40.3 of constitution - the inviolability of the home and industrial noise

sotobuild

in the recent case Wicklow CC vs K Fortune - ref http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/08C425B3D45C739F80257B89004D5D35?Open&Highlight=0,40.5,~language_en~~

The inviolability of the home is re-asserted.

Given this ruling and constitutional clause 40.5 would this mean that if an industrial or commercial enterprise was to be continuously making a noise night and day - all be it within the guidelines of the EPA and other current planning guidance that this noise "violated" their rights "that in a free society the dwelling is set apart as a place of repose from the cares of the world".

What level of proof would be required to show that its no longer possible to use this place as "a place of repose from the cares of the world". e,g, if the noise of the enterprise could be heard above the sound of a the fridge, or a TV or radio program or the noise caused or was felt to cause a difficulty in sleeping at night.

And given that hearing is such a subjective sense and empirical measurement can not always portray the full sense of feeling and sensing what approach would one need to take to create that burden of proof.

So as to contextualise this discussion - the industrial enterprise is a wind farm.

Carawaystick

A couple living near Charlemont tram stop in Dublin lost a case against the rpa a while ago. They were complaining about the very loud squealing noise the trams make turning tight bends nearby.

The judge said (roughly) "you live in a city, its noisy, get over it"

234

Is it just me or had Hogan J being going a bit mad with the constitutional aspects of his cases since he was elevated?

It seems that even if a right is not pleaded he will find a way to bring it in. Or where one is pleaded he is very well disposed to allow.

loremolis

234 wrote: »

Is it just me or had Hogan J being going a bit mad with the constitutional aspects of his cases since he was elevated?

It seems that even if a right is not pleaded he will find a way to bring it in. Or where one is pleaded he is very well disposed to allow.

criticising a judge not the judgement?:)

sotobuild

Carawaystick wrote: »

A couple living near Charlemont tram stop in Dublin lost a case against the rpa a while ago. They were complaining about the very loud squealing noise the trams make turning tight bends nearby.

The judge said (roughly) "you live in a city, its noisy, get over it"

Do you have the case reference for this ?

Carawaystick

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0305/128413-luas/

sixth link of google search
Luas Noise Charlemont.....