside the improved A555, sought £50,000 from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. They claimed that noise from the highway improvements had depreciated the property’s value. The authority disputed both increased noise and resulting depreciation.

The reference was determined on written representations. The central issue was whether the evidence established increased noise at the property due to use of the improved highway.

1. Entitlement threshold. The reference was dismissed. To establish a claim under Part I, the claimant must first demonstrate that one or more specified physical factors increased as a result of using the highway improvements. Without evidence of such an increase, the burden of proof is not met and the compensation provisions are not engaged (paras [17], [45], [62]).
2. Noise evidence. Traffic counts showed a significant increase in traffic on the A555. The nearby noise-monitoring locations were not reliable proxies for the property, so the authority relied on noise models for the house and garden. Those models accounted for factors including the quieter road surface, reduced speed limits and reduced traffic on the slip road. They predicted a slight decrease in noise. The Tribunal accepted the garden model as helpful. On the evidence as a whole, an increase in noise at the property was not established, despite the increased traffic (paras [28], [30], [33]–[45], [62]).
3. Valuation observations. The Tribunal did not need to determine the valuation evidence once the statutory threshold failed. Its further comments were obiter. A Part I valuation must isolate depreciation caused specifically by identified physical factors at the valuation date from other influences on market value. The Tribunal considered that the claimants’ report did not adequately analyse comparable sales or evidence the alleged loss; the authority’s analysis also produced an acknowledged anomaly, with a higher value in the noise-affected scenario (paras [46], [51], [56], [60]–[61]).