David Cochrane v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Decision date: 2 December 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 395 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This appeal concerns a Part I Land Compensation Act claim by Mr Cochrane for depreciation of 8 Longsight Lane following A34/A555 highway works, with the valuation date 16 November 2019. The tribunal found traffic increased but expert noise and air‑quality monitoring and modelling indicated only minor/small changes at monitoring sites and, on the evidence, awarded £10,000 for depreciation. The claimant disputed the representativeness of the monitoring (no measurements at the rear garden or bund) but the tribunal proceeded on written evidence and made no site inspection.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The tribunal treated as material (a) that where a claim relates to alteration of an existing carriageway the assessment must take account of intensification of use of that carriageway, and (b) that expert monitoring and modelling must be assessed for their representativeness of the claimant’s property, with absence of monitoring at the specific location being a material evidential point.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observed that modelling which assumes flat terrain can overstate impact where intervening features (such as a bund) provide dispersion or screening, and that the tribunal’s practical inability to inspect a property because the claimant no longer has access is a relevant evidential limitation.