Couple win £1m landmark payment for RAF jet noise

A couple won £1m damages yesterday for the "unbearable" noise suffered from living next to an RAF station in a case that could lead to hundreds more compensation claims from homeowners.

The landmark ruling in the High Court in London could also trigger noise pollution claims from residents living near civil aircraft runways, including those at Heathrow and Gatwick.

Darby Dennis, 51, and his wife, Catherine, 46, said that the jets landing and taking off close to Walcot Hall, on the Cambridgeshire-Lincolnshire border, from RAF Wittering, were affecting their family and business lives. The farming couple told the court that the noise from the Harrier jump jets was so loud it had hurt their children's ears and left their children's friends in tears.

Mr Justice Buckley said the level of noise was a "very serious interference" with the ordinary enjoyment of the property, whether judged from inside or outside the house.

Awarding them £950,000 in compensation and up to £100,000 in legal costs, the judge said it was an interference "that no one should be called upon to endure in any location".

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence said the ruling set an important precedent for people living close to about 20 other RAF flying stations as well as civil airports. She said: "This is not an MoD-specific liability and could have implications for flight paths and runways for civil aircraft. We take great care to monitor noise levels and minimise any potential disturbance but the RAF has to train its pilots."

Mr Justice Buckley said that the public interest clearly demanded that RAF Wittering should continue to train pilots and he refused, therefore, to rule the disturbance unlawful.

Instead, he awarded compensation for the nuisance, which he said amounted to "interference" with the couple's right to respect for their home, family life and privacy enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their private property. The court approached the case on the basis that the nuisance would cease in about 2012, with the arrival of future carrier-borne aircraft (FCBA). Training would probably be largely in the United States.

The judge said that because noise levels from the new aircraft would be even greater than the Harrier, other residents might be able to bring claims. "The argument that such a level of noise, which would cross the threshold of potential damage to hearing, should not be inflicted on residents anywhere, would be strong," Mr Justice Buckley said. "To put it bluntly, the MoD would be well advised to train pilots for FCBA in the wide-open spaces the USA can provide or reconsider the location of training fields here."

Mr and Mrs Dennis, who had claimed in total £10m damages for the loss of opportunity of using their 17th-century home for corporate entertainment, said they were delighted by the ruling. Mr Dennis said: "Maybe after a few more years of Harriers, we will have some relative peace and quiet. There is light at the end of the tunnel not just for us but for other people in similar situations."

John Stewart, of HACAN ClearSkies, which campaigns against aircraft noise, said the judgment paved the way for similar actions. He said: "I think it opens the way for people to take up such issues, not only regarding the MoD, but also over civilian aircraft. "In the past, this hasn't really been open to people because aircraft noise is really excluded from noise laws in the UK."

Peter Wakeham, of the Noise Abatement Society, said he hoped the Ministry of Defence would listen to the result of the case. "We fully appreciate that aircraft have to fly and pilots have to train, but the people who are the recipients should be allowed to have their quality of life undisturbed."

Nick Cook, an aviation consultant at Jane's Defence Weekly magazine, said the RAF was already running a restrictive training regime. "Training is difficult at the best of times in this country because there are only so many air ways open for low flying. It's always a very emotive issue."