Dieu Quang Tran & Anor v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

This is a reference to determine a claim for compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (“the Act”) made by Mr Dieu Quang Tran and Mrs Phung De Tran (“the claimants”), who are joint owners of 167 Stanley Road, Cheadle SK8 6RF (“the property”).

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 approximately 14km (8.7 miles) of 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 A555 is said by the claimants to have given rise to an increase in noise causing a depreciation in value of the property.

The first claim day, which is the valuation date for a claim under Part I of the Act, is the day after 12 months have expired from the date the improved highway reopened to traffic. It is agreed that for improvements to the A555 that date is 15 October 2019. The claimants seek £50,000 in compensation for depreciation in value of the property due to increased noise arising from use of the highway at that date. The authority denies that there was an increase in noise and that any depreciation was caused by the scheme.

I held a case management hearing on 27 February 2026, attended by counsel for the authority and the claimants’ son Mr Oscar Tran, who is their appointed representative. It was agreed that the matter would be determined under the Tribunal’s written representations procedure, in a similar manner to that adopted in Cochrane v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] UKUT 395 (LC) where a Part I claim was made under the same scheme by an unrepresented claimant. The authority would direct the claimants to the technical information available on their website, so that the claimants could confirm the physical factors relied on in their claim. The authority would then file an expert report on diminution in value from the identified 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 as well as in Cochrane.

I did not consider it necessary to carry out a site inspection since the determination was to be based on technical evidence and valuation evidence arising from dates over six years ago.

The property is a substantial five bedroom detached family house, with integral double garage, situated in a plot of around 0.42 acres. It was constructed in the 1950s and extended some 20 years ago. The ground floor accommodation includes two reception rooms and further ancillary and living space including a kitchen/dining area, conservatory and games room. The first floor accommodation provides five bedrooms, three with en-suite bathrooms, and a family bathroom. The internal floor area, including the garage, is around 325 sq m (3,500 sq ft). Externally at the front there is an extensive parking area and to the rear a generous garden substantially laid to lawn with a number of trees.

The property is situated on Stanley Road, which runs parallel to the improved A555. The houses on Stanley Road are situated on the south side of the road, with back gardens facing towards the A555, separated from it by a strip of land in agricultural use. Access to the agricultural land is along a private lane which runs south beside the eastern boundary of the property. The distance between the far end of the property’s garden and the A555 is agreed to be 100m. The shortest distance to the eastbound on-slip road is 80m.

The number of aerial views, provided in Mr Church’s report, are reproduced below. The first shows the situation in April 2013 before the scheme. The unimproved A555 terminated at Wilmslow Road, with an eastbound on-slip road and westbound off-slip road.

The second aerial view shows the new road layout in March 2021, with the improved A555 continuing under Wilmslow Road to Manchester Airport.

The larger scale aerial views below show the layout of the road behind the property before and after the scheme.

Under the scheme the original eastbound on-slip road was reduced from two lanes to a single lane with a shared footway/cycleway added on the outside. The new carriageway taking the A555 under Wilmslow Road is a dual carriageway. The westbound off-slip road has remained two lanes wide. A noise reduction fence existed along the northern boundary of the on-slip and the highway. This remained in place during and after the scheme.

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.”

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.

…”

Section 2 sets out the types of interest which qualify for compensation. It is not in dispute that the claimants had a qualifying interest at the relevant date. Section 3(2) deals with the first date for making claims, which is agreed to be 15 October 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;

…”

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…”

In order to establish a claim under Part I of 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 under the scheme. In a case such as this, where use of the existing roads 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.

The claimants’ case is that at the rear of the property, particularly in the garden, there has been an increase in noise as a result of the scheme.

As part of the scheme development the authority prepared a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan which involved a baseline report in autumn 2014, a Year 1 report in autumn 2019 and a Year 5 report in autumn 2023.

Mr Church included in his valuation report evidence of traffic monitoring and noise surveys extracted from the publicly available M&E documents for the scheme, together with technical notes on traffic and noise prepared for this claim by relevant specialists from AtkinsRealis, who managed the scheme. The findings are summarised below.

An increase in traffic noise experienced at a property will generally arise from additional traffic using a highway as a result of an improvement scheme. The exception might be situations where traffic is not increased but is moved closer to a property or where a noisier surface has been introduced. Mr Church appended to his report a technical note prepared on 23 April 2026 for this claim by Mr Neil Stockley, a Technical Director at AtkinsRealis, who was project director for the Year 1 and Year 5 monitoring and evaluation reports. Mr Stockley explained that traffic volume surveys were undertaken for two week periods in the autumns of 2014 and 2019, i.e. outside of school holidays, with data collected over 24 hours in each day, including weekends, to produce daily average figures at each site.

The closest monitoring sites to the property are shown on the plan below; 20 is in Stanley Road and 47 + 48 are on the eastbound and westbound carriageways of the A555 east of the Wilmslow Road junction.

In 2014 all traffic counted at site 47 (eastbound) had joined by the on-slip road and all traffic counted at site 48 (westbound) would have left on the off-slip road. The average daily traffic count at site 47 was 5,385 and at site 48 was 5,660. At site 20 in Stanley Road the count was 7,150.

In 2019 the average daily count at site 47 was 14,980, which included traffic travelling through from the west, as well as traffic joining by the on-slip road. At site 48 the average daily count was 14,300, which included traffic continuing west as well as traffic leaving on the off-slip road. Estimates of the split between continuing traffic and joining or leaving traffic were made from turning proportions used in the forecast traffic model developed for the business case. At site 20 the count was 6,600.

The figures provided enable an overall comparison between 2014 and 2019 as shown in the table below:

In his technical report Mr Stockley referred to the percentage decreases in traffic at Stanley Road, and on the two slip roads, and to the empirical numbers travelling through the Wilmslow Road junction. He did not use the figures to calculate or comment that total traffic flows in each direction, and overall on the A555, have increased by over 250%.

In his report Mr Church simply adopted Mr Stanley’s analysis, including a comment that DfT data indicated a general increase in vehicle miles travelled in the Stockport authority area from 2014 to 2019 of 8%.

The data provided in the technical note shows that there has been a significant increase in the volume of traffic passing along the improved A555 in the vicinity of the property.

Noise monitoring against a baseline was undertaken for the authority as part of the M&E report. Mr Church provided extracts from the Post-Completion Noise Survey Report (Year 1) prepared by Atkins (as they were). The plan below shows the monitoring locations used to take noise surveys before the scheme and at Years 1 and 5 after opening, in relation to the location of the property. The locations closest to the property are MP09 at Swettenham Road (south of the A555), MP10 at Clay Lane and MP11 at Bolshaw Farm Lane. The results for Year 1 showed that noise levels at those three locations decreased by between 2.5 – 2.8 dB_LA10,18h.

Mr Church acknowledged that even the closest monitoring point at MP09 is 200m from the property and that the prevailing south westerly wind is upwind of the A555 and the property, so caution should be exercised in placing reliance on the readings for this purpose. MP10 and MP11 are over 500m away and potentially exposed to different noise factors.

Mr Church also appended to his report a technical note provided for this claim by Mr Adam Lawrence, an associate acoustician with AtkinsRealis.

Mr Lawrence visited the property on 14 April 2026 to observe what he described as the “noise climate”. He observed that at the front of the property sound from individual vehicles passing along Stanley Road was dominant whilst at the rear constant sound from the A555 was dominant. He did not enter the property but made an assessment of sound at the rear from the adjoining lane which passes through to fields at the rear of the property. He commented that whilst the A555 itself was not visible, the tops of tall heavy vehicles could be seen as they passed behind vegetation along the highway corridor.

Mr Lawrence explained that a noise model had been created after completion of the scheme to determine eligibility for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973. The model was built using NoiseMap software to implement the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise methodology, published in 1988 by the department of Transport, along with modifications to the method set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges LA111 Revision 2 of 2020. The model was refined to allow consideration of claims for compensation under the Act, which require a comparison of noise with and without the scheme. Key factors put into the model include speed limits and road surfaces, observed traffic data, carriageway positions, ground topography and noise barrier locations.

The speed limit on Stanley Road has remained at 30 mph, whilst the speed limit on the A555 and the slip roads has been reduced from 70 mph to 50 mph. On the slip roads close to Wilmslow Road the speed limit remained at 30 mph. The recorded traffic numbers previously referred to, including the proportion of HGVs, were used in the model assuming speeds at the relevant limits. The road surface of the new and improved A555 is Superhitex 14mmThin Surfacing System, which is stated to have a road surface (noise) influence of -3.6 dB(A) by comparison with the previous hot rolled asphalt surface. The pre-existing noise barrier along the on-slip road was taken into account.

The noise model for the property used calculation points 1m from each of the four facades, allowing ground and first floor noise levels to be calculated. The results below are extracted from the Mr Lawrence’s technical note:

Mr Lawrence concluded that noise levels at the property have not changed significantly with the scheme, commenting that changes below 1dB are unlikely to be perceptible. For the southern façade, which faces the A555, he concluded that the noise levels were reduced due to a combination of the lower noise road surface, lower speeds and less traffic on the slip road, all offsetting the increased traffic flows on the A555 carriageway.

Mr Church concluded that there was no data to evidence an adverse noise impact on the property arising from the scheme, and that the data actually showed a decrease in noise levels.

The claimants submitted that this was an overstatement of the position at the property, based on proxy monitoring locations and a model. The limitations of noise monitoring data from sites MP9, MP10 and MP11 had been acknowledge by the authority. None of those points can substitute for the evidence of noise at the property and the authority’s ultimate conclusion on noise depended heavily on modelling. The claimants submitted that the model is an indirect exercise which has relevance but does not provide a conclusive answer. The actual experience at the rear of the property, and particularly in the rear garden, is of constant noise arising from the new A555 corridor. Whilst the road is not clearly visible from the property, noise carries across the 100m of largely open land between the A555 corridor and the garden. This is a specific relationship to the road as experienced at the property.

The model was created for the purpose of determining eligibility for noise insulation to properties and was adapted for this claim to calculate noise levels at 1m distance from the four facades of the house on the property. No reference was made to any modelling of noise in the rear garden, so I asked the authority to confirm whether it submitted that it had any evidence of noise levels in the rear garden of the property before and after the scheme.

The authority then provided a second technical note prepared by Mr Lawrence, giving evidence of a new noise model created “…to predict noise levels throughout the garden areas, at a standard calculation height of 4m above ground level.” It was stated that “The calculation height of the noise contour gives a worst case scenario for road traffic noise.”

The new model was used to produce noise contours between the property and the road in scenarios with and without the scheme. These showed noise levels in the rear garden before the scheme mostly in the range 55-60 dB L_A10, 18hr and after the scheme mostly in the range 50-55 dB L_A10, 18hr. This compared with noise levels of 60-65 dB L_A10, 18hr at the front of the property, in both scenarios. The resultant noise change contour showed a decrease in noise of between 1db and 3dB dB L_A10, 18hr at the rear of the property and no perceptible change at the front of the property.

I accepted the new evidence modelling noise in the garden of the property as helpful and invited the claimants to make a response to it. They did not take up that opportunity.

The authority has not placed reliance on the evidence of noise monitoring at sites in the vicinity of the A555, none of which is a good proxy for the location of the property, but does place reliance on the noise models described above. The models suggest that noise levels at the property have decreased as a result of the scheme, both at the southern facade of the house and in the rear garden.

This is, on the face of it, a surprising conclusion, given the significant increase in the volume of traffic passing along the A555 as a result of the scheme. The technical evidence explains that it is due to a combination of the lower noise road surface, lower speeds and less traffic on the slip road, all offsetting the increased traffic flows.

The compensation provisions of Part I of the Act concern depreciation caused by one of more of the specified physical factors of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting or discharge on to the land of a solid or liquid substance. Without evidence of an increase in one of those physical factors, which in this case would be noise, the burden of proof required to establish a claim has not been met and the compensation provisions are not engaged.

Since the compensation provisions are not engaged, it is not necessary for the purposes of this claim to consider the valuation evidence submitted by the parties. However, as a courtesy to the parties, and to provide some insight for those who might make claims under Part I of the Act in future, I provide below a review of the valuation evidence.