Noise Nuisance

There are two recent legal cases discussed in this article, the first concerns the resolution of an ongoing dispute between the operator of a wind turbine and a close neighbour, and the second, another neighbour dispute arising from noise and inconvenience generated by footballers using a primary school’s all-weather play area.

By Dani Fiumicelli

Noise-related legal cases have been relatively scarce over the past few months; however, two interesting cases have been decided recently.

Wind turbine noise part two
Firstly, there is the Irish case of Webster & Anor v Meenacloghspar [Wind] Ltd; Shorten & Anor v Meenacloghspar [Wind] Ltd [No.2] (Approved) [2025] IEHC 300 (27 May 2025).
This is round two of an earlier case reported in Acoustics Bulletin where the Irish High Court found that noise from a wind farm was a legal nuisance. The case was reopened after the wind farm trialled the potential mitigation of operating the offending turbine (T2) in a lower power mode with reduced noise emissions. The residents maintain that this lower power mode has not abated the nuisance and sought an order directing the shutdown of T2 during sensitive periods. The wind farm’s principal counter argument is that the T2 does not pose a nuisance even in its ‘full’ power mode and that no mitigation is therefore required. The wind farm sought to adduce new evidence to persuade the Court to revisit the finding of nuisance by arguing that this shows that, even allowing for amplitude modulation (AM), the WTN levels are lower than the noise limit fixed by current Irish planning guidance on wind energy developments (WEDG 2006).

The Court firmly rejected the wind farm’s argument. The judge determined that this new evidence could, with reasonable diligence, have been obtained for use in the first hearing and rejected the argument that a new technical specification on noise measurement techniques provides scientifically robust guidance on what level and nature of wind turbine noise causes unacceptable interference with residential amenity. She also concluded that the wind farm’s new evidence does not comprise a useful or complete baseline assessment for the purposes of crafting abatement measures; and that, even if admitted, the new evidence would not substantially impact or alter her finding on liability. On the basis that renewable energy production is of benefit to the wider public the judge issued an injunction requiring a 5 dBA reduction in day time noise emissions from T2, but was not convinced that this was sufficient at night and therefore ordered the turbine to be shut down during night periods for windspeeds of 5 m/s to 11 m/s inclusive in those wind directions associated with high AM values and thump AM. The full judgement can be seen here https://tinyurl.com/fulljudge

Noise from an all-weather play area
The second case is Bakhaty & Anor v Hampshire County Council [2025] EWHC 1175 (KB) (14 May 2025) concerning noise from an all-weather play area (AWPA). A couple living next to a primary school were awarded £1,000 in damages after the High Court decided that the weekend community use of the AWPA amounted to a nuisance. The judge did not grant an injunction to prohibit the use of the facility but found that its operation outside of school hours failed to give ‘proper consideration’ to the interests of the neighbours. The school built the AWPA, which is mainly used as a five-aside pitch, in 2021. School children used the pitch during the week and the local community use it at weekends. The claimants, who live in a property directly adjacent to the play area, complained about noise and footballs entering their garden over the fence. They issued a claim against the council in October 2022, alleging that the activities on the AWPA in terms of noise and the escape of footballs amounted to a common law nuisance.

The case featured evidence from acoustic consultants for both parties. As there is no specific guidance on noise from AWPAs each side crafted assessment criteria from sources such as the WHO Community Noise guidelines, the CIEH clay pigeon shooting guidelines, ‘Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) Acoustics – Planning Implications’ published by Sports England, and speech interference guidelines. The pros and cons of these sources of advice were discussed, for example the use of guidelines outside of the intended scope and time averaging periods longer than the duration of the noise, and the judge heard audio recordings made by the claimant’s acoustic adviser.

The judge ultimately made the following conclusions relating to the nuisance claim:
• the installation and use of the AWPA does not per se give rise to actionable nuisance;
• having regard to all the circumstances, the use of the AWPA by third parties outside of school hours was not done ‘conveniently’ and was therefore a nuisance;
• similarly, the frequent projection of footballs over the boundary from the AWPA was a nuisance;
• the mitigations put in place in July 2022 were such as to prevent a further actionable nuisance from arising. The occasional ball over the fence since that time (something common to many gardens), whilst annoying, is not at a sufficient level to be a substantial interference with the claimant’s use and enjoyment of their property; and
• in his judgment, use of the AWPA by children during school hours (including any pre-school or after school provision) does not give rise to an actionable nuisance, provided that the net to prevent escape of footballs over the AWPA is maintained.
The judge did not grant an injunction to stop use of the AWPA but awarded £1,000 in general damages to the claimants. The judgement can be read here https://tinyurl.com/AWPAHampshire