First Wind Turbine Noise Judgment

Shows Need for Comprehensive and Detailed Planning Permission Conditions

Webster and Rollo v Meenacloghspar (Wind) Ltd [2024] IEHC 136 is the first wind turbine noise case in this jurisdiction to proceed to trial and be concluded. The judgment of Emily Egan J was given in the High Court last week. The only other comparable authority cited by the parties was Uren v Bland Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 145, a case in the Supreme Court of Victoria, New Zealand.

The Facts

The case concerned noise from two wind turbines which interfered with the Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their nearby homes at Ballyduff, north of Enniscorthy, Co Wexford. The Plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction in respect of private nuisance by way of noise, vibration and shadow flicker and under s160 PDA 2000 (paras 1, 4 and 6).

The trial was heard over 51 days producing a transcript of over 6000 pages (para 7) and a judgment of 700 paragraphs and 180 pages. The majority of the judgment is concerned with issues around the tort of nuisance but it contains some interesting insight into Planning Permissions and their Conditions.