Planning Practice Guidance “Renewable and low carbon energy” advises that, as regards the noise impacts of wind turbines, a local planning authority (“LPA”) should use “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms”, a report describing the findings of a group of experts on wind turbine noise. (It is frequently referred to simply as “ETSU-R-97”). It also issues a reminder that the Department of Energy and Climate Change has endorsed, as a supplement to ETSU-R-97, a report entitled “Good Practice Guidance on Noise Assessment of Wind Farms” prepared by the Institute of Acoustics.
In terms of wind farm noise measured in decibels, ETSU-R-97 states that consideration should be given to increasing the permissible margin above the background limit where the occupier of noise sensitive property has some “financial involvement” in the wind farm. It justifies this by adding: “It is widely accepted that the level of disturbance or annoyance caused by a noise source is not only dependent upon the level and character of the noise but also on the receiver’s attitude towards the noise source in general”. In other words, where occupiers are benefitting financially, they can be treated as having a higher tolerance.
It was also contended in R (on the application of Joicey) v Northumberland County Council (see PP 2014/176) that the LPA had misinterpreted the notion of “financial involvement” in ETSU-R-97. As a result, for instance, it had applied high noise limits for all of the noise sensitive properties in the vicinity of the wind turbine, when some were occupied by persons with no “financial involvement” in the wind turbine. (On the applicant’s surrounding land, there were a number of cottages let on residential tenancies in addition to the properties occupied by the applicant.)
The claimant succeeded on this ground also. The court first distinguished between “financial interest” and “financial involvement”, holding that in this context even a token financial benefit might be sufficient to qualify as a “financial interest”. However, “financial involvement” connoted a substantial financial benefit from the wind turbine, such as that accruing to the owner or operator, or the landowner. The LPA was wrong to assume that, because all of the noise sensitive properties were owned by the applicant, that was the end of the matter. The applicant’s tenants did not have a “financial involvement”.
John Martin is a planning law consultant
