Precedent fuels windfarm flight

9:00am Wednesday 14th January 2004

ANTI-WINDFARM camp-aigners have been given a boost by news of a landmark legal ruling which proves that wind turbines can significantly damage the value of nearby properties.

Plans for England's largest windfarm on the fells between Shap and Tebay could be affected by the legal precedent created by a judge's ruling in the case of a Furness couple who live in the shadow of the Askam windfarm.

Barry Moon and his partner Gill Haythornthwaite took legal action against the couple who sold them Poaka Beck House in 1997, because the couple failed to disclose that plans were afoot to put turbines only 550 metres from the house.

District Judge Buckley said that failure amounted to "material misrepresentation", making the sellers liable to pay £15,000, or 20 per cent of the 1997 market value of the house, to the new owners.

In so doing, he established for the first time in a court of law that windfarms can damage property values because of damage to visual amenity and noise.

Although the original ruling was made in October 2001, the couple involved, Barry Moon and Gill Haythornthwaite, say they have gone public with their case in the hope it will help others fend off the development of windfarms in "inappropriate" locations.

The news comes as debate rages about windfarm proposals in the county including those at Hoff, near Appleby, and at Whinash on fells between Shap and Tebay.

Kyle Blue from the No Whinash Windfarm group said he already knew of two properties near the Whinash site where values were already being affected and he said the ruling would help the fight against the proposed windfarm.

Steve Molloy, from West Coast Energy Ltd, the company behind the Whinash plan for 27 turbines, each 115 metres tall, said it was the first case of its kind he knew about. "I have no doubt it is going to be quoted by lots of people opposing windfarms once it becomes widely known," he said. But he added that loss of property value, although unfortunate, was not a material planning consideration and did not undermine the industry's argument that the benefits of sustainable energy outweighed the objections.