Delivery | Westlaw UK
Page 1 of 8
Journal of Planning & Environment Law
2012
Wind farm noise and private nuisance: a return to common sense
Susan Ring
Barbara Webb
Subj e ct : Planning. Ot her r e lat ed subj ect s: Environm ent . Nuisance
Keyw or ds: Defences; Noise; Planning perm ission; Privat e nuisance; Reasonable user; Wind farm s
Ca se : Bar r v Biffa Wast e Ser vices Lt d [ 2012] EWCA Civ 312; [ 2012] 3 All E.R. 380 ( CA ( Civ Div) )
* J.P.L. 8 9 2 This ar t icle is a response t o “ Wind farm noise and privat e nuisance: issues arising in Davis
v Tinsley” by William Norr is QC in an earlier issue of t he Jour nal of Planning Envir onm ent Law . 1
I n accordance wit h t he set t lem ent agreem ent t he aut hors of t his art icle will m ake no com m ent about
t he Davis case, 2 nor hypot hesise about what m ight , or m ight not , have been found by t he cour t if
cer t ain fact s had, or had not , been pr oven. We have, however, set out in an annex t o t his art icle, what
w e consider t o be t he salient fact s.
Ot her wise t he aut hors seek t o cover som e of t he key issues for considerat ion in wind t urbine noise
nuisance cases.
Why are residents complaining about noise?
Ther e is no st at ut ory m inim um separat ion dist ance bet ween t urbines and dw ellings in t he Unit ed
Kingdom . England deals on a case by case basis; Scot land has guidance suggest ing 2km and Wales
suggest s 500m . 3
We are awar e of a t ur bine 85 m et res t o hub height and 125.2m t o t he t ip of t he t ur bine blade t hat was
er ect ed wit h planning perm ission in England w it hin 65m of a dwelling, i.e. w it hin fall- over dist ance.
Resident s' concerns have pr om pt ed t wo Pr ivat e Mem ber s' bills on m inim um separat ion dist ances, but
t hese bills do not seem t o be progressing.
Noise from turbines
First , w e will t ry t o give a flavour of t he wind t urbine noise t hat resident s com plain about . There is a
w hole range of noise effect s, at a range of frequencies, from a gent le swishing t o a loud background
r oad roar , a r ipping/ lashing, a hum , and a regular pulsat ing t hum p and/ or “ w hoom pf” w it h an addit ional
low- frequency cont ent , part icularly in t he hour s from about 20: 00 t o 7: 00, which resident s r epor t as
penet rat ing t hrough t heir bedroom and closed windows and eit her pr event ing t hem fr om sleeping or
awakening t hem and st opping t hem going back t o sleep. This is generally in t he cont ext of a rur al
environm ent wit h very low backgr ound noise, part icularly at night . The aut hors of t his ar t icle are awar e
of wind farm s acr oss t he count ry causing such noise nuisance com plaint s.
* J.P.L. 8 9 3 This is not j ust a UK pr oblem - - noise problem s fr om wind t urbines are r epor t ed worldwide.
For exam ple, t he Aust r alian Federal Senat e Wind Far m s Report June 2011 r ecor ds t his fr om a wit ness
w it h 30 wind t ur bines wit hin 2km of his hom e, t he near est 600m aw ay:
“ The t ypes of noises t hat we experience depend on wind direct ion. The noises range from a doof - doof
noise, like you w ould hear fr om a subw oofer at a par t y down t he st reet , t o a const ant j et r um ble. We
can also hear t he generat or noise, like a fr idge w hen it fir es up- - t hat elect r ical sound- - and at t im es a
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/delivery?& docguid=ID5378670CC8811E1B... 17/07/2012
Delivery | Westlaw UK
Page 2 of 8
w hooshing noise, like a st ick being swung t hrough t he air quickly. These noises are not j ust for a
m inut e or t wo but can go on all night , not t o m ent ion t he day. On average, w e would say t hat we have
int err upt ed sleep at least t hr ee t o four night s a w eek and on som e occasions up t o five … I have t r ied t o
escape from t he cont inuous noise by relocat ing t o one of t he four bedroom s in t he house, only t o be
awakened by t he noise fr om ot her t ur bines. My wife act ually goes t o sleep w it h ear plugs in. This
cont inuous int er rupt ion t o and lack of sleep has enorm ous im pact on our lives, our business and our
fut ure. Last week t he noise could be heard over t he t elevision inside t he house. ”
The t hum p/ whoom pf used t o be called by t he wind indust ry “ enhanced am plit ude m odulat ion of
aerodynam ic noise” , but t hey have now t aken t o describing it in som ewhat Orw ellian t er m s as “ ot her
am plit ude m odulat ion” .
The com plexit y of w ind t urbine noise issues is highlight ed by t he fact t hat t here are bi- annual
int ernat ional conferences on w ind t urbines and noise, t he last t aking place in 2011 in Rom e.
The wind indust ry in t he Unit ed Kingdom is also exercised about noise: Renewable UK ( t he t rade body
for t he wind indust r y and now ot her renewables) held a conference in Oct ober 2011 on Wind Tur bine
Am plit ude Modulat ion: Research t o I m pr ove Underst anding as t o it s Cause and Effect .
Barr v Biffa Wast e Services Lt d4
The law of pr ivat e nuisance has becom e clouded wit hin past year s following im aginat ive and indeed
expensive defences such as t hose air ed by Mr Norr is in his art icle, i.e. t hreshold of accept abilit y and
r easonable user.
However, since Mr Nor ris's art icle was published, t he Court of Appeal has now given j udgm ent in Bar r v
Biffa Wast e Services Lt d. Alt hough not relat ing t o wind t urbines, t his j udgm ent has done m uch t o clarify
t he law relat ing t o privat e nuisance and “ de- m uddy” t he wat ers fr om m any of t he ar gum ent s
pr oposed. 5 Alt hough in t he High Cour t , Coulson J. t ook up m any of t he argum ent s r aised by t hose
defending nuisance claim s, t he Court of Appeal has t hankfully ret urned us t o a m ore sensible st at e of
affair s wit h t he key t hrust of Car nwat h L.J.'s j udgm ent being:
“ Wit hout disrespect t o t hose effor t s, I cont inue t o believe t hat t he applicable law of nuisance is
r elat ively st r aight for war d, and t hat t he 19t h cent ury principles for t he m ost par t rem ain valid.” 6
Those 19t h cent ur y pr inciples reflect what t he law of nuisance is supposed t o be about - - individuals
carrying out what is likely t o be a law ful act ivit y but in a way t hat int erferes wit h t he am enit y of t heir
neighbour . Nuisance can arise from sounds and sm ells t hat in any ot her cont ext would not be a
pr oblem . For exam ple, your neighbour cut t ing her lawn once a week is accept able, but t o do so every
day at 2: 00am would arguably be a nuisance. Even t he st aunchest opponent s of wind t urbines do not
t ry t o ar gue t hat t hey will always be a nuisance. Nor do t heir proponent s t ry t o suggest t hat t hey w ill
never be a nuisance. * J.P.L. 8 9 4 I n com ing t o consider cases of nuisance it is a m at t er of fact and
degr ee and assessm ent will be necessar y in each individual case.
Statutory nuisance
Why resort t o pr ivat e nuisance in wind t ur bine cases? Wind farm operat or s and indeed local aut horit ies
w hen considering noise condit ions t o at t ach t o a planning per m ission oft en refer t o st at ut ory nuisance
pr oceedings as a fall- back m easur e should t hings go aw ry. Sadly it is t he aut hors' exper ience t hat t he
com plexit y of t he science behind noise fr om wind t urbines and t he scale and cost of t he im plicat ions of
any act ion by a local aut hor it y, in com binat ion w it h t he best pract ical m eans defence, com bines t o
t hwart any sat isfact or y resolut ion by st at ut ory nuisance.
Reasonable user?
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/delivery?& docguid=ID5378670CC8811E1B... 17/07/2012
Delivery | Westlaw UK
Page 3 of 8
Mr Nor ris has suggest ed t hat t he court s r equire “ give and t ake” bet w een neighbour s and he put s
for war d a com plex analysis of what is r easonable behaviour on t he part of wind farm operat or s, and of
t he r elat ionship bet w een t hose who com plain about noise and w ind farm operat or s in a part icular
scenario.
Sadly t his does not m eet w it h t he pur poses of t he law of nuisance and Mr Nor ris is doing what m any
ot hers have t ried t o do before him , which is t o add so m any elem ent s for consider at ion by t he court s
t hat t he key considerat ion is side- lined. I f t he law of privat e nuisance is t o m eet it s aim s of prot ect ing
t he am enit y of individuals' propert y, it m ust focus on t he effect on t he am enit y of t hose individuals, not
t he act ivit ies t hat lead up t o t hat .
Coulson J., in t he High Cour t in Barr v Biffa appeared t o offer support for Mr Norris's cont ent ions.
However, t his was resoundingly put aside in t he Court of Appeal. Having helpfully set out t he hist ory of
t he developm ent of reasonable user ar gum ent s, including r eference t o ar gum ent s such as t hose
pr oposed by Mr Nor ris which st em fr om ext r act ing select phrases fr om pr evious j udgm ent s, Car nw at h
L.J. concluded: 7
“ I n m y view, t hese com plicat ions are unsuppor t ed by aut horit y, and m isconceived. ‘Reasonable user ’
should be j udged by t he well- set t led t est s. The m at t er is st at ed sim ply and accurat ely by Tony Weir
( whose deat h last Decem ber was a sad loss t o all who knew him or lear nt from him ) :
‘Reasonableness is a relevant considerat ion her e, but t he quest ion is neit her w hat is reasonable in t he
eyes of t he defendant or even t he claim ant ( for one cannot by being unduly sensit ive, const rain one's
neighbour 's fr eedom s) , but w hat obj ect ively a norm al per son would find it r easonable t o have t o put up
w it h” ’( Weir An I nt r oduct ion t o Tor t Law p.160) .
Is compliance with a planning consent a defence to nuisance?
Planning consent for wind t ur bines gives perm ission for t he erect ion and operat ion of t hose w ind
t urbines. However, t hat planning per m ission does not m ean t hat t he t ur bine m ay be operat ed
r egardless of t he im pact on it s neighbour s. I t would, w e ar gue, be uncont ent ious t hat should a wind
t urbine st ar t t o t hrow ice on neighbour ing propert ies ( which has occurred w it h one of our client s) ,
r egardless of com pliance wit h a planning perm ission, t hat operat ion would no longer be lawful. The
sam e principles apply wit h noise. I f t hat noise is beyond “ what obj ect ively a nor m al person would find it
r easonable t o have t o put up wit h” a nuisance exist s.
This is ent irely support ed by Lord Hoffm ann's com m ent s in Transco Plc v St ockport MBC, 8 reinforced by
Carnwat h L.J. at [ 97] of Bar r v Biffa. Lord Hoffm ann said of com m on law nuisance in Transco at [ 26] :
* J.P.L. 8 9 5 “ Liabilit y in nuisance is st rict in t he sense t hat one has no right t o carr y on an act ivit y
w hich unreasonably int erfer es wit h a neighbour 's use of land m er ely because one is doing it wit h
r easonable care. I f it cannot be done w it hout causing unreasonable int erference, it cannot be done at
all.”
Carnwat h L.J. in Barr v Biffa went on t o consider t he proposit ion t hat t he legislat ion gover ning t he
w ast e operat ions in t his case “ expressly accept ed” t hat t he sit e w ould creat e odour. He concluded:
“ I find it im possible wit h respect t o see how a provision which requires t he use of best pr act icable
m eans t o ‘prevent or reduce em issions’ ( as in PPC reg.12) can be read as expr essly or im pliedly
aut horising t hem .”
I n a wind t urbine cont ext , planning per m issions do not have such a best pract icable m eans provision,
but t hey are generally accom panied by a noise condit ion. The wor ding and enfor ceabilit y of t hese noise
condit ions is a hot t opic. Client s have successfully quashed per m issions in t he past on t he grounds of
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/delivery?& docguid=ID5378670CC8811E1B... 17/07/2012
Delivery | Westlaw UK
Page 4 of 8
dr aft ing error s in t he noise condit ion having r endered it unenforceable. Also, t he noise condit ion
generally will not address charact er of t he noise such as t he t hum p/ whoom pf “ ot her” am plit ude
m odulat ion problem , despit e t he Court of Appeal having upheld t he Den Brook am plit ude m odulat ion
condit ion in Hulm e v Secr et ary of St at e & RES Developm ent s Lt d. 9 This is because t he wind indust r y
has m ount ed a concert ed cam paign against such a condit ion and local aut horit ies do not generally have
t he expert ise t o r ecognise t he ut ilit y of such a condit ion. Ther e is t hen t he fur t her vexed issue of t he
local aut horit y having t he resources and expert ise t o undert ake t he com plicat ed noise m onit oring
r equired in t he event of a com plaint ; and if t hey do not do so, t he resident s are for ced t o under t ake t his
t hem selves w it h t he at t endant problem s of t he expensive hire of noise m onit or ing equipm ent and
expert , and gaining access t o t he operat or 's w ind speed dat a, which t he operat or can in our experience
be ver y r eluct ant t o hand over.
Defendant s in t he past have t ried t o argue t hat com pliance w it h a noise condit ion provides a defence t o
a claim in nuisance. However, given t hat t he noise condit ion will oft en not address t he charact er of t he
noise for t he reasons st at ed above, and Car nwat h L.J.'s j udgm ent in Bar r v Biffa, it is our cont ent ion
t hat any noise condit ion cannot now be const rued as aut horising t he nuisance.
Should a threshold be set?
Mr Nor ris and ot hers befor e him have suggest ed a m easured st andar d below which noise fr om t urbines
w ill not be considered nuisance. This t hr eshold ought t o be inform ed, he says, by t he public benefit t o
be der ived fr om wind energy.
Mr Nor ris's ar gum ent in essence is t hat t he Gover nm ent has decided t hat w ind t urbines are necessary
and pr ovide a public benefit ; if t hey ar e a pr oblem , so be it : t hat is a sacrifice w e have t o m ake; so let 's
est ablish a t hreshold w hich det erm ines what sacrifice is accept able.
Is t here a public benefit t hat should inform any such t hreshold?
Put t ing aside for now w het her or not it is possible t o com e up wit h a t hreshold, should t he public benefit
of wind t urbines have any im pact on any such t hreshold? Mr Nor ris st at es t hat :
“ because exist ing and em er ging policy and guidance recognises t hat onshore wind developm ent is
bound t o t ake place in r ural locat ions in w hich, at least in England ( assum ing one is going t o avoid
Nat ional Parks and t he like) it is alm ost inevit able t hat t her e will be exist ing or pr ospect ive neighbours
w ho m ight be adversely affect ed by feat ures like noise. ”
* J.P.L. 8 9 6 This is essent ially t he sam e ar gum ent t hat was put for war d in Barr v Biffa in which it was
argued by Biffa t hat t he st at ut ory schem e and st r at egy of t he Envir onm ent Agency result ed in an
accept ance t hat sm ell would em anat e fr om t he sit e. I n a w ind t urbine cont ext , t he argum ent would be
t hat t her e is som e sort of im m unit y from nuisance pr oceedings im pliedly grant ed t o w ind farm
operat ors and developers because of t he overr iding public need for wind ener gy, as recognised by
policy and t he grant ing of planning per m ission, as suggest ed by Mr Nor ris.
On policy, t here is no fixed st rat egy for onshore wind t urbines. The Nat ional Renew ables Energy Act ion
Plan and t he UK Renewable Energy Roadm ap sim ply propose t he use of wind t ur bines as one of a
select ion of renew able ener gy sources. We also not e t hat t he Gover nm ent has not car ried out st rat egic
environm ent al assessm ent of any plan or pr ogr am m e for onshore wind t urbines ( cont rar y t o offshore
w ind t urbines) .
Carnwat h L.J. considered t his at [ 82] of Barr v Biffa, in t he cont ext of a st rat egy by t he Envir onm ent
Agency. He said:
“ Had any such st rat egy been proposed, and had t he possible consequences been explained, one would
have expect ed t her e t o have been consult at ion …”
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/delivery?& docguid=ID5378670CC8811E1B... 17/07/2012
Delivery | Westlaw UK
Page 5 of 8
Carnwat h L.J. also goes on at [ 46( ii) ] :
“ The com m on law of nuisance has co- exist ed wit h st at ut or y cont rols, albeit less sophist icat ed, since t he
19t h cent ury. There is no principle t hat t he com m on law should ‘m arch wit h’ a st at ut or y schem e
covering sim ilar subj ect m at t er . Short of expr ess or im plied st at ut ory aut hor it y t o com m it a nuisance…
t here is no basis, in pr inciple or aut hor it y, for using such a st at ut ory schem e t o cut down privat e law
r ight s.”
And:
“ if t here is a problem in m eet ing t he need wit hin t he exist ing legal fr am ework, it s solut ion m ust rest
w it h t he legislat ur e …” 10
The sam e principles m ust surely apply t o t he planning syst em . I n order t o claim public benefit as a
defence t o nuisance, t he w ind indust ry would have t o point t o an expr ess im m unit y fr om nuisance
pr oceedings. Ther e is no such express im m unit y as far as t he aut hor s are awar e.
Furt her , if a sacrifice is t o be m ade, t hen t her e should be com pensat ion for t he person m aking t he
sacr ifice. At t he m om ent , it is “ win- win” for t he developer and landowner due t o lar ge public subsidies
for onshor e wind t ur bines; but “ lose- lose” for a r esident who has been asked t o sacrifice t heir am enit y
and t he value of t heir propert y wit hout any com pensat ion. Cont rast wind t ur bines wit h road or airport
developm ent s, where t he land com pensat ion r egim e pr ovides com pensat ion for land t hat is depr eciat ed
by physical fact or s caused by public wor ks, w it h any disput e about com pensat ion being refer red t o t he
Lands Tribunal.
Can we come up wit h a t hreshold?
Put t ing aside for now how any elem ent of public benefit can or should be fact or ed int o such a t hr eshold,
is it possible t o set a t hreshold? A num ber of quest ions fall t o be answer ed in considering t his point . Mr
Norris appears t o suggest t hat we can suit ably m easure noise from t ur bines and from t hat com e up
w it h an accept able t hr eshold. Yet he does not go on t o explain how t his would be done.
What would we be m easuring? I t is accept ed t hat noise fr om w ind t urbines com es in all sor t s of form s,
t hum ps, hum s and w hooshes. Com ing up wit h a decibel level t hat m ay not be exceeded w ill not cover
all * J.P.L. 8 9 7 t he noise t hat is obj ect ionable, e.g. a hum t hat is audible but is difficult t o m easure; a
pulsing t hum p at night et c which is wit hin t he decibel levels but dist urbs sleep.
This w as anot her point considered by t he Court of Appeal in Barr v Biffa:
“ I find no support at all in t hose cases for a general approach of set t ing a ‘t hreshold’ for evaluat ing past
nuisance. They t ur ned on t heir own fact s and in part icular on t he nat ure of t he nuisance. The t hreshold
w as set prim arily for t he pur pose of cont rol in t he fut ur e, rat her t han assessing whet her t here had been
a nuisance in t he past or j udging reasonable user . I n neit her was t her e any disput e t hat t he court could
set such lim it s; t he issue w as as t o t he num ber of days or event s and t he perm issible levels. Noise
nuisance ar ising from an organised act ivit y such as m ot or - racing is suscept ible t o such cont rol. The
r acing days w ould be defined w it h precision as could t he m axim um noise levels … t he pr esent case is
quit e different . There was no quest ion of Biffa being willing or able t o lim it t heir sm elly act ivit ies t o
part icular days in advance. The sm ells ar ising from t he West m ill sit e w ere t r ansient and unpredict able
in t im ing, and int ensit y.”
The sam e problem s w e would argue apply w it h w ind t urbines. Whilst it is clearly sensible for local
aut horit ies and planning inspect or s t o im pose noise condit ions on planning perm issions, it w ould be
m anifest ly unfair t o say t hat t he noise condit ion im posed t he t hr eshold, because t he noise condit ion is
set in advance and generally deals w it h m er e decibel levels, not t he charact er of t he noise such as t he
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/delivery?& docguid=ID5378670CC8811E1B... 17/07/2012
Delivery | Westlaw UK
Page 6 of 8
night t im e t hum p and whoom pf. To assess w het her t here is nuisance, one needs t o exper ience t he
noise on t he ground and at t he corr ect t im e of day. I t is not sufficient , as in our experience oft en
occur s, for local aut hor it ies and developer s t o m ake a sit e visit t o a wind farm at 10 am wit h a nort herly
w ind direct ion, if t he nuisance is gener ally exper ienced at 4 am in a west erly direct ion.
I t would also be dangerous t o set a t hreshold when t he scient ific com m unit y does not properly
under st and why a noise occurs, how t o m easure it and how t o prevent it . 11 This w ould lead t o exact ly
t he sit uat ion Carnwat h L.J. war ned of in t hat it w ould deprive claim ant s of “ t heir r ight t o have t heir
individual cases assessed on t heir m erit s” . 12
Conclusion
The j udgm ent in Bar r v Biffa should st and as clear not ice t o defendant s not t o cloud t he issues:
“ This case is a sad illust rat ion of what can happen when appar ent ly unlim it ed resour ces, financial and
int ellect ual, are t hrown at an apparent ly sim ple disput e such as one about nuisance by escaping sm ells.
The fundam ent al principles of law were set t led by t he end of t he 19t h cent ury and have r em ained
r esilient and effect ive since t hen. I solat ed st at em ent s in individual cases, at what ever level, ar e of
lim it ed value unless t hey have been absorbed int o t he st r eam of accept ed aut hor it y. Par liam ent m ay
alt er by st at ut e, or t he higher court s by reint erpret at ion of t he old cases. But t her e is a salut ar y
pr esum pt ion t hat neit her does so w it hout m aking t heir int ent ion clear. Parliam ent m ay also enact
parallel syst em s of regulat or y cont rol; but , unless it is says ot herw ise, t he com m on law right s and
dut ies rem ain unaffect ed. ”
So as lawyers w hat should w e do when faced w it h a report ed case of nuisance? Not it seem s delve int o
t hresholds, and t he behaviour of t he proposed defendant ; r at her, as Carnwat h L.J. m akes clear, w e
should pick up our copy of Cler k and Lindsell and open t he chapt er on pr ivat e nuisance and consider t he
key principles of nuisance, est ablished long ago w it h a view t o answering t he key quest ion- - in t his
part icular * J.P.L. 8 9 8 scenar io are t hese wind t ur bines causing noise of a nat ur e ( level and char act er)
t hat obj ect ively a norm al person would find it unreasonable t o t oler at e?
Annex
( 1) Mr Norris r efers t o t he “ fact t hat t he developer / oper at or had designed, built and oper at ed it s wind
farm in accordance wit h good pract ice and on t he basis of cur rent planning and scient ific guidance” . As
a m at t er of record:
( a) The developers subst it ut ed t he t ur bines t hat had been subj ect ed t o envir onm ent al im pact
assessm ent in t he planning process, w it h t urbines of ver y different dim ensions- - a squat t ower w it h long
blades. Ther e was no sect ion 73 applicat ion, no revision t o t he Environm ent al St at em ent and no public
consult at ion.
( b) I t w as not clear whet her t he layout of t he wind far m was in accordance wit h guidance as it
com prised t wo st r aight lines of t ur bines; also w het her t he t urbines w ere t oo close t oget her.
( c) The developers w ere aware of ot her wind t urbines having caused problem s prior t o t he const ruct ion
of t he Deeping St Nicholas wind farm e.g. t he Askham Maiwag case ( 2004) .
( d) The developer's original noise exper t st at ed in a pr oof of evidence r elat ing t o anot her w ind t urbine
t hat t he noise im pact assessm ent in t he Deeping St Nicholas Envir onm ent al St at em ent did not follow
t he ETSU- R- 97 m et hodology in t hat it failed t o separat e t he am enit y and night - t im e noise dat a from t he
pot ent ial m easurem ent s; also he w as concerned t hat no wind shear pot ent ial had been analysed.
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/delivery?& docguid=ID5378670CC8811E1B... 17/07/2012
Delivery | Westlaw UK
Page 7 of 8
( e) No ETSU- R- 97 backgr ound noise m onit oring w as undert aken at t he Davises' propert y prior t o
planning perm ission despit e it being one of t he closest propert ies t o t he t urbines.
( 2) Mr Norris says t hat assum ing t he fact s had been resolved in t he defendant s' favour , t hey would
have est ablished ( int er alia) “ t he oper at or responded const ruct ively t o t he neighbours' repeat ed
com plaint s but w as frust rat ed in it s invest igat ion by t he behaviour and at t it ude of t hose who were
com plaining” . I n fact , as a m at t er of record:
( f) The Davises com plained about t he noise from t he t urbines alm ost im m ediat ely in June 2006; t hey
m oved out of t heir farm house in Decem ber 2006 for sleeping purposes; t hey abandoned it alt oget her in
May 2006; t hey offered t he oper at or t he farm house as a research base for 6 m ont hs but t his offer w as
not t aken up; nuisance pr oceedings wer e com m enced nearly four years lat er in March 2010.
( g) The Davises did allow Hayes McKenzie t o undert ake noise m onit or ing at t heir propert y in lat e 2006,
but t hey becam e disenchant ed for a num ber of reasons including t he fact t hey w ere only allowed t o see
t he fir st part of Mr Hayes' repor t ; t he operat or and local aut horit y refused t o allow t hem t o see t he
second part of t he r epor t and t hey only obt ained it follow ing a FOI r equest .
( h) The Davises r equired t hat any furt her m onit oring by t he operat or be in t he right wind condit ions and
for a sufficient ly long per iod of t im e t o give proper r esult s and t o be co - m onit ored by t heir own noise
expert . This w as appar ent ly unr easonable.
Susan Ring, par t ner , and Bar bara Webb, t rainee, of Richar d Buxt on Solicit ors who act ed for t he
Claim ant s in Davis v Tinsley et al.
J.P.L. 2012, 8, 892- 898
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
William Nor ris QC, “ Wind far m noise and privat e nuisance: issues ar ising in Dav is v Tinsley ” [ 2012] J.P.L. 230.
Davis v Tinsley et al.
Wind Farm s- - Dist ance fr om housing St andar d Not e SN/ SC/ 5221, House of Com m ons Librar y .
Bar r v Biffa Wast e Ser vices Lt d [ 2012] EWCA Civ 312.
One issue not r esolved by Barr v Biffa Wast e Serv ices Lt d [ 2012] EWCA Civ 312 is t he im pact planning perm ission
m ay have on t he charact er of an area. How ever , Lawr ence v Fen Tigers [ 2011] EWHC 360 ( QB) is curr ent ly being
appealed in t he Supr em e Court w hich m ay lead t o m or e guidance on t his t opic. Barr and Lawr ence have been j oined
and ar e bot h wait ing for per m ission t o appeal.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Bar r v Biffa Wast e Ser vices Lt d [ 2012] EWCA Civ 312 at [ 44] .
Bar r v Biffa Wast e Ser vices Lt d [ 2012] EWCA Civ 312 at [ 72] .
Tr ansco Plc v St ockport MBC [ 2003] UKHL 61.
Hulm e v Secr et ar y of St at e & RES Developm ent s Lt d [ 2011] EWCA Civ 638.
Bar r v Biffa Wast e Ser vices Lt d [ 2012] EWCA Civ 312 at [ 106] .
Wind Turbine Am plit ude Modulat ion: Research t o I m pr ov e Underst anding as t o it s Cause & Effect , Present at ion on
Oct ober 25, 2011 Hoar e Lea ( Renew ableUK Annual Confer ence and Exhibit ion) .
12.
Bar r v Biffa Wast e Ser vices Lt d [ 2012] EWCA Civ 312 at [ 46] .
© 2012 Sweet & Max well and it s Cont r ibut or s
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/delivery?& docguid=ID5378670CC8811E1B... 17/07/2012