Win for couples in legal fight over ‘noise’ from local wind farm
Court is told that the sound was similar to a plane flying overhead that never lands
TWO couples have won a major victory in the first leg of their High Court case against the ‘nuisance and excessive noise’ from wind farms near their homes.
Margaret Webster and Keith Rollo, an Ross Shorten and Joan Carty, had sued Meenacloghspar (Wind) Limited, which operates Ballyduff wind farm at Kilcomb, Co. Wexford.
They both had homes near the wind farm, which began working in 2017. The noise was described in court as being like a cement mixer, or an aeroplane flying overhead without ever landing.
They allege they have been subjected to nuisance from noise and vibration since the wind farm started, which damaged their lives and health, and has driven down the value of their homes.
Ms Webster and Mr Rollo own Hill House, while Mr Shorten and Ms Carty owned Nettlefield. Both properties are around 350 metres from the closer turbine, and 650 metres from the further one. Each
‘Plaintiffs entitled to damages’
turbine is 74.5 metres tall, and the prevailing wind blows from the turbines to the houses.
Mr Shorten and Ms Carty have since sold their house, the judge noted, but she said this did not affect their claim.
The claims were denied by the defendant, which has a registered address at Stillorgan Road, Donnybrook, Dublin 4.
Ms Webster and Mr Rollo sought an order requiring the defendant to cease operating, decommission and dismantle the wind farm. They also wanted an order restraining it from operating until improvements were made.
They sought compensation for nuisance, negligence, breach of duty and a breach of their constitutional rights, including their rights to family life, bodily integrity and the quiet enjoyment of their home.
Judge Emily Egan explained she had split the case into two modules – liability and assessment of damages. Ruling on liability, she said: ‘I find that the WTN (wind turbine noise) poses a nuisance to the plaintiffs in the evenings and at weekends. Demonstrably, the WTN also poses a nuisance at night and in the early morning when a quiet environment is at a premium.
‘The plaintiffs are entitled to damages for unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their property,’ the judge said.
The judge added that the damages would be decided during a second module of the trial, along with the issue of whether an injunction ought to be granted.
However, she said the wind farm was not guilty of negligence.
She said she was satisfied that Mr Rollo had suffered the personal injury of a major depressive disorder and that this ‘was caused by sleeplessness caused by the WTN’.
But she said this was not foreseeable, and the wind farm company would not have to pay damages for ‘psychological injury’.
She was not satisfied the plaintiffs made a case for breach of planning permission.
Ms Webster told the court the noise was ‘annoying and ever changing’, and was considerably louder at night and in winter.
The judge said: ‘Ms Webster’s evidence was that, when turning quickly, [the nearer turbine] emits a range of distinctive sounds.
‘In addition to a swishing sound, it emits whoomph and whump sounds and intermittent louder thumping or whacking noises,’ she added.
The noise could make her wake ‘bolt upright’ at night, she told the court.
Judge Egan directed the parties to return to mediation, to try to agree mitigation measures with the benefit of her judgment.
The case will come back before the court at a later date.