Compensation paid on the basis proximity to Windfarm may be a health threat

They should do what they do in Holland and the UK. Put the wind turbines out at sea. Hugh arrays of wind turbines doing nobody any harm.

Would imagine that ruling is pretty serious for the wind industry, especially when trying to get permission for new turbines as well as more claims coming down the track.

Was reading before that land based turbines are pretty inefficient compared to what can be achieved at sea where the turbines can be a lot bigger. Isnt there plans afoot for a large wind farm off the east coast?

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I accepted it can be affected in an earlier post sure, I'm still waiting to be told why that should be anyone's concern other than the property owner themselves.


Again, if they wanted a solid investment, they should not have picked a house.

I think your logic on buying a house is flawed. I bought a house, not as an investment but to live in for the rest of my life. I (like everyone else) pay a level of interest on the house which means by the time the mortgage is paid off I will have paid the value of the house plus around 50-60% (if i'm lucky!). Also anytime I need to switch my mortgage providers I have to pay for a valuation on the house, this valuation could have serious repercussions on the rate I must pay on my mortgage or even the ability to switch at all. If you were not able to switch you are forced to accept the rate of the bank you are currently locked in with.

If you're buying a house to live in and you don't consider the future value of the house then I think you are very ill advised.

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I am considering it, I am considering that the value can both go up, which in simple terms would reduce my LTV, and that the value can also go down, decreasing my LTV.

I am not going into the purchase without being wise to the fact that these values and many of the factors that go into the assessment of same are completely out of my control.

Using house values as an argument against creating infrastructure is not acceptable from my viewpoint.

Generally I agree but it would be unreasonable to completely disregard the investments people have made in their homes. Because no matter how much you say that a home isn't or shouldn't be an investment it most certainly is even if you intend to never resell and that's my point.

That's not to say I agree with opposing wind farms being built beside someone's home. In most cases as long as there is some consideration by planners to nearby residents I don't think they should be opposed. the effects of wind farms on residents is definitely blown (pun intended) out of proportion but's not to say that there is no effect on them (for example, look up strobing effects from wind turbines).

Muahahaha wrote: »

Would imagine that ruling is pretty serious for the wind industry, especially when trying to get permission for new turbines as well as more claims coming down the track.

Was reading before that land based turbines are pretty inefficient compared to what can be achieved at sea where the turbines can be a lot bigger. Isnt there plans afoot for a large wind farm off the east coast?

I hope there were no army deafness claimants making claims about the noisy turbines.

facehugger99 wrote: »

There's a sizable cohort in this country, who want every mod-con available to them but will whinge and whine if a necessary part of the underlying infrastructure, to support their modern lives, is placed within a few miles of them.

Crying about the health hazards of mobile phone masts while blasting the networks for poor coverage is the most common example in rural Ireland