The test in law for Nuisance is whether the noise is intolerable to a reasonable person.  The Milne’s evidence clearly shows that they find the noise intolerable so the case comes down to whether they are reasonable.  Much of the cross examination by James Findlay QC, Counsel for the Defence, was designed to show that they were over sensitive or sensitised.  Audio clips were produced and the one played in court had a helicopter drowning out turbine noise.

Dick Bowdler gave evidence in technical terms to show that the Milne’s reaction to the noise was something to be expected. He also discovered there was a flaw in the data used by James Findlay QC and brought this up in his evidence.

Lay evidence also showed the Milne’s reaction was reasonable because other people felt the same about the noise.
The defence evidence consisted of 15 minutes from Mr Howie Jnr of Stuartfield Windpower and Cameron Sutherland their Noise Consultant, who showed 13 reports confirmed  the planning condition was met.  This of course is irrelevant in a Nuisance case.
Both parties will return to court for Closing Submissions on 12 March with a decision expected shortly afterwards .
Categories: SAS Blog

SAS Volunteer

We publish content from 3rd party sources for educational purposes. We operate as a not-for-profit and do not make any revenue from the website. If you have content published on this site that you feel infringes your copyright please contact: to have the appropriate credit provided or the offending article removed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *