Freedom from wind turbine noise nuisance isn’t a “concern”; it’s a hard-won legal “right” based on the lawful entitlement to sleep comfortably in your own home – a right (not a privilege) that’s been upheld against the mighty, rich and powerful for close to 200 hundred years.
The grinding, thumping cacophony generated by giant industrial wind turbines delivers wholly unnecessary misery worldwide. Sleep deprivation is first among the list of adverse health effects caused by these things and the pulsing low-frequency noise they generate.
The wind industry has fought tooth and nail to avoid the consequences of the harm it dishes out, mostly with impunity. However, increasingly its victims are fighting back and winning.
In Ireland, two neighbouring couples have just landed a monumental victory for common sense and human decency. The plaintiffs, Margret Webster and her partner Keith Rollo and Ross Shorten and Joan Carty, fought tooth and nail to regain their ability to use and enjoy their own homes free from the perpetual racket generated by turbines a few hundred metres from their homes – the plaintiffs described the noise in evidence as “like a cement mixer, or an aeroplane flying overhead without ever landing.”
The action was based on the common law tort of nuisance. For a primer on nuisance see our post here.
This not the first time that the Irish have taken wind power outfits to court. The cases almost always settle, with the operators forking out serious cash to the people they torment, such as this case: Settling Up: Irish Wind Farm Operator Pays Three Children €225,000 Compensation For Suffering Caused by Turbine Noise
This time the plaintiffs went all the way and won. Here are a couple of articles on their grand Irish victory. Below that you’ll find a link to the High Court’s 195 page decision.
Noise from wind farm is ‘nuisance’ to neighbours, judge says in landmark ruling
Breakingnews.ie
High Court Reporters
8 March 2024
A High Court judge has found that levels of noise generated at certain times of the day by a wind farm constitutes a nuisance to the occupants of neighbouring properties.
In a landmark decision, which is understood to have implications for the operation of electricity-generating wind turbines, Ms Justice Emily Egan held that noise levels from the two-turbine Ballyduff Windfarm at Kilcomb, near Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, amounted to “unreasonable interference”.
The cases are the first private nuisance claim from wind turbine noise to run in either Ireland or the UK, the judge said.
The first action was taken by Margret Webster and her partner Keith Rollo whose home is close to the wind farm which has been operational since 2017.
A second action was taken by Ross Shorten and Joan Carty who had owned another property close to the turbines, but sold it after they commenced their proceedings in 2018.
Both couples had sued the wind farm operator Meenacloghspar (Wind) Limited seeking damages for nuisance.
The couples claimed they had been subjected to constant noise and nuisance from the wind farm that had damaged their lives, health and the value of the properties.
The claims were fully denied by the defendant, with a registered address at Stillorgan Road, Donnybrook, Dublin 4.
‘Unreasonable interference’
In her ruling on the first part of the case, which dealt with liability only, Ms Justice Egan said the noise amounted to an “unreasonable interference” with the enjoyment of their property, and they were therefore entitled to damages.
The hearing of the first module lasted for 51 days, far longer than what had been originally estimated by the parties’ lawyers, the judge noted.
The costs of the case to date have been estimated to be well over €1 million.
During the course of the hearing, the judge also physically visited the turbines and the properties.
Giving the court’s decision, the judge said that there are frequent and sustained periods of noise “widely acknowledged to be associated with high levels of annoyance” and have “a characteristic known to lead to adverse reaction in the community”.
The judge accepted that in this case such noise levels from the wind farm “occurs commonly and for sustained periods”.
Noise levels that exhibit these characteristics on a regular and sustained basis were “unreasonable and exceptional,” she said.
“I find that the plaintiffs’ complaints are objectively justified in that the noise interferes with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of their homes. When it occurs, this interference is a substantial interference.”
While the noise is liable to annoy during the working day, higher prevailing background noise levels and the fact that the occupants are not trying to relax, or sleep means that the noise did not in general substantially interfere with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property, she said.
However, the noise “poses a nuisance to the plaintiffs in the evenings and at weekends, when one could reasonably expect to be enjoying recreation in the garden or peace in one’s dwelling”.
“Demonstrably the noise also poses a nuisance at night and in the early morning when a quiet environment is at a premium,” she said.
Damages
The amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs, the issue of whether an injunction ought to be granted and, if so, the terms of such injunction will be assessed by the court following the second module of the claim.
The judge also found that the defendant had not breached the terms of turbine’s planning permission, as alleged.
The court said that while the court was not satisfied that the wind farm complies with the noise condition of its permission, this had not been pleaded in the case.
The court also rejected claims that the defendant had been negligent towards the plaintiffs.
The court rejected the defendants’ claim that Mr Shorten and Ms Carty were not entitled to seek damages arising out of their disposal of their former property.
The judge said they were entitled to advance a claim to damages in nuisance for any unreasonable interference with amenity occasioned during the period of their ownership and potentially for diminution in the sale price.
The judge said the case was before the court when existing planning guidance regulating, the noise aspects of wind farm developments in Ireland, the Wind Energy Development Guidelines, 2006 are under review.
While draft revised Wind Energy Development Guidelines were published in 2019, these had been withdrawn, the judge said.
In the absence of clear policy guidance from the government on wind turbine noise, the assessment in an individual case “is a classic matter of degree on which the court must exercise judgment,” the judge added.
After giving her decision, the judge directed the parties to re-engage in mediation in an attempt to identify appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures.
The judge said she was requesting this in an attempt to resolve all outstanding issues between them.
In their actions, the plaintiffs sought various orders requiring the defendant to cease operating, decommission and dismantle the wind farm.
They also sought orders restraining the defendant from operating the wind farm until it is constructed in a way such as to not cause undue and excessive noise, vibration and shadow flicker at their home.
They further sought damages including aggravated damages for nuisance, negligence, breach of duty and breach of their Constitutional Rights, including their rights to family life and the quiet enjoyment of their home.
The couples, represented in the action by John Rogers SC, instructed by solicitor Philip Coffey of Noonan Linehan Carroll Coffey, claimed their lives suffered due to the impact of the noise, vibration and shadow flicker from the wind farm.
Their sleep had been disrupted, their anxiety levels increased, and their overall mental health had suffered due to the noise and vibrations generated by the wind farm.
They said the noise was like a cement mixer, or an aeroplane flying overhead without ever landing.
Mr Shorten and Ms Carty, with an address at Grange Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14, had claimed that their former house at Ballyduff was approximately 359 metres from the wind farm.
After delivering her decision, the judge agreed to adjourn the matter for several weeks to allow both sides to consider the judgment.
Breakingnews.ie
Wind farm noise constituted nuisance to nearby residents, High Court rules
Irish Times
Aodhan O’Faolain
8 March 2024
A High Court judge has found that wind farm noise levels at certain times of the day constitute a nuisance to nearby residents.
In a decision that is understood to have implications for the operation of wind turbines, Ms Justice Emily Egan held that noise levels from the two-turbine Ballyduff Windfarm at Kilcomb, near Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, amounted to an “unreasonable interference” with the enjoyment of two couples’ properties.
The cases are the first private nuisance claims from wind turbine noise to run in Ireland or the UK, the judge said.
The first action was taken by Margret Webster and her partner Keith Rollo, whose home is close to the wind farm that has been operational since 2017. A second action was taken by Ross Shorten and Joan Carty who owned another property close to the turbines but sold it after commencing their proceedings in 2018.
Both couples sued the wind farm’s operator, Meenacloghspar (Wind) Limited, seeking damages for nuisance.
The couples claimed they have been subjected to constant noise and nuisance from the wind farm that damaged their lives, health and the values of the properties.
The claims were fully denied by the defendant, with a registered address at Stillorgan Road, Donnybrook, Dublin 4.
The hearing of the first module lasted for 51 days, and the costs of the case to date have been estimated to be well over €1 million. Ms Justice Egan also visited the turbines and the properties.
Giving the court’s decision in the first module of the cases, dealing only with liability, the judge said the noise amounted to an “unreasonable interference” with the enjoyment of their property and were therefore entitled to damages.
There are frequent and sustained periods of noise “widely acknowledged to be associated with high levels of annoyance”, she said.
The judge accepted that in this case the noise level “occurs commonly and for sustained periods”.
Noise levels that exhibit these characteristics on a regular and sustained basis are “unreasonable and exceptional”, she said.
“I find that the plaintiffs’ complaints are objectively justified in that the noise interferes with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of their homes. When it occurs, this interference is a substantial interference.”
While the noise is liable to annoy during the working day, higher prevailing background noise levels and the fact that the occupants are not trying to relax or sleep means it did not generally substantially interfere with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property, she said.
However, she said, the noise “poses a nuisance” to the plaintiffs in the evenings and at weekends, when one could reasonably expect to be enjoying recreation in the garden or peace in one’s dwelling and at night and early morning when a “quiet environment is at a premium”.
The level of damages to be awarded, whether an injunction should be granted and, if so, in what terms, will be assessed by the court after the second module of the cases concludes.
The judge found the defendant had not breached the terms of the wind farm’s planning permission.
The court said that while the court was not satisfied the wind farm complies with the noise condition of its permission, this had not been pleaded in the case.
The court also rejected claims that the defendant was negligent towards the plaintiffs.
The judge said the case was before the court while existing planning guidance regulating the noise aspects of wind farm developments in Ireland (the Wind Energy Development Guidelines 2006) are under review.
Draft revised Wind Energy Development Guidelines published in 2019 have been withdrawn, the judge said.
In the absence of clear policy guidance from the Government on wind turbine noise, the assessment in an individual case “is a classic matter of degree on which the court must exercise judgment”, she added.
After giving her decision, the judge directed the parties to re-engage in mediation in an attempt to identify appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures.
In their actions, the plaintiffs have sought various orders requiring the defendant to cease operating.
They also seek orders restraining the defendant from operating the wind farm until it is constructed in a way such as to not cause undue and excessive noise, vibration and shadow flicker at their home.
They further sought damages including aggravated damages for nuisance, negligence, breach of duty and breach of their constitutional rights, including their rights to family life and the quiet enjoyment of their home.
The couples, represented by John Rogers SC, instructed by Noonan Linehan Carroll Coffey solicitors, claim their lives have suffered due to the impact of the noise, vibration and shadow flicker from the wind farm.
Their sleep has been disrupted, their anxiety levels increased, and their overall mental health suffered due to the noise and vibrations generated by the wind farm.
They said the noise was like a cement mixer or an aeroplane flying overhead without ever landing.
Mr Shorten and Ms Carty, with an address at Grange Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14, had claimed that their former house at Ballyduff was approximately 359 metres from the wind farm.
Irish Times
Full decision available here: 2024_IEHC_136
STOP THESE THINGS 