A judgement given by a judge of the High Court has deemed the noise produced by wind farms at specific times during the day to be a nuisance to those living in the vicinity. The ruling, given by Justice Emily Egan, is anticipated to have a bearing on the running of wind turbines in the future. Justice Egan ruled that the two-turbine Ballyduff Windfarm located near Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, was causing “unreasonable disruption” to the peaceful occupation of two couples’ homes.
This marks the first time private claims of nuisance due to turbine noise have been brought to court in either the UK or Ireland. The first complaint came from Margret Webster and Keith Rollo, who live near the operational wind farm, which has been functioning since 2017. Another case was lodged by Ross Shorten and Joan Carty, who also lived close to the wind turbines, but sold their property after initiating their case in 2018. Meenacloghspar (Wind) Limited, the operator of the wind farm, was sued by both couples for nuisance-related damages.
The couples reported continuous noise and annoyance from the wind farm, affecting their lives, health, and property values. The defendant, based at Stillorgan Road, Donnybrook, Dublin 4, firmly denied all allegations.
The first portion of the hearing, that only dealt with liability, went on for 51 days and has been estimated to cost well over €1 million. Justice Egan herself was also part of a site tour which included both the turbines and the concerned properties.
In concluding the court’s decision on the initial part of the cases, Justice Egan declared the noise as an “unreasonable disruption” of their property use and hence established their right to claim damages. She acknowledged regular and prolonged intervals of noise, known to cause high annoyance levels. The judge conceded that the noise in this specific case was consistent and prolonged, branding such condition as “unreasonable and extraordinary”.
Finally, she held that the litigants’ grievances were understandable as the noise interfered with ordinary peace and utility of their homes, making it a significant disruption when it occurred.
During operating hours, the noise may potentially be bothersome, but there is generally a greater level of background noise and the residents are not typically seeking tranquillity or sleep, therefore, it does not significantly infringe upon the residents’ pleasure of their property, explained the judge. However, she remarked that the noise “acts a disturbance” to the residents in the evenings and on weekends where quiet enjoyment of the garden or restfulness in one’s home is expected and during the night and early morning when a “serene atmosphere is highly valued”.
The judge will decide on the extent of damages to be awarded, whether an order limiting certain activities should be granted, and, its conditions matter will be evaluated by the courtroom following the completion of the second segment of these cases. The judge ruled that the defendant hadn’t violated any CONDITIONS of the planning permit for the wind farm.
Despite not abiding with the noise clause within the permission the farm had received, the court said this was not the stance argued in this case. Any assertion implying that the defendant had acted carelessly towards the plaintiffs was likewise thrown out by the court. Due to an ongoing review concerning planning guideline dictating the noise associated with wind farm developments (the 2006 Wind Energy Development Guidelines) in Ireland, the case was under consideration.
The judge noted that the draft amendment of Wind Energy Development Guidelines from 2019 is no longer valid. In light of a lack of explicit government principles regarding wind turbine noise, evaluating an individual case “calls for a critical judgement on degree” by the court. Subsequent to her ruling, the judge urged both parties to return to negotiation to determine suitable and balanced measures for remediation.
The plaintiffs had asked that the defendant be ordered to halt operations in their legal case. They also requested that the defendant be restrained from running the windfarm until it is modified in a way that avoids unnecessary and excessive noise, vibration and shadow flicker at their residence. Furthermore, they had asked for monetary relief, encompassing exacerbated damages for nuisance, neglect, breach of responsibility, and violation of their basic rights, including the right to family life and peace in their households. The couples, represented by John Rogers SC, overseen by the firm Noonan Linehan Carroll Coffey solicitors, allege their lives have been negatively affected due to the noise, vibration and shadow flicker from the wind farm.
The constant noise and vibrations produced by the wind farm have negatively impacted their sleep patterns, heightened their stress levels, and worsened their overall psychological wellbeing. They compared the noise to that of a concrete mixer or a perpetually hovering aeroplane.
Mr Shorten and Ms Carty, residents at Rathfarnham’s Grange Road, Dublin 14, previously lived in Ballyduff, approximately 359 metres away from the wind farm in question.
For comprehensive and up-to-the-moment political analysis, tune in to our exclusive Inside Politics Podcast. Subscribe to our push notifications to receive the latest news, analysis, and commentary directly on your mobile device. Follow The Irish Times on WhatsApp to remain informed.