This noise nuisance case clearly demonstrates that having planning permission and complying with the noise conditions of that planning permission DOES NOT MEAN THAT A NUISANCE DOES NOT EXIST! (It's like the smoke nuisance thread from Mikeee5, where a "compliant stove" can still cause nuisance).
This case also clearly demonstrates that one rule is applied to an individual turbine owner but another is applied to wind farm companies (easy target?). How can those companies argue that because they comply with the planning noise controls/conditions (based on ETSU) that a nuisance cannot be being caused? If that was the case then the Local Authority could not have served a notice on this individual with his £20 turbine.

So do we need a set distance/total-height or similar between turbines and properties unless the properties agree (read get cash)?

Some standarisation that would reduce the effort/pain/expense/uncertainty in setting up a windfarm...

Possible locations could then be cross referenced with infrastructure/windspeed to make sure that the 'best' locations are developed rather than simply where the developer has some land.

We seem to manage to build new roads without the same level of angst and they can often be heard from 1000s of homes.

This might be because we view roads as 'essential' but not renewables.

Agree nuisance is totally subjective but a easy (cautious) metric that says a certain distance from a certain turbine is not grounds for nuisance would give improved certainty to developers.

The main result of the running battle is hacking people (on both sides) off and making renewables more expensive.

Road noise is totally different than noise from wind turbines! Road noise is not a point source and it is at ground level, making attenuation through engineering relatively straightforward. If you have a road and put it in a cutting, you increase the distance the noise has to travel to get to a receptor and the ground surface will absorb some of the sound, both these things reduce the noise level experienced at receptors. Putting a road on a flyover creates big noise issues but you can still run an acoustic barrier along the line of the flyover. You can't do that to a wind turbine. Oh and you get financial compensation if they build an new road near you!

Best noise attenuation technique is to increase the distance from noise source to receptor. A turbine is a point noise source on a long pole and so there is no attenuation from the ground and so you can do one of two things. 1. reduce noise at source or, 2. Increase distance (noise level halved with doubling of distance). You can only do a bit of No.1 (eg make the gearbox and generator quieter but most of the noise will be from the blades and reducing that reduces the efficiency so is very limited). No.2 IS THE ONLY OPTION. It's quite straightforward once the noise performance of a given turbine has been measured, you just need to establish at what level will noise nuisance occur. THIS IS WHAT BS:4142 DOES AND HAS BEEN DOING FOR 20 YEARS. So why don't we adopt that for wind farms? Because it would show that wind farms would have to be considerable distances from dwellings and that would greatly reduce the availability of sites.

Nick? "Or is it an 'English' problem and as we don't have an indigenous industry it is up to us to waste our time with the land based stuff."

But windy, remember there is an alternative definition of NIMBY.

"I'm all for the things BECAUSE they're Not In My Back Yard."

And the designers of large turbines have improved their designs over the years, but as each turbine will behave differently in different landscapes (not such a big factor with the smaller machines, I believe) not all contingencies/variables can be allowed for. Add to that the fact that turbines are getting so much bigger and you can see where the problem lies.

Posted By: jms452We seem to manage to build new roads without the same level of angst and they can often be heard from 1000s of homes.

When the A14 was built in Huntingdon locals were offered free double glazing. Now a wind farm is being proposed that the applicant says could be louder than background noise levels. No offer of double glazing from them. Perhaps they know that the low frequencies go right through it :-)

It's not just volume it's the very repetitive nature that seems to be the problem. Bit like listening to the neighbours hifi going thump thump thump.

So that would be in line with general house price falls. But the Council tax was set by an Estate Agent drive by in the early 1990's and has no bearing on today's, or 2007, prices.
Could have been cheaper that the Council fighting in courts.

I need lots that on a like for like basis, so comparing London, with its few multi-million pound sales, skewing the mean inflation figure (itself a poor method of gauging house prices) with Yorkshire and The Humber, with probably a very small volume of sales, is not really the way to do it.
I coudl say that my house is worth X and constantly reduce it to Y until it sells, then claim, with no evidence that the reason I had to sell at a lower price was because, bad area, the economy, I had to sell, I felt generous, the area is going down hill, the estate agent knew nothing etc. I could also claim that I can see a windturbine, and a mine pump house, that I am in a heritage area and it has no development opportunities.
Truth is that some parts may be true, but unpicking it all is very hard. And my initial asking price of X was unrealistic.

The truer gauge of house price value is what those people who claim they have been blighted will sell for.
If I turned up with £300,000 would they hand over the deeds? Maybe that should be stipulated in the rate reduction.

Here is a report that draws no conclusion (I think). http://www.rics.org/site/scripts/faq_info.aspx?faqID=2819
I am sure for every report that claims a loss, there are others than claim no loss. I think the reason for that is because it is the owners perception and not the turbines themselves. Would a first time buyer at the other end of the market (the sub £100k sector) be so vocal and demanding? Are there any reports of this sector getting a discount?

Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that turbines are silent and should be fitted anywhere and they will all work perfectly all the time and everyone will like the look of them, but if they really are a blight, they should be affecting everyone equally, and that does not seem to be the case, even allowing for dodgy statistical reviews.

And will the 10% reduction in turbine subsidies and the link to gas prices make any difference to the numbers fitted?

Surely the point is that the council tax banding and the value of the property now are so disjointed, as well as the council charge for each band, there is no relevance to reality any more. Other things change.

Was that couple ordered to pay a 25% reduction because it was a wind farm or because they withheld information? It could have been an airport being built and not mentioned, and I suspect that the solicitor had to claim on their PI for that one.

One of the problems is that we only get the headlines and not the complicated legal arguments that went on.

So anyone going to contact all the people and offer them the new valuation of their properties and see what the response is?

It would also be a bit rich if the people asking for compensation for perceived monetary devaluation also claimed that 'it is all about the money' when a farmer rents his land out to a wind farm developer/operator.

I shall say it again, I am not saying that turbines are silent and should be fitted anywhere and they will all work perfectly all the time and everyone will like the look of them, but if they really are a blight, they should be affecting everyone equally, and that does not seem to be the case, even allowing for dodgy statistical reviews.

Yes
One recent landmark case in 2008, we are now in 2012 and surely everyone near a wind farm, that claiming to be affected, should be getting the same deal. Has it happened? Will it happen?

I do try and use decent resources, there seems to be very little on this subject and even less hard evidence that they affect house prices because they are a annoying sometimes.

Has Jane Davis sold her place?

I used to teach some, that was enough to know that all they are interested in is themselves.
I don't they think that they have moved on from 'dogs salivate when ready to eat'.

But it does open up possibilities to asking the right questions.
If I was conduction a survey about wind farm noise, I would be asking very probing question about peoples lifestyles and lifestyle expectations.

If I buy a 250kW turbine and put it on my farm, with a guaranteed income for 20 years, it will increase the value of my farm. Will it increase the value of the neighbouring property, make no difference or make it slightly less attractive to any buyer? I suspect fewer people would want to buy it, thus reducing the competition for the property = less money potential.

Posted By: SteamyTea
Has Jane Davis sold her place?

No. The title was transferred to the wind farm developer as part of the settlement.

So in all those cases, did all the other people who lived near by get compensation, recognition, agree (or disagree) with the development. Have they all complained or moved.
No, and that is the point I am making about it affecting everyone equally. This is what I feel there is not enough research being done.

I would have hardly called the relationship between RES's Ruffles and Huhlme as friends, civil yes, not friendship

Does living in a place for many years weaken or strengthen a case for compensation of some sort?