Landmark wind turbine noise ruling from High Court referred to attorney general 

The attorney general is studying a landmark High Court ruling on noise from wind turbines that could have implications for the operation of existing and future wind farms.

Officials from two Government departments, Housing and Environment, have joined the chief law officer in examining the judgement.

Wind Energy Ireland, which represents most wind farm owners in the country, also has experts scrutinising it.

The ruling found that turbine noise – even if within planning regulation limits – could be categorised as a nuisance.

That opens the possibility of compensation claims by people who say noise from turbines interferes with the enjoyment of their homes and daily lives.

In the case that gave rise to the ruling, nuisance was proven by two couples who lived close to a wind farm in Co Wexford.

The case heard they were constantly stressed and sleepless, that one of the couples split up largely because of it and one party was left suicidal and remained under treatment for depression.

High Court judge Ms Justice Emily Egan found they had established their right to receive damages from the company involved.

“This is wind turbine noise that an objectively reasonable person should not be expected to tolerate,” she said.

A second part of their case will consider the level of damages due and, significantly, whether an injunction should be granted against the wind farm.

If an injunction is granted, it may come in the form of restrictions on operating hours rather than a complete stop to operations.

The ruling is the first on the issue in Ireland and comes at a critical time in national plans to increase the generation of renewable electricity.

Ireland has about 4.5 gigawatts (GW) of onshore wind power installed in just over 300 wind farms.

Under the Climate Action Plan, the capacity must double to 9GW by 2030.

A spokesperson for Wind Energy Ireland said: “It’s a very detailed judgement and covers a complex area of project development.

“We are studying it closely to see what implications, if any, it might have for the development of onshore renewable energy in Ireland.”

The Department of Housing, which is responsible for planning regulations, said it was considering the judgement in conjunction with the Department of the Environment and the Office of the Attorney General.

The wind farm at the centre of the case is at Ballyduff, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, owned by Meenacloghspar Wind, and has been in operation since 2017.

It received planning permission with conditions around the level of noise measured at the nearest house.

Over 51 days of hearings, evidence was presented on the causes and frequencies of noise, the weather and geographical features that influence it and how it is perceived by people.

The case focused chiefly on “aerodynamic noise” caused by the interaction of the rotor blades with the surrounding air which Ms Justice Egan characterised as “swish, whoomph and thump”.

Lawyers for Meenacloghspar said their client should be judged on their compliance with the planning conditions on noise levels, which was not in question.

Ms Justice Egan disagreed, saying the court did not have to restrict its assessment to planning compliance – a finding that may have implications in other cases.

She highlighted a lack of regulatory data in Ireland, and relied on the UK’s ‘Windfarm Noise Statutory Complaint Methodology’ for guidance.

Ms Justice Egan acknowledged the wider significance of the case.

“This case concerns the production of renewable energy which is clearly of vital importance to society, and to everyone who lives in it,” she said.

The fact that such activity was of public importance was not a defence, she said. However, it might have some bearing on the final outcome.

“The public interest must inevitably be a factor in the court’s assessment of an appropriate remedy.

“At the very least, it means that a generalised injunction ought not to be granted where a tailored injunction more suitable to the particular interference held to constitute nuisance is warranted.”

The plaintiffs in the case are couple, Ross Shorten and Joan Carty, and former couple, Margaret Webster and Keith Rollo.

The former have left the area since the court case began, while Mr Rollo also left after contemplating suicide.

Ms Justice Egan directed all parties to engage in mediation before proceeding to the second part of the case, although she acknowledged that earlier attempts at mediation had failed.

Current wind energy planning guidelines date to 2006 and are widely accepted to be out of date.

The Department of Housing published draft revised guidelines in 2019 but they were later withdrawn, partly due to disputes over the proposed guidance on noise levels.

The Climate Action Plan sets a timeline of the end of this year for completion of the updated guidelines.

The Department of Housing said: “The Department is working towards meeting this commitment.”