April 4, 2010
England, Filings, Noise

Claim of noise nuisance by Jane and Julian Davis against Fenland Windfarms et al.

Davis, Jane; and Davis, Julian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

BETWEEN:
(1) MRS SARAH JANE DAVIS; (2) MR JULIAN TREVOR DAVIS; Claimants
– and –
(1) RICHARD TINSLEY; (2) NICHOLAS WATTS; (3) FENLAND WINDFARMS LTD; (4) EDF ENERGY PLC; (5) FENLAND GREEN POWER CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED; Defendants

The First and Second Defendants are the freehold owners of land known as Worth’s Farm and Vine House Farm respectively in the village of Deeping St Nicholas, on which are operated 8 REpower MM 82 – 2 MW turbines, collectively known as Deeping St Nicholas windcluster.

The First and Second Defendants are the freehold owners of land known as Worth’s Farm and Vine House Farm respectively in the village of Deeping St Nicholas, on which are operated 8 REpower MM 82 – 2 MW turbines, collectively known as Deeping St Nicholas windcluster.

The Third and Fourth Defendants, Fenland Windfarms Ltd and EDF Energy Plc are the owners and operators of 6 of the wind turbines; the Fifth Defendant, Fenland Green Power Co-operative Limited, is the owner and operator of the remaining 2 turbines, which are the 2 nearest the road at Vine House Farm.

The Claimants are concerned about noise nuisance resulting from the operation of the 8 REpower MM 82 – 2 MW turbines (each with a hub height of 59 metres and a rotor diameter of 82 metres) on land close to the Farmhouse. The nearest turbine is about 930 metres from the Farmhouse, which is downwind of the predominant wind through the turbines; the turbines are about 500m from the Claimants’ land boundary. …

The nuisance started almost immediately the wind farm came on line, in June 2006. The Claimants complain of noise nuisance at various times of the day and night, including swishing, ripping/flashing, low frequency humming, mechanical turning, background roar, ‘helicopter noise’ (aerodynamic modulation) and enhanced ‘helicopter noise’ (amplitude modulation of aerodynamic modulation). Even with double glazing, house insulation and the wearing of ear plugs, the Claimants have been disturbed by low frequency noise and have complained of sleep disturbance. On 21 December 2006, the Claimants started to use rental accommodation in Spalding to sleep and rest from the impact of the noise; on 27 May 2007 they effectively moved out of the Farmhouse. …

The Claimants therefore claim:

  1. an injunction to restrain the Defendants by themselves or their servants or agents or otherwise from using the land in a manner that causes a nuisance to the Claimants or either of them or their family or other occupiers of the Claimants’ land.
  2. general damages to be assessed by the Court for loss of amenity suffered by the Claimants as a result of the nuisance including diminution in value together with the consequential damage of the cost of renting alternative accommodation.
  3. interest upon any damages which may be awarded pursuant to s.35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 at such rate and for such period as the Court deems appropriate;
  4. costs.

Download original document: “Particulars of noise nuisance claim – Jane and Julian Davis [1]”

URL to article:  https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/claim-of-noise-nuisance/

URLs in this post:

[1] Particulars of noise nuisance claim – Jane and Julian Davis: https://docs.wind-watch.org/Davis-Particulars-of-claim.pdf