UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)

UT Neutral citation number: [2010] UKUT 370 (LC)

LT Case Number: LCA/165/2008

LCA/168/2008

TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

 

COMPENSATION – Land Compensation Act 1973 Part I – depreciation by physical factors caused by the use of second runway at Manchester Airport – noise, vibration and fumes – impact of agreed increase in noise – analysis of conflicting valuation evidence – compensation assessed at £72,500 and £40,000

IN THE MATTER OF TWO REFERENCES

 

 

BETWEEN (1) ADRIAN ROBERTSON

and Claimants

KATHLEEN ROBERTSON (LCA/165/2008)

(2) ANDREW SPARK

and Claimants

ANNETTE SPARK (LCA/168/2008)

 

and

 

MANCHESTER AIRPORT plc Compensating Authority

 

Re: (1) Smith Lane Farm,

Smith Lane, Mobberley,

Knutsford, Cheshire

WA16 7QE

 

(2)    Burnside

Smith Lane , Mobberley

Knutsford, Chesire

WA16 7QF

 

 

Before: A J Trott FRICS

 

 

Sitting at: Manchester Civil Justice Centre, 1 Bridge Street West,

Manchester, M60 8DJ

on 7-10 September 2010

 

 

 

Asitha Ranatunga, instructed by Davis Blank Furniss, solicitors of Manchester, for the claimants

Patrick Walker, barrister, of Hammonds LLP, solicitors of Manchester, for the compensating authority

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following cases are referred to in this decision:

 

 

Wolff and Others v Transport for London [2008] RVR 316

King and Preselo v Dorset County Council [1998] RVR 35

 

 

DECISION

Introduction

1.           These two references, heard together, are in respect of claims for compensation made under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The first claimants are Mr Adrian Robertson and Mrs Kathleen Robertson of Smith Lane Farm, Smith Lane, Mobberley, Knutsford, Cheshire WA16 7QE. The second claimants are Mr Andrew Spark and Mrs Annette Spark of Burnside, Smith Lane, Mobberley, Knutsford, Cheshire WA16 7QF.

2.           The responsible authority under the 1973 Act is Manchester Airport Plc and the public works, the use of which gives rise to the claims for compensation for depreciation in the value of the claimants’ interests, is the new runway 2 (R2) at Manchester Airport.

3.           Mr Asitha Ranatunga of counsel appeared for the claimants and called Mr Peter Edward Sacre BSc(Hons) MSc, CEng MIMechE MIOA, a director of Acoustic and Engineering Consultants Limited, as an expert noise witness; Mr Antony Robert Lawton BSc MRICS, a director of Leslie Roberts and Co Limited and Mr Stephen Bentley Cheshire MRICS FAAV, a director of Jackson-Stops and Staff, as expert valuation witnesses. He called Mr Adrian Robertson and Mr Andrew Spark as witnesses of fact.

4.           Mr Patrick Walker of counsel appeared for the compensating authority and called Mr Jeffrey Gwilym Charles BSc MSc Eng FIOA, a consultant with Bickerdike Allen Partners, as an expert noise witness; Mr Robert Sidney Newton FRICS, a chartered surveyor with Meller Braggins Limited, and Mr Robert Yardley MRICS, a consultant surveyor with District Valuer Services, as expert valuation witnesses. Mr John Neil Edward Twigg, Group Planning Director for the Manchester Airports Group, produced a witness statement giving details of the operation of R2. This was accepted by the claimants and Mr Twigg, by consent, was not called to give oral evidence.

5.           I made an accompanied site visit to Smith Lane Farm and Burnside on the morning of 9 September 2010. I stood outside and inside both properties while aircraft were taking off from R2 and again when aircraft stopped using R2 and took off from Runway 1 (R1). I did not witness aircraft landing on either runway.

Facts

6.           Both the expert valuation witnesses and the expert noise witnesses produced statements of agreed facts. From these, the evidence and my site inspection I derive the following facts.

7.           The reference properties are situated in the village of Mobberley. The older part of the village, to the east, is centred around St Wilfred’s Church. More recent development is centred around the former Ilford’s factory. Smith Lane effectively delineates the north western edge of the village and the reference properties are located just to the north of the industrial works. Smith Lane Farm is closest to the village with Burnside being located a short distance to the north.

8.           Knutsford town centre is within 5 km to the south west and Wilmslow town centre is approximately 6.5 km to the north east. Junction 19 of the M6 motorway is within 8 km and Mobberley Railway station is located approximately one mile to the north of the village centre. It is on the main Chester to Manchester railway line which runs some 300 metres to the west of the reference properties. Manchester Airport is within 15 minutes driving time.

9.           Smith Lane Farm is a detached early 19^th century former farmhouse and grounds with an extensive range of more modern outbuildings arranged around a central courtyard. These include an indoor swimming pool and double garage. There is a barn (used for storage) and a workshop and office building with a games room and further offices at first floor level. There is a triple garage at the north west of this building. The farmhouse has three reception rooms, a large kitchen and five bedrooms (one en-suite). It has gas, water and electricity with gas central heating. Drainage is to a septic tank. The total plot area is 3.2 ha. The state of repair at the claim date is described as good, although at the date of my inspection extensive repair works were being undertaken to the farmhouse. Smith Lane Farm is 3.8 km from the end of R1 and 1.9 km from the end of R2. The offset distances from the extended centre lines of the two runways are 332 m from R1 and 40 m from R2.

10.        Burnside is a large Edwardian semi-detached building with outbuildings (a former stable block) and a double garage. The house stands in grounds of 0.1 ha although Mr and Mrs Spark own a lease at a peppercorn rent of further land beyond Mobberley Brook to the north of the property. The claimants also own the freehold interest in an area of 3.25 ha of rough pasture which adjoins the grounds of Smith Lane Farm a short distance to the south east. Burnside comprises three reception rooms, a kitchen and utility room with three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor and two bedrooms, a box room and a bathroom on the second floor. It has water and electricity with oil fired central heating. Drainage is to a septic tank. The state of repair at the claim date is described as good. Burnside is 3.6 km from the end of R1 and 1.75 km from the end of R2. The offset distances from the extended centre lines of the two runways are 291m from R1 and 100m from R2.

11.        R2 was first used on 5 February 2001 and has been in continual use except for emergencies and planned/unplanned maintenance and repair. The hours of operation of R2 are specified in the planning permission as 06:00 to 22:00. The planning permission is subject to a section 106 agreement which includes Obligation B2 (viii):

“The carrying out of an annual review commencing 12 months before the commencement of operations to identify, in consultation with Manchester Airport Consultative Committee and airlines, opportunities for preferential use of single runway operations on the existing runway as and when throughput of aircraft numbers permits and subject to the safety requirement of Air Traffic Control.”

In compliance with this undertaking since 2001 the airport does not use R2 between 12:00 and 15:00 each day. (On the day of my site inspection R2 ceased operations at or around 10:30.)

12.        When R2 is operational, traffic is shared between it and R1 with one runway being used for departures and the other for landings. In westerly winds (which is the predominant wind direction accounting for 80% of annual aircraft movements) departing aircraft use R2 and landing aircraft use R1. In easterly winds the pattern is reversed; landing aircraft use R2 and departing aircraft use R1. This accounts for 20% of the annual aircraft movements. When R2 is closed (between 22:00 and 06:00 and again between 12:00 and 15:00) R1 handles both departures and landings. This operating pattern for a single runway is the same as that which existed prior to the opening of R2. Exceptionally, if R1 is closed for an emergency or for maintenance, all operations can take place from R2. This contingency is expressly permitted under the planning permission for R2.

13.        Upon take off aircraft use full power to climb. The rate of climb will depend upon the type of aircraft, its payload and the strength of the head wind. On departure each aircraft is allocated a preferred noise route (PNR) along which it flies until reaching the release altitude (between 3,000 to 5,000 ft). There are eight PNRs at the south western end of the runways, four each for R1 and R2. The PNR allocated to an aircraft depends upon the runway in use, the final destination and the flight routing of the aircraft. Non standard departures, which are given to maintain adequate safety separation or because of bad weather, account for less than 1% of departures.

14.        Before R2, all aircraft departed initially along the extended centre line of R1. All southbound traffic (43% of aircraft) turned left quickly and flew over the Church Lane area of Mobberley, some 750m to the east of the reference properties. Traffic proceeding both northbound (30%) and westbound (27%) proceeded along the same route until north of Knutsford. This route took all northbound and westbound aircraft (57%) over Mobberley just south of Mobberley Station.

15.        All departing aircraft using R2 proceed along its extended centre line until it crosses Smith Lane at Smith Lane Farm. Quieter types of southbound aircraft turn left at this point (13% of aircraft). Heavier southbound aircraft (25%) and westbound (17%) and northbound (21%) traffic proceed to the north of Knutsford before turning. R2 therefore accounts for 76% of daytime departures when the wind is in the west. The remaining 24% of traffic departs from R1 of which 4% comprises quieter southbound aircraft that continue to use the route over Church Lane and 7% is heavy southbound traffic that now continues to Knutsford. Westbound (6%) and Northbound (7%) traffic also continues to Kuntsford.

16.        Aircraft landing from the west (easterly operations) all align along the extended centre line of the runway and descend along a uniform 3° flight path towards the runway threshold. Although the power used is less than on takeoff the aircraft are slower and much lower as they descend over Smith Lane. For 80% of the year (westerly operations) the landing runway is R1.

17.        It is agreed that the airborne aircraft noise due to the use of the works can be quantified for daytime noise (07:00 to 23:00 hrs) by the use of the equivalent continuous sound levels dBL_Aeq,16h, which for Manchester Airport are determined from the UK Aircraft Noise Contour Model (ANCON) produced by the Civil Aviation Authority’s Environmental Research and Consultancy Department (ERCD). During a given period there will be a number of intermittent maximum noise levels arising from (departing or landing) aircraft. The equivalent continuous sound level describes this fluctuating noise climate as a single figure by averaging the noise energy over the relevant time period.

18.        Any change in the aircraft L_Aeq,16h noise level determined from noise contours is a function of either a change in the noise level from individual events, or a change in the number of events, or a combination of both. There was a 2.5% increase in air transport movements in 2001 following the opening of R2 in February 2001 but in 2002 the movements were marginally less than they had been in 2000. It is agreed that at the first claim day any intensification that might then have been reasonably expected of the use of R2 would be based upon evidence presented at the public inquiry into the proposed development of the second runway that took place in 1994. The air transport movements that were anticipated at that time for the year 2005 were 263,900. This compares with 183,273 actual movements in 2001 (an increase of 44%), the last full year’s figure before the first claim day in February 2002.

19.        There were no significant differences between the noise experts over the noise levels determined from contours prepared by Manchester Airport for the first claim day and for 2005 (predicted). They agreed the changes in the actual noise levels, L_Aeq,16h for the reference properties between 2000 (single runway) and 2002 (two runways) and in the predicted noise levels, L_Aeq,16h, in 2005 between a single runway and two runways (based on the public inquiry forecasts). This analysis showed an actual noise level increase of 3dB between 2000 and 2002 for both reference properties. The predicted noise level in 2005 showed an increase of at least 7dB at Burnside and at least 8dB at Smith Lane Farm (but in neither case more than 9dB).

Statutory provisions

20.        The right to compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 is conferred by section 1 which provides (insofar as relevant to these references):

“1(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 (hereafter 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 –

…

(b)    any aerodrome;

…

(4) The responsible authority mentioned in subsection (1) above is, … in relation to other public works, the person managing those works.

(5) Physical factors caused by an aircraft arriving at or departing from an aerodrome shall be treated as caused by the use of the aerodrome whether or not the aircraft is within the boundaries of the aerodrome …

(6) Compensation shall not be payable under this Part of this Act in respect of the physical factors caused by the use of any public works other than a highway unless immunity from actions for nuisance in respect of that use is conferred (whether expressly or by implication) by an enactment relating to those works or, in the case of an aerodrome and physical factors caused by aircraft, the aerodrome is one to which section 77(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (immunity from actions for nuisance) for the time being applies.

(7) Compensation shall not be payable under this Part of this Act in respect of physical factors caused by accidents involving … aircraft.

(8) Compensation shall not be payable under this Part of this Act on any claim unless the relevant date in relation to the claim falls on or after 17 October 1969.

(9) Subject to section 9 below, ‘the relevant date’ in this Part of this Act means –

…

(b)    in relation to a claim in respect of other public works, the date on which they were first used after completion.”

The responsible authority is Manchester Airport plc and the relevant date in these references is 5 February 2001 (see also paragraph 24 below).

21.        Section 2 deals with interests qualifying for compensation. It is agreed the first and second claimants have qualifying interests.

22.        Section 3 deals with claims. Subsection (1) specifies the particulars for service of a notice of claim. These have been satisfied in these references. The section continues:

“3(2) Subject to the provisions of this section …, no claim shall be made before the expiration of twelve months from the relevant date; and the day next following the expiration of the said twelve months is in this Part of this Act referred to as ‘the first claim day’.”

The first claim day in these references is 6 February 2002.

23.        Section 4 sets out general provisions for the assessment of compensation:

“4(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.

(3) In assessing the extent of the depreciation there shall be taken into account the benefit of any relevant works –

(a) which have been carried out, or in respect of which a grant has been paid, under section 20 below, section 15 of the Airports Authority Act 1965 section 29A of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, section 79 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 or any corresponding local enactment; or under any provision of a scheme operated by a person managing an aerodrome which provides for the payment of sound-proofing grants in respect of buildings near the aerodrome;

(b) which have been carried out under section 23 or 27 below;

and it shall be assumed that any relevant works which could be or could have been carried out, or in respect of which a grant could be or could have been paid, under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) above have been carried out but, in a case where the authority having functions under that provision have a discretion whether or not to carry out the works or pay the grant, only if they have undertaken to do so.

In paragraph (a) above ‘sound-proofing grants’, in relation to any buildings, means grants towards the costs of insulating those buildings or parts of those buildings against noise.

(4) The value of the interest in respect of which the claim is made shall be assessed –

(a) subject to subsection (5) below, by reference to the nature of the interest and the condition of the land as it subsisted on the date of service of notice of the claim;

(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;

…

(5) In assessing the value of the interest in respect of which the claim is made there shall be left out of account any part of that value which is attributable to –

(a) any building, or improvement or extension of a building, on the land if the building or, as the case may be, the building as improved or extended, was first occupied after the relevant date; …

24.        Section 9 deals with alterations to public works:

“9(1) This section has effect where, whether before, on or after the commencement date –

…

(b)    any public works other than a highway have been reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have been first used;

…

(2)        If and so far as a claim in respect of … other public works 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 –

…

(b) the date on which the other public works [Runway 2] were first used after completion of the alterations; …

…

(3)        Subsection (2) above shall not by virtue of any alterations to an aerodrome apply to a claim in respect of physical factors caused by aircraft unless the alterations are runway or apron alterations.

(4)        Where a claim relates to such depreciation as is mentioned in subsection (2) above the notice of claim shall specify, in addition to the matters mentioned in section 3 above, the alterations … alleged to give rise to the depreciation …

…

(6) In this section ‘runway or apron alterations’ means –

(a)     the construction of a new runway… ;or

(b)    a substantial addition to, or alteration of, a taxiway or apron, being an addition or alteration whose purpose or main purpose is the provision of facilities for a greater number of aircraft.

…”

The construction of R2 amounts to the extension or other alteration of public works. Depreciation would not have been caused but for the alterations and so the relevant date under section 1(9) is taken to be the date on which R2 was first used after completion, namely 5 February 2001.

Application for disclosure

25.        At the start of the hearing I heard representations from both parties concerning a request for disclosure made by the claimants. In his skeleton argument Mr Ranatunga sought disclosure (although not by a formal interlocutory application) of a settlement reached under Part I of the 1973 Act between the compensating authority and the owner of a property called Wee Bridge Farm, which is located a few hundred metres north of Burnside in Slade Lane. The settlement was subject to a confidentiality agreement. This request for disclosure was considered as a discrete issue for decision before the Tribunal heard the substantive issues in dispute.

26.        From the noise contours Mr Ranatunga said that the effect of R2 on Wee Bridge Farm was similar to, but a little less than, the effect on the two reference properties. He said that the actual increase in noise between 2000 and 2002 was 2dB and the predicted increase in noise in 2005 between single (R1) and double (R1 and R2) runway use was 5 to 6 dB. Mr Ranatunga submitted that this settlement was therefore relevant to the current references. The compensating authority agreed to give voluntary disclosure of the settlement agreement to the claimants “for the purposes of negotiation only” in February 2010. Prior to this the claimants had made an interlocutory application to the Tribunal for disclosure in December 2008 but in the light of the compensating authority’s concession it withdrew this application. In doing so the claimants said in a letter to the compensating authority dated 2 February 2010:

“As you know we maintain that we are entitled to unfettered disclosure of the settlement agreement but nevertheless from a pragmatic standpoint for present purposes we are prepared to accept your offer. Again we will write to the Tribunal. Will you please forward to us a copy of the settlement.”

27.        Negotiations between the parties in the present references failed to reach a settlement and so Mr Ranatunga said that the claimants, consistently with their previous position, wished now to rely upon the agreement reached in respect of Wee Bridge Farm.

28.        Mr Ranatunga referred to Wolff and Others v Transport for London [2008] RVR 316 in which the Tribunal, P R Francis FRICS and N J Rose FRICS, considered the question of disclosure of settlements that were said by the compensating authority to be confidential under the Data Protection Act 1988. The Tribunal said at 324, paragraph 57:

“… In our view, however, the correct procedure to be adopted by a compensating authority, faced with a reference to the Lands Tribunal and a similar request for information, if it has a genuine concern about disclosing previous settlements, is to approach the claimants in question and seek their consent to such disclosure. If any objections are raised, an interlocutory application to the Tribunal should then be made.”

29.        The claimants at Wee Bridge Farm, Mr and Mrs Beck, had given their written consent to waive confidentiality but the compensating authority had declined to do so. Mr Ranatunga said that although the claimants in the present references had not formally renewed their earlier interlocutory application, the Tribunal could order disclosure of its own motion under rule 24 of the Lands Tribunal Rules.

30.        Mr Ranatunga distinguished between the admissibility of the settlement and the weight that the Tribunal should place upon it, which was a matter for evidence and submissions. With regard to admissibility the Wee Bridge Farm settlement was relevant and was no longer considered to be confidential in the eyes of the claimants in that case. It should be admitted.

31.        Mr Walker said that the compensating authority still had “enormous concern” about admitting the Wee Bridge Farm settlement. It was a very high value property and, at the time the claim was settled some four years ago, was the only claim that had been issued, having been listed for trial in less than six months. There were some 4,000 pending claims at that time. The Wee Bridge Farm settlement was a commercial decision taken by the client and had been reached without the benefit of an expert overview since neither Mr Yardley nor Mr Newton were instructed to conclude the settlement. It reflected issues of risk and unascertained and irrecoverable costs. The settlement had been a global figure inclusive of interest and costs and Mr Walker said it was difficult to see how it could be relevant in practical terms. Furthermore although the claimants’ experts had seen the settlement they were not aware of it when they wrote their expert reports in April 2009 and their rebuttal reports in June 2009 and thus there was no question that their expert evidence might have been influenced by their knowledge of the settlement. Admitting the settlement now would introduce uncertainty into the extent and nature of the evidence to be heard.

32.        I determined at the hearing that the Wee Bridge Farm settlement should be admitted. The property is in close proximity to Burnside and Smith Lane Farm and the settlement is, in my judgment, relevant to the present references. The claimants’ experts were aware of the settlement by the time of the hearing and were under a duty to the Tribunal to declare whether and, if so how, it influenced their opinion of the compensation payable. The claimants in that settlement had given their written consent to waive confidentiality and I was not persuaded by the compensating authority’s arguments that such confidentiality should be maintained. I accepted that the weight to be attached to the settlement would depend upon the evidence and submissions but I found no good reason in principle why it should not be admitted.

33.        The settlement at Wee Bridge Farm was made on 20 January 2006. Under the agreement the compensating authority paid Mr and Mrs Beck the sum of £198,000 in full and final settlement of the claim and the claimants’ legal fees and disbursements of pursuing the claim.

The case for the claimants

Witness statements

34.        Mr Robertson and Mr Spark described the effect of the opening of R2 upon their use and enjoyment of Smith Lane Farm and Burnside respectively.

35.        Mr and Mrs Robertson had lived at Smith Lane Farm for 29 years. Mr Robertson described it as a “lifestyle property”. The opening of R2 had a considerable impact upon their lives as the flight path of the aircraft now appeared to be directly over the property. They spent the majority of time indoors because the noise from the aircraft was so severe that being outside was difficult. It was not possible to hold a face to face conversation or to use (or even hear) the telephone in the garden when aircraft passed overhead. When indoors it was not possible to open doors and/or windows and be able to hear a television programme. The property had been sound proofed as much as possible and nothing more could be done to mitigate the effects of the aircraft noise. Mr Robertson had submitted a planning application to rebuild the property as “an acoustic house in exactly the same footprint as the current house” but this had been refused as it was under the flight path. During cross-examination Mr Robertson conceded that the first two grounds for the refusal of planning permission referred to the proposed dwelling as being “materially larger” and involving “a material increase in the amount of habitable accommodation on the site”. None of the three grounds of refusal specifically referred to the location of Smith Lane Farm being under the flight path of R2. He also acknowledged that the reference in the letter accompanying the planning application to noise and vibration caused by the use of the road leading to the nearby Vale Wood Farm was “probably untrue” and was “architectural licence”.

36.        Mr Robertson said that aircraft using R2 would sometimes cause vibration that rattled the windows and loosened roof slates. This effect was not always present but did occur regularly, and was most pronounced when aircraft were landing and going over the top of the house. The effect also depended upon the type of aircraft. Mr Robertson, himself a qualified pilot, thought that such vibration might be caused by wake vortices. Mr Robertson also said that occasionally there was a gas like smell, like kerosene, when aircraft landed, which was noticeable in the garden. He accepted that none of his expert witnesses had described either the vibration or the smell and that his was the only evidence that dealt with these physical factors.

37.        The situation after the opening of R2 was radically different to that when just R1 was in use and the noise levels were now much greater. Mr Robertson accepted that he had originally moved to an area that was already affected by a busy airport where R1 was used full time both during the daytime and at night, but although it was noisy when just R1 was in use it had not been the blight that it was now that R2 had opened.

38.        Mr and Mrs Spark had lived in Burnside since 1988. Mr Spark said that before they bought the property they had visited it on numerous occasions and at different times of the day. Although it was noisy in 2000 when just R1 was in use, the situation since R2 opened was completely different and they had not been prepared for the additional noise. Before R2 opened aircraft passed some 150 to 200 metres to the north and were a lot higher as they flew over Smith Lane. Now the aircraft were much lower and closer and it was not possible to sit out in the garden or have a barbecue. It was impossible to maintain a conversation. The backyard was especially noisy. Even in the house, and despite having installed double and secondary glazing (only some of which was funded by Manchester Airport; Mr Spark having applied for a grant in 2005) it was difficult to hear the television or telephone.

39.        Apart from noise Mr Spark said that since R2 opened there was also vibration due to landing aircraft. It did not occur all the time but when aircraft were close sometimes the roof slates would vibrate and the trees in the garden would sway. Mr Spark believed that this was caused by wake vortices. He said that this had resulted in regular (twice a year) and expensive maintenance for broken and displaced slates and ridge tiles, especially on the hipped roof at the front of the house where he had put in extra tabs to support the slates. Mr Spark also said that they were sometimes aware of fumes in the atmosphere which he described as “a very fine haze” and which he thought might be associated with aircraft ditching kerosene. The claimants had also noticed a sticky residue on their washing and on the washing line. In cross-examination Mr Spark said that the fumes were associated more with R1 than R2. He accepted that he had produced no independent expert evidence about vibration or fumes and that his noise and valuation experts had said nothing about these physical factors. Nor had he produced evidence of the work done to the roof such as invoices for the replacement of slates and ridge tiles.

Expert evidence: noise

40.        Mr Sacre explained that the main issue between the noise experts was about the significance of the increased airborne aircraft noise levels following the opening of R2. (He accepted that the impact of any ground noise arising from aircraft taxiing to and from R2 was de minimis.)

41.        From data provided by the compensating authority for actual noise contours in 2000 and 2002 and from the noise evidence presented by Mr Charles on behalf of the compensating authority at the public inquiry in 1994 regarding predicted noise in 2005, Mr Sacre produced the following table of daytime noise levels:

	Daytime noise level, dBLAeq,16h
Address	2000 (Single runway)	2002 (Two runways)	2005 (Predicted)
			Single runway	Two runways
Burnside	64-65	67-68	63	70-71
Smith Lane Farm	63-64	66-67	61-62	70-71

 

42.        Mr Sacre explained that he had tried to take account of all relevant guidance when interpreting what these changes meant. This included:

(i) Department of the Environment PPG24 “Planning and Noise”, September 1994;

(ii) World Health Organisation “Guidelines for Community Noise”, 1999;

(iii)     Volume 11 of “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges”, Department of Transport;

(iv) The White Paper on Aviation – The Future of Air Transport, December 2003;

(v) “Attitude to Noise from Aviation Sources in England” (ANASE), MVA Consultancy for the Secretary of State for Transport, November 2007.

43.        PPG 24 recommended noise exposure categories for new dwellings near existing noise sources. Daytime noise levels between 57 to 66 dBL_Aeq,16h would place a new dwelling in Category B where noise should be taken into account when determining planning applications and, where appropriate, conditions should be imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise. Daytime noise levels between 66-72 dBL_Aeq,16h would place a new dwelling in Category C where planning permission should not normally be granted. Both reference properties were in Category B in 2000 (single runway) and Category C in 2002 (two runways).

44.        The WHO had set guideline values for community noise in outdoor living areas above which annoyance would be expected. The guideline for serious annoyance was equivalent to a free field aircraft noise of 57 dBL_Aeq,16h. WHO emphasised that for intermittent noise it was necessary to take into account the maximum sound pressure as well as the number of events.

45.        The White Paper on Aviation said that to address the impacts of future airport growth, airport operators were expected to offer to purchase those properties suffering from both a high level of noise (69 dBAL_eq or more) and a large increase in noise (3 dBAL_eq or more). Acoustic insulation should be offered where dwellings suffered from a medium to high level of noise (63 dBAL_eq or more) and a large increase in noise.

46.        There was limited research on the impact of changes in the overall aircraft noise level. However research into the impact of changes in road traffic noise, discussed in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, showed that people might find disbenefits when noise changes were as small as 1dBA. Mr Sacre concluded from this that it was reasonable to consider that there could be an impact associated with aircraft noise where the change was as low as 1dBL_Aeq.

47.        In November 2007 the ANASE Study was published. The peer reviews of this study considered that the results were not sufficiently robust to use quantitatively in certain aspects of policy making and it did not form part of Government policy. However, it confirmed that people had become more sensitive to aircraft noise, especially at night time and in the early morning and late evening and that they might be more concerned about the numbers of aircraft rather than the noise level of individual aircraft.

48.        Mr Sacre adopted the following classification for airborne aircraft noise (daytime) that Mr Charles had used in his expert evidence to the 1994 public inquiry:

57dBL_Aeq,16h: onset of low community annoyance

63 dBL_Aeq,16h: moderate community annoyance

69 dBL_Aeq,16h: high community annoyance.

He also adopted the assessment of the impact of changes in L_Aeq that Mr Charles used at that inquiry:

(i) A change of less than 2L_Aeq units would not be discernible to most people;

(ii) Changes between 2 and 3L_Aeq might be discernible but would not usually be significant;

(iii) Changes between 6 and 9L_Aeq would be regarded by most people as significant and noticeable and, especially at around a change of 9, as causing a marked deterioration in their environment.

49.        In his rebuttal report Mr Sacre said that the assessment of the significance of changes in noise levels differed between the parties and he summarised these differences in tabular form. This showed his own view of the significance in the changes in noise levels, taking account of the above guidance, to be:

> 0 to < 1.5dB: minor

1.5dB to < 3dB: moderate

3dB to < 5dB: moderate – significant

5dB to < 7dB: [no entry shown, presumed to be significant]

7dB to < 9dB: significant – substantial

In cross-examination Mr Sacre acknowledged that he had described a change of under 3dB as “moderate” whereas at the 1994 public inquiry changes between 2 to 3 dB had been described as discernible but not usually significant (a description that Mr Sacre had himself adopted as one of the bases for assessing impact, see paragraph 48 above). He further accepted that, in terms of the words used, a change which was less than significant was insignificant. Mr Sacre agreed that he had concentrated upon the predicted noise levels in 2005 and that at the first claim day the purchaser would have had regard to the reasonably expected intensification of the use of R2.

50.        Applying the above criteria to the reference properties, Mr Sacre concluded that at both Smith Lane Farm and Burnside R2 had made a negative impact both at the first claim day and, prospectively, in 2005. He said the latter impact could be considered to be significant to substantial. He did not describe the significance of the negative impact in 2002 in his expert report. In cross-examination he denied that this was because any changes in 2002 were insignificant or that he had concentrated on 2005 because a claim could only succeed in respect of the estimated 2005 noise levels. He said that he would describe the noise level change of plus 3dBA in 2002 as moderately significant.

Expert evidence: valuations

51.        Mr Lawton said that the claim in respect of Wee Bridge Farm had originally been dealt with by Mr Victor Healey who joined Mr Lawton’s firm in September 2005. Mr Healey died in 2006. Mr Lawton had discussed the claim with him and was aware of the settlement figure. Mr Lawton had raised the settlement with both Mr Newton and Mr Yardley and had briefly discussed the possibility of lifting the confidentiality agreement, but the valuation of Wee Bridge Farm was not discussed in detail. He had only seen the property from the outside. It was very close to the reference properties but was a “better, bigger property”. The information in his files suggested that the settlement figure of £198,000 included £22,000 for legal and surveyor’s fees as well as statutory interest from the first claim day. He thought the settlement figure net of interest and fees was £150,000. Although he had factored this settlement into his estimation of the compensation payable for the reference properties it was not the only guidance he had relied upon.

52.        There were few direct comparables for either property and so Mr Lawton considered properties “of a similar nature”. He produced summary tables of these comparable properties for both Burnside (five houses) and Smith Lane Farm (two houses). These gave the address, brief details of house type (with photographs of each), distance from the reference property, the sale price and the date sold. Apart from one house (Ivernia) none of the other comparables was affected by the airport. There were no details of the accommodation or condition of the comparables. Mr Lawton said that he had considered the sale prices in relation to the HBOS and Nationwide house price indices “as a check” but gave no details of his analysis which he accepted was an omission. (In his rebuttal report Mr Lawton said that the use of building society house price indices was “flawed” and of “little value”, except as a “secondary or even tertiary check”.)

53.        Mr Lawton said that he had limited experience of the Mobberley market and that he had been instructed primarily for his knowledge of compulsory purchase. He accepted that Mr Newton had enormous expertise of the local housing market and that he had not attempted the type of detailed analysis that Mr Newton had produced. Nor had he carried out the number or type of internal inspections of comparable properties that Mr Newton had been able to undertake over many years. While he accepted that there were omissions in his analysis he said that his “unaffected” valuations of the reference properties were very similar (within 5%) to those of Mr Newton.

54.        Mr Lawton could not remember why he had not included as a comparable the sale of “Inglewood” (the semi-detached property adjoining Burnside) in October 2001 for £440,000. He said that it was a significantly better property than Burnside with a garden that was larger and a paddock that was immediately accessible. He had not inspected the property but thought, from an exterior view, that it was in similar condition. He said that, reflecting the difference between the properties, Inglewood was worth 5% to 10% more than Burnside.

55.        Mr Lawton concluded that the depreciation in value due to the use (and anticipated intensification of use) of R2 was £95,000 (18.6%) at Burnside and £150,000 (21.4%) at Smith Lane Farm. A summary of his valuations is given in Appendix 1 below.

56.        Mr Cheshire said that he had been instructed in early 2009. He had visited Smith Lane Farm on three occasions and made one internal inspection. He had visited Burnside four times and made two internal inspections. He had been made aware of the Wee Bridge Farm settlement by Mr Lawton and Mr Cheshire’s firm had handled the subsequent sale. He did not know the detailed breakdown of the settlement but was aware of the sort of percentage of the unaffected value that the compensation represented. The compensating authority had stonewalled any discussion about Wee Bridge Farm, but this was just one of several settlements that he was aware of and it did not influence his opinion of the unaffected values of the reference properties.

57.        Mr Cheshire said that in valuing the reference properties the valuers had exchanged views and cited comparables. He had considered these when valuing Burnside and Smith Lane Farm. The two sides were not far apart. He acknowledged that it was unhelpful that he had not produced any analysis of these comparables in his expert report. He had visited the reference properties at a peak time, namely the Easter bank holiday, and had waited from early morning until midday. In his opinion there was a significant difference in the effect of the use of R1 compared to that of R2. He considered that the depreciation in the value of Smith Lane Farm (25%) was greater than that at Burnside (20%) for two reasons. Firstly, Smith Lane Farm was a detached property with an extensive range of outbuildings that would appeal to a “more discerning buyer” and had a narrower market. Potential buyers would be more concerned about R2 and would take a more pessimistic view. Secondly, R2 had blighted the prospects for realising the full development potential of Smith Lane Farm (for instance it would prevent a possible barn conversion).

58.        Mr Newton’s method of analysis in which he compared changes in property value in the “control” village of Goostrey with those in Mobberley before and after the opening of R2, was challenged by Mr Cheshire. He was surprised that Mr Newton had concluded that there had been an overall increase in property values in Mobberley since R2 had opened. Mr Cheshire thought that by including all types of property in his analysis Mr Newton may have presented a distorted picture. It did not take account of the specific problems caused by R2 for larger and more valuable properties such as Smith Lane Farm. Some of Mobberley was not affected by the airport and so the inclusion of these properties diluted the impact of the runway upon those properties that were affected by R2.

59.        Mr Cheshire illustrated this argument in three ways. Firstly, he referred to two comparable sales of affected properties in Mobberley. “Ivernia” was a semi-detached property 1.1km from the end of R2 (2.9km from R1) and 550 metres from its centre line (800 metres from that of R1). It was put on the market in February 2001, at the time R2 became operational, for £399,000 and eventually sold in September 2001 for £330,000, a reduction of 17.3%. Mr Cheshire said that this was clearly a depressed price compared with comparables. In re-examination Mr Cheshire said that the fact that Ivernia required modernisation was already reflected in the asking price. “Ryson”, a detached house, was 2.2km from the end of R2 (4km from R1) and 350 metres from its centre line (750 metres from that of R1). It was bought in 1989 for £234,000 and sold in 2002 for £289,000 an increase of 23% compared with the rise in the Nationwide House Price index of 76.1%. Secondly, Mr Cheshire produced his own analysis of house price movements in Mobberley and five surrounding villages/towns between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006 using what he described as a “more focused” approach. This involved looking only at properties on housing estates:

“where there would be less scope to distort the figures as the result of significant capital improvements unlike properties in rural areas with land which could have supported a significant extension in the intervening period. …”

He also limited his survey to similar house types in any one location, eg all detached or semi-detached, to avoid distorting any price movement. He concluded from this analysis that house price growth in Mobberley had been less than in any of the other villages. Finally, he undertook an exercise in which he examined the average sale prices of all properties in Mobberley and the other control villages/towns in 2000, 2005 and 2007. He added the percentage increases from 2000 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2007 and concluded that the increase in prices in Mobberley was less than that in the five control areas.

60.        In cross-examination Mr Cheshire accepted that Mr Newton had more experience (but not considerably more) than he did in the local housing market. He agreed that Mr Newton’s approach to the analysis of comparables was a proper method but noted that there was little difference between them in terms of the unaffected values. He accepted that the properties that he had used in preparing his comparison between Mobberley and the five control villages/towns were not comparable to either Burnside or Smith Lane Farm, but he explained that the purpose of this analysis was to act as a check and to demonstrate the errors in Mr Newton’s analysis.

61.        Mr Cheshire concluded that the depreciation in value due to the use (and anticipated intensification of use) of R2 was £105,000 (20%) at Burnside and £187,500 (25%) at Smith Lane Farm. A summary of his valuations is given in Appendix 1 below.

The case for the compensating authority

Expert evidence: noise

62.        Mr Charles adopted the same criteria in respect of the significance of daytime airborne aircraft noise as he had used at the 1994 public inquiry except he said that 57L_Aeq,_16h was the level at which there was onset of significant (rather than low) community annoyance (following advice issued by Defra in April 2005). He also referred to the guidance concerning daytime noise contained in PPG24 where it stated that a change of three 3dBA was the minimum perceptible under normal conditions with a change of 10dBA corresponding roughly to the halving or doubling of the loudness of a sound. He noted that the inspector’s report into the R2 public inquiry made the following observations at paragraph 26.17:

“… A 3dB change is discernible but insignificant, a 6-9dB change is noticeable and an increase of over 9dB would cause a marked deterioration in the environment.”

63.        After considering the noise contours as they existed in 2000, 2002 and (as predictions) in 2005, Mr Charles went on to analyse the effects of that noise on the reference properties and concluded that:

“… For Smith Lane Farm and Burnside discernible differences occurred between 2000 and 2002, the Claim Assessment Date, and large differences were forecast to occur in 2005 comparing conditions with and without the second runway.”

64.        Mr Charles did not accept Mr Sacre’s method of classifying changes in noise levels (see paragraph 49 above). Mr Charles considered that the agreed noise increase of 3dB at the first claim day at both Burnside and Smith Lane Farm was discernible but insignificant. The predicted noise level increases in 2005 (7dB at Burnside and 8dB at Smith Lane Farm) were said by Mr Charles to be a significant adverse change.

65.        In cross-examination Mr Charles agreed that the noise contours did not distinguish which runway was in use and accepted that there were no specific contours for the noise levels when aircraft were landing on R2.

Expert evidence: valuations

66.        Mr Newton explained that he had undertaken value monitoring exercises on behalf of Manchester Airport plc since August 1992 and continued to do so. He presented a detailed analysis of these monitoring exercises and produced average values for dwellings in 32 villages and towns from 1998 to 2005. The averages included all types of dwelling, for all purposes of valuation (not just sales), for all conditions and size of property and for all levels of amenity (eg with and without central heating, double glazing, garage etc). Mr Newton considered that the results of this analysis provided a more accurate picture of how values had changed in those village and towns than could be obtained by using published property price indices.

67.        Using this analysis he said that values in the 32 villages and towns as a whole had risen strongly from 1998 to 2002 and had then risen more slowly in 2003 and 2004 before falling in 2005. He also produced more specific data for Mobberley (affected by R2) and Goostrey (unaffected by R2) which he adopted as the “control” village against which Mobberley was compared. This showed that in 1998 the average value of residential property in Mobberley was very similar to (but lower than) that in Goostrey. From 1999 to 2001 values in Mobberly continued to be lower but between 2002 to 2005 values in Mobberley were higher than those in Goostrey in every year except 2004.

68.        In addition to this general analysis, Mr Newton also considered specific comparables for the reference properties. He analysed each comparable using a pro forma analysis sheet. This allowed for adjustments for the sale date (using time value changes taken from his overall analysis of property movements in the 32 villages and towns), location, type of property, condition, size of plot, age and 18 other individual factors.

69.        Mr Newton identified five comparables for Burnside. Two of these, Ivernia and Inglewood (which adjoins Burnside), were affected by R2. The other three were located in areas that were unaffected by the new runway. Three comparables were identified for Smith Lane Farm, all of which were located in areas unaffected by R2. Having adjusted all of these comparables Mr Newton took averages to arrive at the unaffected and affected values of the reference properties.

70.        Mr Newton explained that he had not been aware of the settlement at Wee Bridge Farm until the start of the hearing. He said that it contained information that was confidential and not privy to him and that it was not his position to enquire about it. It had been raised in meetings with the claimants’ valuers but not discussed. He had provided an initial valuation but he was not instructed to negotiate and had left that to his client and its solicitors.

71.        Mr Newton was asked about a valuation report in respect of Wee Bridge Farm that he had prepared in August 1999 and in which he said that:

“The second runway will be nearer to the property than the existing runway and therefore noise disturbance together with other pollution problems will inevitably increase as will the number of aircraft using the runway.

There has been some resistance to the sale of property in the general area because of the expansion of Manchester Airport and the proximity of the airport is therefore likely to have an adverse effect on the future value and saleability of the property.”

He explained that things had changed since the report was written and that the above comments reflected the market’s fear of the unknown. Once R2 opened people became aware of the new flight paths and could hear and see the actual effects of the use of the new runway. Their fears were therefore allayed; reading about the prospective effects of the new runway was not the same as “seeing it in the flesh”.

72.        The alternative analysis that Mr Cheshire put forward in his rebuttal report was criticised by Mr Newton. He said that it was based upon an inadequate number of transactions, lacked detail and relied upon an average of averages. He thought the exercise had no value at all.

73.        In cross-examination Mr Newton accepted that, when considering the impact of the use of R2 on the reference properties, he had not explicitly referred in his expert report to aircraft taking off but only to landing aircraft. However, his valuation took account of both departing and landing aircraft. He had not referred to noise in the section of his report setting out his valuation opinion which, with hindsight, he accepted was a failing although he said that he was aware of the relevance of the issue, had seen Mr Charles’ report and had made general reference to noise in his report.

74.        Mr Newton concluded that the depreciation in value due to the use (and anticipated intensification of use) of R2 was £40,000 (7.8%) at Burnside and £70,000 (9.7%) at Smith Lane Farm. A summary of his valuations is given in Appendix 1 below.

75.        Mr Yardley said that he had not “sought to place too much reliance” upon actual sale prices in rural Mobberley during the immediate pre-R2 period. He thought these might not be good evidence of pre-scheme values because of a vigorous campaign of opposition to the new runway which effectively may have blighted the local market at that time. He considered that values in Mobberley reflected the general trend in the north west of England of strong market growth during the early 2000s. He said that the strength of the market would be a relevant factor to a prospective purchaser who would realise that a reduced bid might prove fatal to their chances of success.

76.        The main physical factor was noise and Mr Yardley said that it was hard to believe that any other factor was anything other than very occasional and minor. He said that he regarded the technical noise information as an important, but not the only, aspect of the valuation process. Another important factor was the market perception of noise nuisance. Apart from the joint inspection with the other valuation experts Mr Yardley had made further external inspections of the reference properties at times when aircraft were taking off towards, and landing from, the south west and when R2 was both in use and out of use. He noticed that aircraft tended to land and depart in clusters and speculated that a potential purchaser might only make a single visit to the property which could well be at one of the quieter times. He also bore in mind that Mobberley was already affected by aircraft noise before the opening of R2.

77.        Mr Yardley took account of Mr Charles’ technical data on noise but thought that a prospective purchaser’s view of the potential intensification of noise would be “somewhat less sophisticated”. He said it:

“may well amount to nothing more than striking a mental balance between an underlying belief that air travel would be likely to increase in the years following the valuation date and a similar underlying belief that, with technological progress and stricter environmental controls, aircraft would be likely to become quieter in the future.”

78.        Mr Yardley valued the two reference properties against this background. He valued Smith Lane Farm by a comparative reference to 3 of the other (then) lead properties (subsequently settled), namely Brook Edge, Four Gables and Swallowfield. The valuation of Swallowfield was based on a comparison with the other two lead properties as well as the sale in August 2001 of Inglewood, the semi-detached property adjoining Burnside. The valuation of Four Gables was based upon a comparison with Brook Edge which in turn was based upon the sale of Lee Cottage, Slade Lane, Mobberley which had been sold in May 2003 and again in August 2003. Burnside was valued by reference to the sale of Inglewood in August 2001.

79.        In cross-examination Mr Yardley said that he was not aware of the settlement figure at Wee Bridge Farm before the hearing and that he had not enquired about it. So far as he was concerned it had been a commercial decision taken by his client and did not affect his valuation of the reference properties. It had never figured in his thinking.

80.        Mr Yardley’s valuations gave the affected value of the two reference properties and he then considered whether there was any difference between those and their value if unaffected by R2. He noted that noise levels had increased by 3dB after R2 was opened which the noise experts had said was discernible. He agreed that the noise from R2 was greater than that from R1. But Mr Yardley thought that the noise from R1 was also very noticeable and that the noise from R2 did not seem to be any more intrusive than at the other lead property locations that he had considered. He therefore concluded, in respect of Smith Lane Farm and Burnside, that neither property had been depreciated due to physical factors caused by the use of R2. He had not explicitly factored in the likely intensification of use but said that because his valuations were of the properties as affected by R2 the market values would reflect the prospect of such intensification. In support of his valuations Mr Yardley also produced evidence of sales in the locality of the reference properties which had sold both before and after R2 opened. He analysed such “dual comparables” and concluded that there was no step change in value that could be attributed to the use of R2. Mr Yardley’s valuations are summarised in Appendix 1.

Discussion

81.        What falls to be determined in these two references is the depreciation, if any, in the value of the claimants’ interests in land that would not have been caused but for the use of the new R2. This requires the Tribunal to consider two things; firstly, the use of R2 as it existed on the first claim day and, secondly, any intensification that might then have been reasonably expected of the use of R2 in the state in which it was on that date. The use of R2 must be considered as part of an airport operation that continues to use R1 (exclusively so at night time) and the prospective intensification of the use of R2 must also be calibrated against the prospective intensification in the use of R1 had R2 not been constructed.

82.        To be compensatable any depreciation in value must be due to physical factors caused by the use of R2. In these references the physical factors that are relied upon by the claimants are noise, vibration, fumes and the discharge on to the land in respect of which the claims are made of any solid or liquid substance. It is not disputed that the most important of these physical factors, by far, is noise. Mr Walker submitted that the other factors had not been addressed by expert evidence or substantiated by the claimants themselves. Mr Ranatunga argued that there is no requirement to provide expert evidence to make good a claim under the 1973 Act and that the Tribunal has accepted uncorroborated evidence in the past. He referred to King and Preselo v Dorset County Council [1998] RVR 35 in which the President, His Honour Judge Marder QC, said at 47:

“It should not be thought that the Tribunal will disregard expert technical evidence from acoustics specialists as unimportant or irrelevant. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that the task of the Tribunal is to determine the depreciation (if any) in value of the claimants’ interest. This is a matter for the market, and as counsel for the claimants observed the bidder in a residential market does not have an acoustic expert nor even a noise meter, at his elbow when making a bid.

…

… Mr Preselo described the noise as ‘very disturbing and inescapable’. Mrs King referred to it as ‘a racket against which we have no protection’. In my judgment it is subjective impressions of this kind which would more strongly influence the potential purchaser than would the scientific calculations of acoustics experts.

Furthermore, both Mr Preselo and Mrs King gave unchallenged evidence of other physical factors affecting their properties. I am satisfied that both properties have in consequence of the scheme been subjected to vibration, …”

83.        I am satisfied that the evidence of Mr Robertson and Mr Spark about vibration, fumes and the discharge of substances should carry weight. Their evidence in this respect was balanced and reasonable and they did not seek to exaggerate the impact of these physical factors. However, I do not think that the effect of fumes or the discharge of substances is sufficiently regular or material to cause any depreciation in the value of the reference properties.

84.        Both Mr Robertson and Mr Spark said that, on occasion, they experienced vibration as aircraft came in to land. Both witnesses said they thought this might be due to wake vortices. None of the expert witnesses experienced this effect (although apparently none of them had been inside either house when aircraft were landing) and no evidence was adduced in support of the claim that damage had been caused to roof tiles and slates. But in my judgment, the claimants have fairly and accurately reported the occasional incidence of vortices from heavy landing aircraft passing 92 metres almost directly above the reference properties. This is a physical factor that a prospective purchaser could reasonably foresee and one which might influence, albeit marginally, the price he would be prepare to pay. (The vibration due to these vortices, unlike the existence of fumes, was not a factor that either claimant associated with the use of R1.)

85.        Both Mr Spark and Mr Robertson referred to the effect of low flying aircraft landing on R2. Mr Robertson said that large aircraft coming overhead were “like an eclipse”, while Mr Spark described “hitting the deck” the first time he saw an aircraft coming over his property to land on R2 in February 2001. But the mere presence of low flying aircraft, as distinct from the physical factors that such aircraft cause, is not compensatable.

Noise

86.        The noise experts agreed the change in noise levels between 2000 (single runway operation) and 2002 (two runway operation) and in the change in predicted noise levels for 2005 between single and two runway operation based upon the information available at the 1994 public inquiry. The only difference between the experts was in the interpretation of the impact of the change between 2000 and 2002. Mr Sacre described the change (eventually) as “moderately significant”, while Mr Charles said it was discernible but insignificant, the expression used in the inspector’s report into the R2 public inquiry in 1994. I do not accept Mr Walker’s submission that if a change is not significant it must be insignificant. In my opinion it is not helpful to describe the effect of the change in noise levels in such discrete and absolute terms. The evidence that Mr Charles relied upon at both the 1994 public inquiry and at this hearing said that changes between 2 and 3L_Aeq might be discernible but would not usually be significant. I do not consider it reasonable to describe the change of 3dB at the reference properties as being insignificant. The Tribunal in King and Preselo held that subjective impressions would have a greater effect upon potential purchasers than an objective consideration of the results of acoustic analysis alone. That case was concerned with a new distributor road rather than the alteration of existing public works such as Manchester Airport. In the present references the evidence of the noise experts is particularly important in establishing the noise environment before R2 was built, once it was opened and what it would be, and would have been, in the future. Nevertheless I have had regard to the subjective views of the claimants. Mr Robertson and Mr Spark accepted that their properties were already noisy before R2 but they both said that the situation was much worse once R2 had opened. Although my site inspection was necessarily limited in scope and time (for instance I saw no landing aircraft), in my opinion there is a material difference in perceptible noise at the reference properties between aircraft taking off from R1 and R2. I therefore accept Mr Sacre’s description of the sound change between 2000 and 2002 as being moderately significant.

87.        There is no dispute about the impact of a prospective increase by 2005 of at least 7dB at Burnside and at least 8dB at Smith Lane Farm. Both experts agreed that this would be a significant adverse change.

Valuation

88.        I turn next to the valuation evidence. I said at the hearing that, of the four valuation experts, Mr Yardley was the odd man out for three reasons. Firstly, he was the only expert who thought there was no depreciation in the value of the reference properties as a result of the opening of R2. Secondly, he was the only expert who was not able to agree the unaffected value of those properties; the other three valuers agreed that the unaffected values at Burnside and Smith Lane Farm could be compromised at £515,000 and £725,000 respectively (see Appendix 1). Thirdly, he was the only expert valuer who had no direct experience of selling properties on the market (although he correctly pointed out that Mr Lawton’s evidence had been adduced for his compulsory purchase, rather than market, expertise). None of this makes Mr Yardley’s conclusions wrong, but it does invite careful scrutiny of his approach.

89.        Such scrutiny reveals Mr Yardley’s heavy reliance, when valuing Smith Lane Farm, upon the sale of Lee Cottage in May 2003 (£380,000) and again in August 2003 (£420,000). He first used this comparable to value Brook Edge in Slade Lane, a lead property reference that was settled before the present hearing, and then compared Brook Edge with Smith Lane Farm. Mr Yardley said that he adjusted the two sales of Lee Cottage to the first claim day to give a value “in the order of £300,000”. He did not say how this adjustment was made. He continued:

“My understanding is that Lee Cottage was in need of a substantial refurbishment and I would expect the February 2002 value of Brook Edge, therefore, to significantly exceed the figure of £300,000.”

He adopted a value (as affected by R2) for Brook Edge of £410,000 as at the first claim day, which he said devalued to £1,971 per sqm. During questions from the Tribunal it was apparent that Mr Yardley had little information about Lee Cottage and appeared to have little or no personal knowledge about the transactions other than the bare financial details. There was no analysis of the likely cost of refurbishment. From this rather flimsy foundation Mr Yardley proceeded to construct a series of valuations, each one cross-referenced to the others. Thus Four Gables was compared with Brook Edge and, because it was larger, Mr Yardley adopted the lower rate of £1,650 per sqm. Mr Yardley’s valuations of Brook Edge and Four Gables pointed, he said:

“to a general range in values which devalues to between £1,700 - £2,000 per sqm.”

90.        Next, Mr Yardley valued Swallowfield which he said was inferior in layout and amenity to both Brook Edge and Four Gables (which were both detached houses whereas Swallowfield was semi-detached). He also referred to the sale of Inglewood (the semi-detached house adjoining Burnside) in August 2001 for £440,000 and adjusted this to £425,000 (subsequently amended to £450,000) as at the first claim day. This devalued to £1,465 per sqm (£1,551 per sqm as amended). He said that Swallowfield was inferior to Inglewood and valued it at £1,400 per sqm to give £415,000 as the value as at the first claim day.

91.        Mr Yardley compared Smith Lane Farm to Brook Edge and Four Gables, both of which he said enjoyed superior locations, and to Swallowfield, which he said enjoyed a comparable location but was slightly inferior in overall quality. He concluded:

“My best judgment is to picture the value of the farmhouse [Smith Lane Farm] at, say £1,800 per sqm.”

Applying this rate to the main farmhouse and £1,250 per sqm to the residential accommodation in the outbuildings, gave him (in its final version) an affected value for Smith Lane Farm of £660,000.

92.        I also note that Mr Yardley submitted a supplementary expert report in which he amended the affected values of Swallowfield (to £405,000, a decrease of 2.5%) and Brook Edge (to £425,000, an increase of 3.7%). These adjustments were made after meetings with the other valuation experts but were “purely for the purpose of reducing the number of unagreed issues before the Tribunal”. Mr Yardley does not say whether, or, if so, how, these adjustments would affect his valuation of Smith Lane Farm.

93.        In valuing Burnside Mr Yardley relied solely upon the comparable sale of Inglewood for £440,000 and which he adjusted to £450,000 as at the valuation date. He said the properties were effectively the same (they are the two halves of a semi-detached pair) and therefore he also took the value of Burnside at £450,000. Mr Yardley adjusted Inglewood (and his other comparables) for time using the Nationwide Building Society House Price Index. At the hearing Mr Yardley said that applying this index to the base figure of £440,000 produced a figure of approximately £463,000 which he had “rounded down” to £450,000. I would have expected Mr Yardley to round to £465,000 or £460,000 and I do not consider that rounding down by £13,000 is justified.

94.        Mr Yardley said that he had not sought to rely upon direct market evidence in support of his valuation opinions, a statement that is contrary to his reliance upon the sales of Lee Cottage and Inglewood, but which may refer to his opinion that the affected and unaffected values are the same. As a secondary approach Mr Yardley considered 11 properties in Mobberley, each of which had been sold twice, once before and again after the opening of R2. He concluded from this analysis that there was no “step change” in values at the first claim day or at the date of opening of R2. At the hearing he agreed that two of the properties should be disregarded and he had slight doubts about a third. (He has also included, wrongly in my opinion, Lee Cottage. Both sales of this property took place after R2 opened). He made council tax investigations, inquiries of the local authority, examined sales particulars and inspected those properties listed in Mr Cheshire’s rebuttal report in an attempt to ensure that the properties were not materially altered between the two sales.

95.        Looking at Mr Yardley’s evidence overall I am not satisfied that it is sufficiently rigorous in the analysis of comparables to rely upon his affected valuations of Smith Lane Farm and Burnside. His lack of market experience by comparison to the other experts is also a relevant factor. However, his opinions about how a prospective purchaser would value these properties at the first claim day are pertinent and I return to these below.

96.        Mr Walker submitted that:

“… with rounding, [Mr Yardley’s] affected figures were close to Mr Newton’s.”

That comment needs to be considered against Mr Walker’s submissions regarding a similar argument made on behalf of the claimants’ valuers:

“The cry by and on behalf of those valuers that the shortcomings in their approach does not matter because there was a measure of agreement in respect of unaffected values is to entirely miss the point. Each expert was supposed to assist the Tribunal with assessing depreciation and their professionalism and approach is crucial to weighing up their unaffected and affected values.”

So it is also with Mr Yardley’s evidence. The fact that it produces affected values close to those adopted by Mr Newton is, of itself, not relevant unless Mr Yardley’s approach is sound. I do not consider that it is for the reasons that I have given.

97.        The problem with the claimants’ expert valuation evidence is the lack of detail or analysis. Mr Lawton produced a summary table of comparables which lacks any but the most basic information. At times it was contradictory (for example in the approach taken to the use of property indices described in paragraph 52 above). Mr Lawton ignored the sale of Inglewood in August 2001 in his report. This was the most obvious comparable for the valuation of Burnside as these properties formed a semi-detached pair. Mr Cheshire may have considered comparables (he said he had) but not to produce them or refer to them in his report was, by his own admission, unhelpful. He cited the sale of Ivernia and Ryson as supporting his view that prices in Mobberley had increased less than property indices suggested they should have done. All he said about Ivernia was that it was sold for 17.3% less than its asking price and was clearly a depressed price compared with comparables. I gain nothing from that comment in the absence of any evidence to corroborate it. Ryson was bought in 1989 and sold in 2002. There are no details about what had happened to the property in the meantime or whether the first sale was in line with the market at that time (Mr Newton said that it was not). In the absence of any such details Mr Cheshire’s attribution of slow growth due to R2 must remain speculative.

98.        Mr Cheshire’s use of a “more focused” approach to calibrating price movements in Mobberley against those in villages and towns unaffected by R2, while not using properties similar to either reference property, was an attempt to minimise any value effects caused by major capital improvements in the intervening years. There is no certainty that this was achieved since improvements to houses on estates can also affect capital values, eg the installation of central heating, double glazing, a new kitchen or bathroom etc. However if the sample size is large enough this effect is likely to be common to all the villages and towns examined. But, as Mr Newton pointed out, the numbers of properties that have gone into Mr Cheshire’s analysis are, in some instances, very small and inadequate (just a single sale in one case). The analysis lacks detail and, in my opinion, is not reliable. Mr Cheshire’s other table, showing value changes in villages and towns by post code (rather than by street) is also flawed. As Mr Newton points out it is based upon an average of the average values per street and provides no information about the number or type of transactions. Nor did Mr Cheshire attempt to explain apparent anomalies. For instance Over Peover saw an increase of 29.72% in average prices from 2000 to 2005 compared with an increase of 40.43% in Mobberley. This covers the period when R2 came into operation. But from 2005 to 2007 values in Over Peover increased by 53.53% compared to 20.26% in Mobberley. In the absence of more detail I place little weight on Mr Cheshire’s comparative analysis.

99.        Of the four valuation experts I place the most weight on the evidence of Mr Newton. His more extensive local market knowledge was acknowledged by Mr Lawton and Mr Cheshire. He has monitored values in the vicinity of Manchester Airport for 18 years and has maintained a substantial record of transactions and valuations for various purposes. The analyses that he included in his expert and rebuttal reports were detailed and well supported. But they were not without fault in my opinion. I give three examples.

100.    Firstly, his comparative analysis of price movements in Mobberley, Goostrey and the other villages and towns for which he had collected data did not discriminate between type, size, or condition of the dwelling or between transactions and valuations for various purposes. It is a blunt instrument.

101.    Secondly, Mr Newton’s reliance upon detailed pro-forma analysis sheets led at times to results which, had he stood back from the process, should have been obvious to him were of little assistance. At the hearing I illustrated this problem by reference to his analysis of 202 Main Road, Goostrey, one of the comparables that Mr Newton used to value Burnside. This sold in July 2001 for £198,950 which he adjusted to the first claim day using his own bespoke price index. There then followed a total of 12 further adjustments including an adjustment of £60,000 for the three extra bedrooms in Burnside and £32,000 in respect of Burnside’s pasture land. Mr Newton made a 15% adjustment for the fact that Burnside’s condition was “much better” but then made further, individual, adjustments for the “quality” of the kitchen and bathroom as well as an adjustment for “better” decoration, all of which suggests an element of double counting. The result of analysing this comparable was a determined value for Burnside of £406,000 which was 86% greater than the time adjusted value of 202 Main Road. I do not consider these two properties can be considered comparable in any meaningful sense. Mr Newton used another four comparables to value Burnside. The difference between their time adjusted value and the derived value of Burnside varied by 36% to 44%, except for Inglewood, the adjoining semi-detached house, which varied by 4%. Adjustments of this magnitude throw doubt on the usefulness of most of these other comparables.

102.    Using the same technique, Mr Newton uses three comparables to value Smith Lane Farm. The difference between the comparables and the reference property are much smaller with all four properties said to be in the same condition. This results in much smaller adjustments and therefore smaller differences (11% to 14%) between the time adjusted value of the comparables and the derived value of Smith Lane Farm. But again a detailed examination of Mr Newton’s figures reveals some apparent mistakes. Thus in his analysis of Bramble Cottage, Allostock, one of the three comparables that he relies upon to value Smith Lane Farm, he says that the relative location of Mobberley is minus 10%, ie Mobberley is the lesser of the two locations. But when adjusting for this factor Mr Newton then adds 10% to the value of Bramble Cottage rather than subtracts it. When adjusting the other comparables used to value Burnside and Smith Lane Farm, Mr Newton has allowed a spot figure per room where there are differences in the amount of accommodation between the comparables and the reference properties. These spot figures are not always the same for reasons that Mr Newton explained at the hearing. But in the case of Bramble Cottage Mr Newton adjusts for differences in living rooms and bedrooms by using percentage figures (minus 10% and +5% respectively). No explanation is given for this and it results in adjustments, for instance £67,500 for the living rooms, which are bigger than any other adjustments he makes and which inevitably cast doubt on the accuracy of the analysis. Mr Newton also makes a £30,000 adjustment for the “annex” at Smith Lane Farm as well as separate adjustments for the residential parts of the outbuildings, the swimming pool and barn. In my opinion there is a suspicion of double counting. (It is not clear how Mr Newton has adjusted for the separate cottage accommodation at Bramble Cottage.)

103.    Another of Mr Newton’s comparables is Boundary Farm which was sold at auction in June 2001. The particulars describe it as having “potential for modernisation and further improvement.” Mr Newton says this is in the same condition as Smith Lane Farm. But he also describes Smith Lane Farm as being in the same condition as Bramble Cottage, although the sale particulars describe that property as “fully renovated”, “stunning” and having been the “subject of a major programme of updating and improvement” that affords “accommodation which is appointed throughout to the highest possible standard.” I cannot see how Smith Lane Farm can be in the same condition as both these properties at the same time. Furthermore Mr Newton does not mention in his analysis that Boundary Farm was sold with the benefit of planning permission granted in April 2001 for the conversion of former farm buildings into a four bedroom house.

104.    The final example of a flaw in Mr Newton’s analysis is found at paragraph 12.14 of his report:

“I have taken the average of the three adjusted comparables to arrive at the unaffected value of each property.”

This comment can only obviously apply to the valuation of Smith Lane Farm where Mr Newton analysed three comparables all of which were unaffected by R2. The average of those three adjusted comparables is £773,000 (rounded). In his report Mr Newton records the figure as £720,000. When I put this anomaly to Mr Newton he said that he had applied his experience and judgment when looking at the results and adjusted the valuation downwards accordingly. So at the end of a very comprehensive and detailed analysis Mr Newton does not rely upon the results that he obtains but makes an unexplained deduction of £53,000 (7%) to give a result that is £20,000 less than the lowest figure derived from any of his three comparables.

105.    Of the five comparables that Mr Newton uses to value Burnside, two were affected by R2 (Inglewood and Ivernia). That leaves three unaffected comparables, the average of which is £452,000. If one omits, as I think is right, the comparable at 202 Main Road, Goostrey, the average of the remaining two comparables is £475,000. Mr Newton says that the unaffected value of Burnside is £515,000. I cannot derive that figure from Mr Newton’s comparable analysis and I presume that he has again applied his valuation judgment to the end result. This time he has increased (rather than decreased) that result by £40,000 (£63,000 if one includes No.202) or 8.5% (14%). This adjustment is unexplained.

106.    At the hearing Mr Newton said that the affected values that he has taken for the reference properties were also based upon the analysis of comparables. It is difficult to see how. At Burnside Mr Newton used two affected comparables, Ivernia and Inglewood. These give an average adjusted valuation of £482,500 (a higher figure than the average of his unaffected comparables). Mr Newton adopted the figure of £475,000, presumably using his experience and judgment. During the hearing Mr Newton said that Inglewood had been sold again on 25 October 2004 for £695,000 (with the benefit of a refitted bathroom) which he adjusted to give £505,000 as at the first claim day. This suggests an increase in the average value rather than a decrease. Mr Newton did not cite any affected comparables for Smith Lane Farm in his report, although at the hearing he said he had referred to Ivernia and Inglewood and other properties that he had inspected but had not included as direct comparables. However there was no analysis of how he had arrived at his affected value of Smith Lane Farm of £650,000 and that figure is effectively unsupported.

Conclusions

107.    I reach the following conclusions about the background and context of these claims:

(i) Burnside and Smith Lane Farm were already located in a noisy environment before R2. In 2000 the daytime noise levels were 64dB and 63dB respectively, a level that placed them in the category of moderate community annoyance.

(ii) By the first claim day these noise levels had increased to 67dB and 66dB respectively. That increase was, in my opinion, moderately significant.

(iii) Night time flights were, and continue to be, operated exclusively from R1.

(iv) A prospective purchaser would probably not have viewed the property before and after the opening of R2.

(v) A prospective purchaser is unlikely to have made a single visit to the property given the proximity of the airport. It is reasonable to assume that they would have made a number of visits (even if only stopping outside the property) and to ensure that they experienced aircraft landing as well as taking off.

(vi) Mr Yardley’s suggestion that a prospective purchaser would “strike a mental balance” between an underlying belief that air travel would increase against a similar underlying belief that aircraft would become quieter in future is speculative. The noise experts agreed that, as at the first claim day, the information available to the prospective purchaser would be that by 2005 the noise levels would increase to 70dB at each property, taking the properties into an area of high community annoyance.

(vii) A prospective purchaser was likely to have been new to the scene and not in the same position as the claimants who had lived in the properties for many years and were therefore able to make direct comparisons between the before and after R2 environment. A prospective purchaser would only be aware (unless they already lived in an area affected by the airport) of the noise as it was actually experienced on the first claim day.

(viii) There was a reasonable expectation at the first claim day that the compensating authority would continue to operate limitations on the use of R2 in addition to the basic operating hours of 06:00 to 22:00.

(ix) The actual noise levels in 2005 and 2007 are irrelevant.

(x)        Prospective purchasers may have been aware of the possibility of wake turbulence (vortices) from low flying heavy aircraft and were likely to have raised questions with the vendors about this phenomenon.

(xi)      I accept Mr Yardley’s observation that the strength of the residential property market at the first claim day is a relevant factor. Purchasers were, in my opinion, less able to negotiate a price discount in the competitive market conditions that prevailed at that time.

108.    I have considered the valuation evidence against this background. I gain little assistance from the settlement at Wee Bridge Farm. Neither Mr Newton nor Mr Yardley was aware of its terms until the hearing and it played no part in their valuation. Mr Lawton said that he had “factored it into” his valuation but made no specific reference to how, and to what extent, this had been done. Mr Cheshire said that he was aware of the settlement but that he did not know the breakdown of it until recently and was not influenced by it. All the expert valuers agreed that the terms of the settlement at Wee Bridge Farm had not been discussed at their meetings. The settlement was not based upon a recommendation made by the compensating authority’s experts but was a commercial decision taken directly by the client and reflected its judgment of the risks and costs of pursuing the reference (the first of its kind in relation to R2) before the Lands Tribunal. There is no agreed breakdown of the total settlement figure of £198,000. I attach little weight to this settlement in making my decision.

109.    There are problems with the evidence of all of the expert valuers which I have considered in detail above. The expert with the greatest amount of local knowledge is Mr Newton and I was impressed with the quantity and depth of transactional and other evidence that he had collected over many years and which he sought to analyse to give an objective opinion of value. But his analysis was flawed in several respects and his results were ultimately heavily modified by the application of his professional judgment by means of a “stand back and look” final stage in his valuation; a stage to which he drew no attention in his written reports. I think that his most reliable evidence was of the unaffected value of Smith Lane Farm where he analysed three comparables. The difference in value between these comparables and the reference property were not great. But I do not accept Mr Newton’s £53,000 final adjustment. The whole point of Mr Newton’s detailed analysis is lost by making such a large end allowance. It was not satisfactorily explained and gives a result that is below any of the adjusted comparables.

110.    I have little confidence in Mr Newton’s analysis of his material given the number of problems that I have identified with it above. Most importantly Mr Newton did not do what his report said he had done, namely taken the average value of his adjusted comparables. Mr Walker placed great emphasis at the hearing on the amount of evidence produced by Mr Newton. Indeed, the quantity of that evidence is striking, but unless it is supported by a rigorous and reliable qualitative analysis its value is undermined. It seems as though Mr Newton is not satisfied with his own results, hence the end adjustments.

111.    Mr Lawton and Mr Cheshire both made the mistake of not producing the comparables upon which they relied. I have little more to guide me than their stated opinions of value. But I am aware that the expert valuers have met to discuss the relevant valuations and that three of them (the exception being Mr Yardley) have agreed the unaffected values of both Burnside and Smith Lane Farm. In both cases Mr Newton’s valuation (as adjusted by his end allowance) falls between those of Mr Lawton and Mr Cheshire. Mr Yardley did not undertake a separate assessment of the unaffected values. Instead he produced affected values based upon (limited) comparables and then asserted, for the reasons he gave, that there was no depreciation in value because of R2. Hence there can be no difference between the affected and unaffected valuations which renders otiose the need for a separate unaffected valuation. I do not accept that this is an appropriate way to assess any depreciation in the value of the reference properties. It makes the need for any valuation redundant because Mr Yardley simply asserts that R2 had no affect upon values. This is a method without evidence and depends upon a series of assumptions and assertions that I have considered, and rejected, above. They are not adequately supported by evidence.

112.    I do not find Mr Yardley’s approach to unaffected values to be helpful and his conclusions are at variance with those of the other three expert valuers. In the light of my rejection of Mr Yardley’s valuations and despite my reservations about the other experts’ analyses, I conclude that the unaffected values of Burnside and Smith Lane Farm are, in the absence of better or more compelling evidence, those figures which were agreed by Mr Newton, Mr Lawton and Mr Cheshire, namely £515,000 and £725,000 respectively.

113.    The best evidence of affected values is, in my opinion, the sale of Inglewood in October 2001 and Ivernia in August 2001. It is difficult to see how the sale of the semi-detached house adjoining Burnside, sold some nine months after R2 opened, has not been the primary piece of evidence in all of the experts’ valuations. Mr Newton’s analysis of the transaction (£480,000) is, in my opinion, reasonable. I can see no evidential basis for either Mr Lawton’s (£415,000) or Mr Cheshire’s (£420,000) valuations. Those valuations appear to depend upon the experts’ respective views of what the depreciation should be rather than what it actually was and may have been influenced by the Wee Bridge Farm settlement. Mr Newton’s analysis of Ivernia, although supportive of his figure derived from the sale of Inglewood, was more speculative and required 11 adjustments apart from the time adjustment. He makes a 15% allowance for the “much better” condition of Burnside compared with Ivernia but also adds £5,000 for its “much better” decoration. This appears to be double counting and disallowing the £5,000 reduces the analysed value of Burnside using the sale of Ivernia to £480,000, the same figure that is derived from the sale of Inglewood. Mr Newton rounds this downwards to £475,000, which favours the claimant, and given the uncertainties of the analytical process, is, in my opinion, a reasonable conclusion. Mr Yardley says the affected value of Burnside is lower at £450,000. But I have considerable reservations about his valuation method and I prefer Mr Newton’s evidence in this regard. In my opinion the affected value of Burnside is £475,000 and the depreciation in value due to R2 is £40,000 or approximately 7.5%. There is no evidence to support the much higher figures of 18.6% and 20% adopted by Mr Lawton and Mr Cheshire respectively.

114.    There is no direct evidence upon which to value Smith Lane Farm as affected by the use of R2. Mr Newton again says that he relied upon the sale of Inglewood and Ivernia but he did not explain how or why. These properties are not comparable to Smith Lane Farm. I therefore rely upon an assessment of the effect of R2 upon Burnside relative to its effect on Smith Lane Farm. The two properties are close to each other but Smith Lane Farm is closer to the extended centre line of R2 and, based upon my site inspection, aircraft taking off pass virtually overhead. I think Smith Lane Farm is worse affected. In my opinion the depreciation in the value of Smith Lane Farm due to the use of R2 is 10% of its unaffected value, or £72,500. Mr Lawton (21.4%) and Mr Cheshire (25%) have produced figures for depreciation that are excessive and which pay insufficient regard to the conditions as they existed before the first claim day or to the strength of the market at that time. Mr Yardley’s view that there was no depreciation does not reasonably reflect the extent and impact of the actual increase (and further anticipated increase) in noise as at the first claim day.

115.    I therefore determine that the compensation payable to the claimants should be as follows:

(i) Mr and Mrs Spark (Burnside): £40,000 (7.8%)

(ii) Mr and Mrs Robertson (Smith Lane Farm): £72,500 (10%)

116.    This decision determines the substantive issues in these references. A letter on costs accompanies this decision which will take effect when, but not until, the question of costs is decided.

Dated 25 October 2010

 

A J Trott FRICS

 

APPENDIX 1

 

 

	BURNSIDE			SMITH LANE FARM
EXPERT	UNAFFECTED	AFFECTED	DEPRECIATION	UNAFFECTED	AFFECTED	DEPRECIATION
	VALUE	VALUE	(£/%)	VALUE	VALUE	(£/%)
	(£)	(£)		(£)	(£)
1. Claimants
Mr Lawton	510,000	415,000	95,000 (18.6%)	700,000	550,000	150,000 (21.4%)
Mr Cheshire	525,000	420,000	105,000 (20%)	750,000	562,500	187,500 (25%)
2. Compensating Authority
Mr Newton	515,000	475,000	40,000 (7.8%)	720,000	650,000	70,000 (9.7%)
Mr Yardley	450,000	450,000	NIL	660,000	660,000	NIL
3. Partly Agreed	515,000			725,000
(excluding Mr Yardley)