2024 TNEI Wind Farm Judicial Review Case Overview – Wind Turbine Noise
As we approach February, we thought we would highlight an interesting Judicial Review case that TNEI was involved with last year in the Republic of Ireland. The case related to a consented wind farm whose approval was challenged by a local objector group (the Applicants). A number of challenges were presented, including the suggestion that the decision to consent the wind farm by An Bord Pleanála (the Board) had not properly considered all of the information presented to them i.e. the information that had been previously submitted by the Applicants and other objectors; the argument that the current Wind Energy Development Guidelines are out of date; and, the argument that there was a lack of consideration and assessment of Amplitude Modulation (AM).
Many of these challenges were reminiscent of a previous case from 2019, (commonly referred to as ‘Balz’), where the judge found that the Board’s decision had been flawed, and consequently quashed the planning permission.
The case was a complicated but entertaining one, with the Judge’s decision notice filled with quotes akin to those found in a critic’s film review, rather than a typical Judicial Review Decision:
‘Flushed with enthusiasm about this authority, the applicant now tries to rerun that case, and expects big box-office success with the blockbuster sequel – Balz II: The Groundhog Rises’ , and;
‘If I can be allowed an alternative metaphor, it is an attempt to shoe-horn this case into a pre-existing Balz-shaped glass slipper. But on the facts, the slipper doesn’t fit, and the argument overstays its curfew, ending as stale pumpkin rather than fairy-tale happy-ever-after’(!).
To summarise a long case, the Applicant argued that the Decision made by the Board;
- Lacked relevant consideration of other material relating to wind turbine noise, other than the currently adopted Wind Energy Development Guidelines (WEDG) 2006;
- Failed to consider submissions arguing the WEDG 2006 were / are out of date and no longer represent best scientific knowledge as regards wind turbine noise; and
- Failed to consider / assess amplitude modulation (AM), and therefore erred in law.
The Judge ultimately decided that the Board did consider submissions made by the Applicant and other material outside that of the WEDG2006, including the more recent draft WEDG2019 (which are currently being revised), consideration of several other guidance documents (including British Standard 4142, and WHO guidelines).
The Judge also decided that AM was sufficiently considered, following contributions by TNEI’s Jim Singleton (originally the Applicant contended that a planning condition to control AM should be imposed, but Jim noted that imposing an AM planning condition is at odds with the advice stated in the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) ‘A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU R 97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise’). It was noted that, currently, whilst there is a method to measure and quantify AM, further work is required to develop a robust mechanism for controlling AM that could be incorporated into a planning condition.
The Applicant submitted information relating to a huge range of issues and objections over the course of a 700+ page submission, each of which demanded certiorari (grounds to quash a decision). It was noted that the objections lacked detail and were perhaps more quantity than quality, and in the end the Judge ordered the proceedings to be dismissed.
The need to thoroughly consider potential impacts associated with wind turbine noise remains an essential part of the wind farm design and consenting process. Whilst an update to the WEDG is expected this year it is essential that noise continues to be properly considered in the meantime to protect wind farm neighbours, to help inform decision makers and to provide certainty to wind farm developers. The noise team at TNEI have been involved in the modelling and assessment of over 5 GW of onshore wind turbines at all stages of the process from desktop modelling to compliance monitoring. If you are looking for support on your projects or would like to know more about the Coom Judicial Review case, please get in touch.
This article was drafted by Jason Baldwin, TNEI’s input to the judicial review was led by Jim Singleton.
Jason is a Principal Technical Consultant with over 10 years experience working on noise related assessments with a focus on renewable energy developments. He holds the Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control, and moved to Dublin in 2019 to lead TNEI’s noise assessment work in Ireland.
Jim is a Specialist Consultant and Expert Witness whose experience within acoustics consultancy covers a range of sectors including environmental noise, occupational noise and architectural acoustics but with particular expertise in energy generation, storage and infrastructure projects. Jim has over 17 years’ experience working on noise projects across the UK and abroad and previously lectured in acoustics for 6 years. He is a full Member of the Institute of Acoustics (IOA), holds a first-class BSc (Hons) and the IOA Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control.
