Response to Wiltshire Core Strategy Focused Consultation
Amendment to Core Policy 42 on Standalone Renewable Energy Installations, Proposed Change Reference 180
THE CASE FOR MINIMUM DISTANCE EXCLUSION ZONES AROUND DWELLINGS
This representation relates to Wiltshire Council’s “Schedules of Proposed Changes to the Wiltshire Core Strategy Pre-Submission Document”. We consider the consultation material being commented on is legally compliant and sound. We support the Amendment to Core Policy 42, Proposed Change Reference 180, and wish to be part of the Examination Process.
This Response Document has been prepared by the STOP GRANGE FARM WIND FARM campaign group, c/o Elizabeth Winchcombe, Secretary SGFWF, West Ashton Village Hall, Bratton Road, West Ashton, Trowbridge, Wiltshire BA14 6AZ. Email: [email protected]
Mrs Carole Tocher (resident near a single turbine at Roscarnick Farm, Blackwater, Cornwall)
Letter appearing in local press, West Briton, nr Truro, Cornwall 27 Sept 2012
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 1
FOR WILTSHIRE COUNCIL : CORE STRATEGY CONSULTATION 2012
Renewable Energy: Onshore Wind – Large Wind Turbines Separation Distances
THE CASE FOR MINIMUM DISTANCE EXCLUSION ZONES AROUND DWELLINGS
CONTENTS Page
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 4
The Issues
Medical Reviews 5
Noise, Low-Frequency Noise (LFN) & Light Effects 7
Turbine Failures & Physical Danger 10
Community Projects 12
Policy Precedents 12
Wiltshire & the Planning Process 19
Political Views 20
Legal Comments & Opinion 22
List of Appendices & Source documents 23
Appendices 1-19 25-88
Prepared by STOP GRANGE FARM WIND FARM campaign group, Wiltshire www.stopgrangefarmwindfarm.com Email: [email protected]
31 October 2012
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The larger the wind turbines and the closer they are located to residential premises, the greater the effects on people’s health, safety and residential amenity. Wiltshire Council’s proposed policy would greatly reduce these effects.
There are a significant number of well documented cases where local residents have had symptoms of sleep disturbance, headache, nausea and ear pressure caused by the repetitive swishing beat of turbine blade rotation. Many families have had to move home to relieve these symptoms. According to the World Health Organisation, sleep deprivation can lead to cardiovascular disease, and where noise has a high proportion of low-frequency sound, as wind turbines do, the problem is exacerbated. In addition, shadow flicker or strobe effects, when the sun or moon shines through rotating turbine blades, can also be intrusive and harmful particularly to those who suffer from epilepsy.
Some of these effects on the health of local communities living close by to large wind turbines will have already been compounded by the years of worry and uncertainty even before construction, as the planning and appeal process took its course.
The body of medical evidence and interest in relation to large wind turbines and human health is increasing. Regions where large turbines have been installed close to homes for over a decade have led the way in this field, notably the USA, and Danish, German and Australian doctors are now demanding greater recognition of the problem by government.
Methodologies and calculations used to assess issues of turbine noise and other residential disturbance within Planning processes are outdated and require urgent and wide-scale, unbiased, reanalysis. Large onshore turbines produce forms of noise, vibration, air pressure and light disturbance which impact the surrounding areas in varying forms depending on periods of turbine operation, location and weather conditions. These by-products of the energy production process have negative effects on people living in close proximity, but not everyone living nearby will be sensitive to the effects to the same degree, or will register the effects within any specific time period.
With ever larger and heavier onshore turbines now being erected, in greater numbers, with many in relatively near proximity to houses, the risk assessment for local residents must not be based on a hitherto lack of serious injuries, but on the potential for injury or serious property damage when large turbines are placed near dwellings, given that failures and collapses do occur. It should not take a freak accident where a piece of 40m blade is hurled into a home for standard separation distances to be increased significantly above the conventional 500-600m as at present.
Smaller turbine installations and Community Wind projects remain available options under a sensible and graduated Separation Distance protocol. It is inaccurate and highly misleading for opponents of the Wiltshire Core Strategy Amendment to claim that all forms of wind generation are banned by the use of such a measure.
What Wiltshire Council’s Amendment will do, besides protecting the health and safety of residents at risk from nearby wind farms, is to remove a large degree of uncertainty from the planning process. This process can take years for a final decision. Wiltshire’s minimum distances will save time, costs and worry for all stakeholders.
Across the developed world, many governments, both national and local, are now acknowledging the impacts on health and wellbeing for residents close to large onshore wind turbines. Steps towards improving protective legislation are being made, and, where the ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 3
onshore wind industry is more advanced than in the UK, such acceptance of the health effects and protective measures to limit proximity to dwellings leads the current position of the UK Government by some considerable margin. With the passing of the UK’s Localism Act (2011), the national government encouraged, and paved the way for local governments to take their own measures and enact their own legislation, responsive to local opinion and need.
Political opinions differ according to personal experience, party-political pressure, locality, and MP’s responsiveness to the impacts on constituents and constituencies, at both national and local levels. Concerns over the economic costs, efficiency, subsidies paid (often to large, non- UK tax-registered development corporations) and impact on residents’ health and property values all play a part. Certainly, a large and growing number of MP’s are now leading on these issues, including Energy Minister John Hayes.
A High Court landmark case was brought by Lincolnshire residents against a landowner and developer, which finally settled out of court in December 2011. If the case had been decided by the court the situation for onshore wind turbines within even 1km of homes could today be very different, which is doubtless why the developer agreed to settle.
Residents suffering negative effects from large-scale wind turbines have hitherto struggled to gather evidence and build cases which would have legal weight, in part due to the fact that a strong case requires evidence from prior to turbine installation, and sadly, many people affected do not realise the potential impact, or expect to be affected to the extent they are. They therefore often find themselves in a position where they can’t seek legal redress, may not be able to sell their home and move, simply can’t afford the costs, or are suffering such depression and stress that they cannot cope with the additional stress a legal action would bring.
Due to greater awareness of the risks to residents by communities, planners and local authorities, the number of legal actions will increase. If Wiltshire Council’s amendment is passed by the Inspector, we would see yet another benefit from Policy 42, as the need for legal action should evaporate. Local communities, local authorities, renewable energy developers, indeed all stakeholders, could then start working together, at least in Wiltshire, to enable a sensible renewable energy policy to be implemented.
INTRODUCTION
In connection with national government policy to encourage renewable energy sources, reflected in Wiltshire’s Core Strategy developed over the past 2-3 years, since 2010 two proposals for large industrial scale (i.e. >25 metres height to blade tip) onshore wind turbines within Wiltshire have been made, namely Ecotricity's application at the Honda Plant in Swindon and Renewable Energy Generation's proposal for Grange Farm, West Ashton. (Enclosed DVD produced for the Illwind campaign in Swindon. Examples of noise and shadow flicker footage are included with dramatic emphasis to clearly explain them to those who have never seen them at first hand.)
The Core Strategy consultation, running from 22 September to 1 November 2012, provides an opportunity to reflect on the appropriateness of minimum separation distances between wind turbines and Wiltshire residents' homes.
Therefore Wiltshire Council’s inclusion of a graduated separation distance/exclusion zone between large wind turbines and domestic homes is strongly supported, and our elected Councillors and the Planning Inspectorate are appealed to, to confirm and retain the limits as proposed, which provide reasonable graduated protective limits for onshore wind turbine development within the county.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 4
THE ISSUES
MEDICAL REVIEWS
The World Health Organization states that "Measurable effects of noise on sleep begin at LAeq levels of about 30 dB. ... When noise is continuous , the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dB(A) indoors , if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided. For noise with a large proportion of low-frequency sound [dB(C)], a still lower guideline value is recommended." ( Our italics. Source: WHO Guidelines for Community Noise 1999)
The Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide states that for residential buildings it should be 50 dB LAeq in day time and 35 dB LAeq at night. The World Health Organisation, in its “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe” (2009), recommended that “the population should not be exposed to night noise levels greater than 40 dB” for both intermittent and continuous noise. They conclude that “adverse health effects were observed at the level above 40 dB such as self-reported sleep disturbance, environmental insomnia, and increased use of somnifacient drugs and sedatives...Above 55 dB the cardiovascular effects become the major public health concern”.
Medical practitioners including Amanda Harry, England (2007 Wind Turbines Noise and Health); Robert McMurtry, Ontario, Canada; and Robyn Phipps, New Zealand have all recorded a common set of ill health effects among people living near industrial-scale wind turbines. The symptoms begin when local turbines began to turn, and they are relieved when the victims leave the area. Many families have had to abandon their homes as unliveable.
The symptoms include:
• sleep disturbance • headache • ringing or buzzing in the ears (tinnitus) • ear pressure • dizziness, vertigo • nausea • visual blurring • racing heartbeat (tachycardia) • irritability • problems with concentration and memory • panic episodes with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise while awake or asleep Dr. Nina Pierpont of New York, has coined the phrase "wind turbine syndrome" and determined that its primary cause is the effect of low-frequency wind turbine noise on the organs of the inner ear. Dr Pierpont recommends a separation distance of 1.25 miles (2 km) for large wind turbines from a home. The French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km) between large wind turbines and homes. Dr Marjolaine Villey-Migraine, University of Paris, also concluded that the minimum separation distance should be 5 km (3 miles) ( 2004, see source reference A). A study has also been done into shadow flicker and strobing effects on epilepsy by members of the Neurosciences Institute, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. The study showed that seizure risk decreases significantly only when the distance from turbines exceeds 100 ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 5
times the hub height (See Appendix 12). In addition, many people remain concerned about stray voltage, or ground current, caused by the hundreds of thousands of feet of buried electric cable in a typical wind power facility.
Table of Recent Medical Research in the Field of Ill Health caused by Wind Turbines
September/October 2012 edition of Noise & Health , a bi-monthly inter-disciplinary international journal www.noiseandhealth.org, Dr Christopher Hanning, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK, Michael A. Nissenbaum, Northern Maine Medical Center, Fort Kent, Maine, USA & Jeffery J. Aramini, Intelligent Health Solutions, Guelph, Ontario, Canada published a paper reviewing the “ Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health ”. They summarise: “Industrial wind turbines (IWTs) are a new source of noise in previously quiet rural environments. Environmental noise is a public health concern, of which sleep disruption is a major factor. ..participants…were enrolled in a stratified cross-sectional study involving two rural sites.” “Participants living within 1.4 km of an IWT had worse sleep, were sleepier during the day, and had worse SF36 Mental Component Scores compared to those living further than 1.4 km away. Significant dose- response relationships between PSQI, ESS, SF36 Mental Component Score, and log-distance to the nearest IWT were identified after controlling for gender, age, and household clustering. The adverse event reports of sleep disturbance and ill health by those living close to IWTs are supported.” (See Appendix 1.) September 2012: the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) commissioned a study into the effects of wind turbines on human health, due to report in May/June 2013. Senators John Madigan (Victoria) and Nick Xenophon (SA) have a Private Members’ Bill on Excessive Noise from Wind Farms currently in consultation (closing 2 November 2012) to go before the Australian Parliament’s Federal Senate Committee for the Environment & Communications. The noise issues specified are audible, inaudible and vibration. (See also Appendix 9.)
12 September 2012 : a group of German health professionals & doctors held a meeting due to their concerns about the health effects of large turbine developments in particular in the central German area of Hesse, and letters of support were provided by Dr Nina Pierpont of the USA, Dr Sarah Laurie of Australia’s Waubra Foundation, Dr Mariana Alves- Pereira of Portugal, Dr Allan Watts of Australia, and Dr Mauri Johansson of Denmark .
September 2012 : a local GP from Trerulefoot, Cornwall was quoted in the Cornish press as follows: " If turbines are too close to houses, some people suffer symptoms such as nause a, migraines, sleep deprivation, anxiety and depression." The cover of this document replicates a recent letter from a resident close to the turbine (c.54m) at Roscarnick Farm, Cornwall, to the local newspaper.
8 March 2012: the British Medical Journal published an article by Dr Christopher Hanning, Consultant in Sleep Medicine at Leicester University Hospital, and Dr Alan Evans, Professor at the Belfast Institute of Clinical Science. Their study on the effects of wind turbine noise on human health calls for an independent review of evidence that wind turbine noise affects human health adversely. The document refers to the large body of evidence for the negative impact on health and refers to New Zealand evidence for sleep disturbance on residents less than 2km away from wind turbines. Sleep specialist Dr Hanning believes turbine noise stimulates an alert response, leading to arousal episodes through the night that make restful sleep impossible. (See Appendix 2.)
January 2012: Barbara Frey (University of Minnesota) & Peter Hadden (FRICS) published a revision to their 2007 study into Wind Turbines and Proximity to Homes The Impact of Wind Turbine Noise on Health , a review of the literature . Evidence included was provided by Mr & Mrs Julian Davis of Deeping St Nicholas, Lincolnshire, who sued a developer for ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 6
damages, and Mr Mike Hulme of Den Brook, Devon. (See Appendices 3 and 10.)
December 2011: in a peer-reviewed report in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society (USA), Dr Carl Phillips – one of the U.S.’s most distinguished epidemiologists – concluded that there is “overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate”.
In 2010, Acoustic engineer Richard James linked the effects of wind farms on local residents to sick building syndrome, discovered to be linked to Low Frequency Noise (LFN) caused by misaligned air conditioning systems. The combination of LFN and ‘amplitude modulation’ (loudness that goes up and down) leads to fatigue, poor concentration and dizziness. ( See p.9 Section NOISE, LFN & Light Effects and Appendix 13 .)
NOISE, LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE (LFN) & LIGHT EFFECTS
Contrary to some Government reports suggesting that there is no evidence of ‘significant’ effects on human health with properly sited wind farms, there is in fact an increasing body of evidence supported by independent experts that large turbines produce direct effects on those living nearby. A recent report by Hayes MacKenzie identified a “possible low frequency sound” problem, and acknowledged the presence of amplitude modulation which is now the focus of additional studies by Renewable Energy (the Wind and Marine energy trade & professional body, which exists “to champion the generation, deployment and use of renewable power”.).
The failure to reach agreement on the effects of noise stems from the adoption of the sixteen year old guidance document which is used in the United Kingdom for setting wind farm noise limits at neighbouring properties, namely “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” commonly known by its reference number ETSU-R-97. Unfortunately, ETSU-R-97 contains errors and omissions which limit its utility for noise assessment and renders it unfit for purpose. These failings are numerous and include such fundamental flaws such as lack of clarity on permitted noise levels at nearby dwellings and a failure to address infrasound and noise patterns resulting from amplitude modulation. The methodology adopted for the measurement and assessment of noise is unsound and based on a number of unsubstantiated assertions. Consequently, the measured noise levels fail to represent actual levels experienced by local residents. ( See Appendix 14, Cox, Unwin, Sherman, Where ETSU is Silent, July 2012; Appendix.15, Bowdler, ETSU-R-97 Why it is Wrong.)
As a result of pressure from groups including acoustic specialists, planning authorities, campaigners and media reports, The Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) recently commissioned the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) to set up a working group to produce good practice guidance on the application of ETSU-R-97 to the assessment of noise from proposed and existing wind farms. The objective was to ensure that such assessments are carried out in a thorough and, as far as possible, consistent way and that the reports on these assessments provide all the necessary information to a reviewer or decision maker such as the Local Planning Authority or the Secretary of State.
However, wind farm noise assessment is currently dominated by two acoustic commercial consultancies: Hayes McKenzie Partnership and Hoare Lea Acoustics. These consultancies were on the original ETSU working group and are members of the new working group mentioned above. Regrettably, the wind farm developers are major clients of these consultancies who therefore have a financial interest in the new guidance DECC has requested. (See Appendix 14 as above.)
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 7
Similarly, DECC is responsible for developing wind power and removing obstacles that may impede its development. Many observers view DECC as having nominal if any concern to protect wind farm neighbours from noise impacts. Here again, there is another clear conflict of interest. (See Appendix 14 as above.)
In July 2012 the working group published the discussion document “ A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for Wind Turbine Noise Assessment ” for consultation. The guidance diverges from ETSU-R-97 in a number of key areas resulting in a reduction in protection from noise for wind farm neighbours.
A number of experts in the field have severely criticised the new document and concluded that rather than creating a more robust guidance for planning authorities the guidance is weakened in a number of areas. In particular the good practice methods for the prediction of non-typical background noise such as amplitude modulation and infrasound are not being addressed. The Guide is due for publication in 2013.
Even though the existence of amplitude modulation and its negative effects is supported by a number of studies, including earlier studies by Hayes McKenzie, Salford University and the US Massachusetts Departments of Environmental Protection and Public Health (2012), DECC continue to be reluctant to include good practice guidance to planning authorities on atypical noise such as amplitude modulation.
In the course of an appeal and enquiry into a wind farm planning application at Den Brook valley in Devon, amplitude modulation was described as repetitive swishing beat occurring at turbine blade rotation frequency. Excessive amplitude modulated noise has been blamed for sleep disturbance.” (See Appendix 10.)
At a subsequent enquiry on Den Brook, the Inspector accepted that a planning condition to prevent excessive amplitude modulated noise was both necessary and reasonable, and included a new condition in respect of amplitude modulation as part of the consent.
The Inspector’s drafting of the terms surrounding enforcement of this condition was ambiguous, resulting in an appeal to the Courts, essentially for clarification. An Appeal Court decision provided that clarity by stating that the limits to amplitude modulation defined in Condition 20 of the Inspector’s decision must be complied with for the 25 year lifetime of the planning permission.
During the enquiry, the raw noise data was brought into the public domain only through the determination of an individual who, with the assistance of the local MP and advice from the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the Information Commissioner, succeeded in obtaining the data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change despite unwillingness on the part of DECC officials to facilitate its release. This is worth noting in that the relative difficulty of accessing such data from vested interest areas in the government and the renewables industry in itself indicates there are real issues with onshore turbines and for the negative effects of turbine noise. The lack of access to measured site noise data until the Planning stage is another demonstration of the bias in favour of the wind industry, as it is not commercially sensitive information and should be available to local residents from the time the developer receives it.
It is clear that ETSU-R-97 requires urgent updating or replacement to account for the fluctuating noise patterns associated with current large-scale wind turbine designs and the health effects of emitted noise experienced by residents living close to wind farms. In the meantime it is prudent that the separation distances stated in the Amendment to Core Policy 42 are adopted so that planners are able to meet their obligation to ensure that the health and ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 8
wellbeing of people living near wind farms are not compromised. It is imperative that new or revised documentation is prepared by a panel of independent experts who can demonstrate having no vested interests in the wind turbine industry. It is equally important that no conditions are imposed that restrict the scope of the work and in particular that account is taken of all forms of generated noise including low frequency noise, infrasound, and the disturbing irregular swishing or thumping effects of amplitude modulation.
31 May 2012: Richard R James, an Acoustic and Noise Control Engineer in the USA, reported on the appropriate siting of electricity generation sources which reviews both noise and health issues . His conclusions acknowledge deficiencies with the current tools and methods for monitoring the effects of large wind turbines, and also that night-time noise conditions are key, and generally under-recognised, causing long-term effects on local residents’ sleep patterns, resulting in stress and health impacts. (See Appendix 13.)
From the Dean-Waubra report ( Dr Bob Thorne, July 2010, New Zealand, see Appendix 11): “Evidence produced in New Zealand concerning the West Wind and TeRereHau wind farms indicate that the adverse effects of wind farm noise are well documented. West Wind has recorded 906 complaints over a 12 month period. TeRereHau has recorded 378 complaints over an 11 month period. Waubra has a less well documented complaint history but my observations and the statutory declarations as to effect are sufficient to identify issues. The research recorded in this Report is in addition to the peer-reviewed evidential text Sound, Noise, Flicker and the Human Perception of Wind Farm Activity presented at the proposed Turitea Wind Farm Board of Inquiry Hearing, Palmerston North New Zealand, March 2010.”
Shadow Flicker
The term shadow flicker describes the strobing effect on the ground or into properties caused by the sun (or a bright moon) behind turbine blades, an effect which can also be intrusive and harmful, particularly for those suffering from epilepsy. Passing shadows are different to flicker but can again be disturbing and distracting. The disruption to light extends in a broad east- west pattern over a considerable distance (depending on the height of the turbine and length of blades). It should be noted that flashing lights, such as caused by flash photography, are certainly taken seriously by other industries such as TV broadcasting.
DECC report by Parsons Brinckerhoff (c.2011, undated) concludes
“The extent of the impact that shadow flicker causes is given in a psychology study (Pohl, 1999). This study concludes that the shadow flicker effect did not constitute a significant harassment. However, under specific conditions the increased demands on mental and physical energy, indicated that cumulative long-term effects might meet the criteria of a significant nuisance. This demonstrates the need to reduce the impact where possible.” “Current guidance to assess shadow flicker in the Companion Guide to PPS22 (2004) states that impacts occur within 130 degrees either side of north from a turbine. This has been found to be an acceptable metric. Additionally, the 10 rotor diameter rule has been widely accepted across different European countries, and is deemed to be an appropriate assessment area, although there is potentially a need to differentiate between appropriate assessment areas at different latitudes. This is an area where the scientific evidence base could be readdressed. “ “ It is clear that there is no standard methodology that all developers adopt when carrying out shadow flicker assessments, and different developers and local authorities have different ways of approaching the assessment. Developers tend to use a “worst case ‟ assessment, with some developers using environmental or site specific factors to produce a “realistic ‟ case. Whilst the industry software that we reviewed can only be
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 9
used to carry out worst case shadow flicker assessments, there is perhaps a need to address worst-case and realistic shadow flicker in assessments.” ( Our italics. )
Many independent observers will question the reliability of the findings in the Parsons Brinckerhoff report: the main methodology for sourcing information was 14 questionnaires from wind farm developers and their consultants, and 17 questionnaires from LPAs of which the majority give no guidance on how shadow flicker should be assessed. No householders were included in the survey, and the DECC had a substantial vested interest in the report’s conclusions. Notwithstanding this observation, the Parsons Brinckerhoff report gives a clear recognition that additional scientific work on shadow flicker is required, and that there may be cumulative long-term effects, termed a ‘significant nuisance’.
As with the ETSU-R-97 noise measurement, the conventional rule to assess shadow flicker impact of 10-rotor-diameter rule is outdated, being based on typically far smaller turbines, and the case of the larger turbines nowadays would provide a measurement distance from turbines of c.800m.
Sometimes it is attempted to address shadow flicker by conditions applied to planning, but there is no consistency in the wording, or in the reaction or sensitivity to residents’ complaints; community-run wind farms are far more ready to stop the blades when shadow flicker is a problem.
In the absence of suitable guidance on mitigating the impact of shadow flicker resulting from the current designs of large-scale wind turbines local government must in the meantime make irrevocable decisions for their own areas which affect people’s lives permanently (or at the very least, for the next quarter-century, the remaining lifetimes of many residents). Maintaining separation distances set out in the amendment to Core Policy 42 will assist in mitigating some of the most harmful effects of light flicker.
TURBINE FAILURES AND PHYSICAL DANGER
Turbine manufacturer Vestas instructs its workers to stay 400 metres from turbines. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300 ft (92m) rotor span and a total height of 410 ft (126 m), tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 ft (400 m) from an operating turbine in normal operating conditions - over 3 times its total height - unless absolutely necessary. (source: National Wind Watch Inc. link to Vestas regulationshttp://docs.wind-watch.org/vestas-safety-manual- setbacks.bmp)
Turbine developer’s guidelines: the website of the German wind turbine developer Retexo RISP states:
“Description of location: The location under consideration should first of all be wind - intensive during the whole year. Usually this is guaranteed on coastal sites, on open land without forests or high hills within a range of about 15 km and, of course, on hill tops. Buildings, particularly housing, should not be nearer than 2 km to the wind farm” . http://www.retexo.de/english/wind/seite5a.htm
Turbine blades can each weigh as much as 14 tonnes, and been known to shear off and crash to the ground. When a 10-year-old Vestas turbine broke up in a storm, large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 metres, more than 8 times its total height (Arhus, Denmark, February 2008). Further instances have been filmed of turbines out of control and the resulting disintegrations (i.e. in December 2008, Weatherford, USA, May 2009 Bakersfield, USA available on the internet ), and turbine break-up has occurred more recently in Scotland (December 2011), as widely reported in the UK press. (See also Appendix 17, Cornwall Light & Power, now REG Windpower.) ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 10
A Welsh turbine also came apart in December 2011, in an area used by walkers who took photographs of the wreckage. (See Appendix 16, Llandinam wind farm, mid-Wales). In 2009, a blade on a 190 ft wind turbine in Rotherham owned by Sheffield University broke in strong winds, prompting an investigation by its manufacturers. In 2010 a 140 ft turbine wind farm near Glasgow was temporarily shut down after a 14-tonne fibreglass blade broke off in windy conditions and landed at the base of its tower.
The wind industry advises that there is greater awareness of the dangers, and provide assurances to residents about the technological improvements which are designed to increase protection against such events, such as remote closedown mechanisms. Despite this, on 30 January 2012 a council in Yorkshire suspended planning applications for a type of windmill manufactured by Evoco Energy after high winds ripped blades from the company's turbines in Hepworth and Upper Cumberworth earlier in the month (Kirklees Council/Huddersfield Daily Examiner) . On 19 January 2012, it was reported that a recently-commissioned Endurance E- 3120 turbine (just 32.4m/112.2 ft) suffered a catastrophic collapse at Wattlesborough, near Shrewsbury, Shropshire. On 28 September 2012, Tesco submitted an “ Application for removal or variation of a condition following grant of planning permission ” to Durham County Council, in which they state “Tesco Stores Ltd has taken a corporate decision, on the grounds of health and safety , not to include wind turbines as a source of renewable energy within any new store proposals.” They go on to specify that “It was agreed with the Council during the determination period for the original application, to relocate the Tesco store from Delves Lane, that the existing wind turbine simply be moved to the new site…[…] The wind turbine was then destroyed in high winds and luckily did not cause injury to any customers.” (Our emphasis.)
Renewable UK, the industry’s trade body, released data showing accident statistics of 1,500 over 5 yrs on UK wind farms - almost one a day – including 4 deaths and 300 injuries to workers. Accident data compiled by the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum is based on a set of worldwide accident figures for over 30 yrs to end September 2012 (1,292 accidents). Taken from 1992 onwards, this longer-term data clearly shows a sharply increasing trend (see table below covering 1,155 accidents), as despite better health and safety measures mentioned by the industry, the more turbines are built, the more accidents occur:
Accidents - Average No. p.a. 6 1992-1996 22 1997-2001 70 2002-2006 133 2007-2011
(*Accident statistics copyright Caithness Windfarm Information Forum September 2012 www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk . Caithness Windfarm Information Forum is not responsible for the accuracy of Third Party Material or references.)
Most currently manufactured turbines are understood to automatically shut down when the wind speed rises above 56mph because at that speed they can become unsafe. Despite assurances from manufacturers and installers that automatic and manual monitoring systems should prevent any dangerous operating conditions from arising, accidents can and do still occur. Therefore the larger the turbine, the greater is the distance at risk, thus the closer to domestic homes (and grazing animals), the greater the danger.
Principal causes of accidents (see Appendix 5, section 15) are : o blade failure, which can result in either whole blades or pieces of blade being thrown from the turbines; o fire, which often occurs in the turbine nacelle too high up for any remedial action to be taken o structural failure, possibly as the result of poor quality-control, lack of or inadequate maintenance and component failure
Ice Throw: Ice throw is another physical danger in freezing conditions, and the higher the turbine, the greater the risk of icing and the more dangerous this is to people, animals and ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 11
property. There is evidence that ice can be thrown 500m from 80m high wind turbines. (See Appendices 4 & 15.)
Some Canadian turbine sites have warning signs posted asking people to stay away from turbines during icy conditions. A report** published in 2003 reported 880 icing events between 1990 and 2003 in Germany alone, 33% of these were in the lowlands and on the coastline A 2005 report listed 94 separate incidences of ice throw, two reports from 2006 include a further 27 such incidences. (** “A Statistical Evaluation of Icing Failures in Germany’s ‘250 MW Wind’ Programme – Update 2003, M Durstwitz, BOREAS VI 9-11 April 2003 Pyhätunturi, Finland. )
(*Accident statistics are copyright Caithness Windfarm Information Forum September 2012 www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk . Caithness Windfarm Information Forum is not responsible for the accuracy of Third Party Material or references.)
COMMUNITY PROJECTS
Where there is clear support from the community(ies) affected, wind farm projects would not be ruled out by Policy 42’s separation distances. Communities may in many cases wish to own and manage wind farms themselves. Certainly the Government under the Localism Act 2011 as well as the principles behind Wiltshire Council’s Amendment, encourage such community projects.
Some local authorities, such as Milton Keynes (see Appendix 8), go much further than Wiltshire and consider that the fair way of dealing with Community Project applications is to require:
(a) Written permission/agreement from ALL householders in the communities local to a Community wind turbine project (b) Equal and appropriate benefits flow directly to ALL households in those communities, and not indirectly via Parish Councils.
Factors such as shadow flicker are also recognised and given weight in community projects.
POLICY PRECEDENTS ON SEPARATION DISTANCES
UK : TOWN & COUNTY AUTHORITIES ' MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES
LINCOLNSHIRE The numbers of turbines and turbine applications in Lincolnshire had raised concerns at Lincolnshire County Council in recent years. In February 2012 a wind farm application close to the Viking Way public right of way was refused. (source: Lincoln Press).
The Council’s Executive Members decided to take a stronger position on wind farms in June 2012. In a county with a significant number of turbines, Councillors questioned the effectiveness of wind farm technology, and concerns about the visual impact for residents and on tourism.
A preliminary statement was issued, recommending that “settlements of more than 10 dwellings should not have the wind turbine developments in more than 90 o of their field of view, normally equating to 10km from windows in residential properties, and that individual dwellings should not have wind turbines in more than 180 o of their field of view.”
On 25 June 2012, unanimous approval was granted for policy confirming a minimum separation distance of 700m from any residential property, (or ten times rotor diameter if larger) with a ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 12
presumption of a 2km separation distance.
“no wind turbine developments shall be constructed in close proximity of a residential property (the accepted distance for separation is 700 metres) however, noise and amplitude modulation issues can be present up to 2km away. Therefore, unless through assessment it can be demonstrated that there would be acceptable noise levels within the 2km radius of a residential property, the minimum distance should be 2km:”
As Lincolnshire has direct first-hand experience of large wind turbines, and the effects on residents, these views and actions by Lincolnshire County Council should be allowed due weight and consideration. (See Appendix 7 Wind Farm Position Statement June 2012.) NORTH YORKSHIRE In April 2012 North Yorkshire politicians recommended setting a minimum “separation distance” of two kilometres (about 1.2 miles) between “large-scale” groups of wind turbine masts and the nearest residential properties. Separation distances would not relate to small-scale ‘individual’ wind turbines, and turbines would be “inappropriate” in national parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The recommendation is pending presentation to the Executive by the Transport, Economy and Environment committee . (source Yorkshire Press ).
If introduced, developers wanting to build wind farms closer than two kilometres to homes could be required to show how noise, shadows and the appearance of their schemes would not affect residents. MILTON KEYNES Following resolutions passed by Development Control, in July 2012 Milton Keynes Town Council adopted a planning policy (Supplementary Planning Document /SPD) applying setback or separation distances based on Lord Reay’s private members’ Bill, of 1000m for turbines of 100m (ground to tip of blade) and proportionately for turbines over 100m. (See Appendix 8.) Milton Keynes also included an exception rule for separation distances which requires the written formal agreement of ALL residential property owners falling within the minimum distance requirement.
The council paid particular attention to updating their previous wind turbine planning policy D5, which considered significant harm to the amenity of residential areas due to noise, traffic, pollution or odour, to wildlife species or habitat, unacceptable visual impact on the landscape, and avoidance of unacceptable shadow flicker, and electromagnetic interference (which would include impact on television reception). The objectives were to:
(1) offer protection of residential amenity from any unintended impacts of wind turbine developments (2) assess the separation distances for wind turbines (3) clarify the approach for assessing individual applications.
NORTHERN IRELAND The Northern Irish Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a published guideline in relation to flicker
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 13
(PPS18, August 2009 ):
“As a matter of best practice for wind farm development, the Department will generally apply a separation distance of 10 times rotor diameter to occupied property (with a minimum distance of not less than 500m). In applying this separation distance, any significant impact on sensitive noise receptors should be minimised, particularly with the increasing number of proposals for turbines in excess of 100 metres in height.” SCOTLAND Introduced a guideline into SPP6 Planning Policy in February 2010 of a proximity limit to dwellings of up to 2km.
“A separation distance of up to 2km between areas of search and the edge of cities, towns and villages is recommended to guide developments to the most appropriate sites and to reduce visual impact, but decisions on individual developments should take into account specific local circumstances and geography.” POWYS, WALES In June 2011 Powys Council unanimously supported a motion urging the Welsh Government to request a moratorium on all wind farm applications. 15 councillors were absent and there was one abstention, but despite this the motion gained cross-party support.
In March 2012 Powys council's planning committee refused an application for an 11-turbine wind farm at Waun Garno, Llawryglyn, near Carno, and also the Council’s cabinet agreed that it would oppose applications at Llanbadarn Fynydd, near Newtown, and Carnedd Wen, Llanbrynmair. On 25 September 2012 the council’s cabinet confirmed it would object to applications for wind farms at Llanbrynmair, Llandinam and Llaithddu. The decision is likely to trigger a public inquiry on the applications.
The full county council met before the cabinet meeting, and stated that the applications should not be supported for the following reasons:
• unacceptable impact on the highway network. • unacceptable landscape and visual impact of the applications • detrimental effect on tourism and other economic factors • unacceptable impact/insufficient information on biodiversity (including hydrology) • insufficient information on noise impacts (Llandinam and Llaithddu) • detrimental impact on interests of cultural heritage (Llanbrynmair and Llandinam)
OVERSEAS MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES
AUSTRALIA With just 2.91 people per km2 of total land area (c.2010), and 62 onshore wind installations* in operation as of April 2012, with 11 more expected to be commissioned by 2014, Australia is clearly a
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 14
very different environment from the UK. Nevertheless, concerns over onshore wind have prompted changes in planning legislation over the past 2 years.
Local communities have raised concerns about health and amenity impacts. At Federal level, a recent Senate Inquiry recommended applying scientific measurements for sound and for shadow flicker to alleviate problems for wind farm neighbours. (See also Appendix 9.)
The Australian news media has aired reports reflecting residents’ concerns over large turbines close to homes. In July 2011 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation 4 Corners program explored health concerns connected with Australian wind farms in its "Against the Wind" report, and in June 2012 Today Tonight Adelaide ran a report which featured interviews with residents of Waterloo, South Australia, acoustic engineers, journalists and an immediate follow-up interview with Senator Nick Xenophon after an enormous local reaction to the item. The Senator also picked up on the points of local authority liability for all negative effects (potential “legal action for nuisance”) on local residents. (See http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/?page=Story&StoryID=1394, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYq8pO_5pZ0.)
Coastal regions of southern Australia are most affected by turbine development, and recently actions against turbine development close to dwellings are being seen in the states of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales.
In March 2011 the Baillieu government in the state of Victoria (where the Waubra Wind farm is located) made a planning law amendment (VC78) returning authority for all wind farm permits to local government. Its far-reaching planning law reforms to restrict the development of wind farms in Victoria were introduced to “restore fairness and certainty to the planning process for wind farms". Amendment VC82 was published in August 2011 and in July 2012, VC91 was announced, which prohibits:
(1) Turbines within 2km of an existing dwelling, except where the planning permit application includes evidence of written consent from the owner of the dwelling to the location of the turbine. (2) Areas of high conservation and landscape values including National and State Parks. (3) Locations that feature a high degree of amenity, environmental value, or significant tourist destinations including the Yarra Valley [……] and the Great Ocean Road region. (4) Locations identified for future urban growth including land in the Urban Growth Zone and designated regional population corridors.
The amendment clarifies that these changes are targeted at wind farms generating electricity for supply to the grid, not on-site (industrial or domestic) use.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 15
In December 2011, New South Wales announced the preparation of draft planning guidelines for wind farms which could make approval processes more complex and time-consuming, set possibly the world's strictest noise standards, and limit opportunities for placing wind turbines within 2km of a residence. New South Wales has followed on with this recommendation in their document (which remains under review), proposing prohibition under two kilometres of a home without the written consent of the owner. The ban would be subject to certain qualifications, including a "gateway" process. The NSW Draft Planning Guidelines also deal with other matters, such as community consultation, visual amenity, noise and health impacts.
(*These statistics count sites varying from just one 0.15 MW turbine to arrays of 140 3MW turbines. ) NEW ZEALAND In July 2010 New Zealand revised its 1998 standards in NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind farm noise, to “provide better protection for communities by explicitly addressing issues such as: cumulative effects from multiple wind farms or wind farms developed in stages; forewarning prospective residents of an area already affected or permitted to be affected by wind farm sound (reverse sensitivity); and wind farm specific audible characteristics (amplitude modulation).” GERMANY Various states have standards of their own with setbacks of up to 1.6km. Different setbacks apply according to the noise level protection of the area :
− “quiet regions” [35 dB(A)]: 1,000-1,500 m (3,281-4,921 ft) − “middle regions” [(40 dB(A)]: 600-1,000 m (1,969-3,281 ft) − “standard region” [(45 dB(A)]: 300-600 m (984-1,969 ft)
Germany’s heavy levels of investment in onshore turbines have seen over 21,600 turbines built, predominantly in the northern half of the country, producing just 8% of Germany’s electricity (2011). Nonetheless, the Federal Government is now re-appraising its entire energy policy, including for renewable sources, where the focus has shifted to offshore wind farms. The decision to find sites far off-shore is based on the greater consistency of output (because wind is more constant at sea) and lesser effects on domestic residents.
In September 2012 it was reported in the British press that Germany’s power requirements are not being met by renewable sources. Although in 2011 the state of Saxony-Anhalt generated almost half their electricity from wind, this is unusual, and for the country as a whole, onshore wind is too variable. The article makes the point that
“Like all enthusiasts for “free, clean, renewable electricity”, [the German Government] overlook the fatal implications of the fact that wind speeds and sunlight constantly vary. They are taken in by the wind industry’s trick of vastly exaggerating the usefulness of wind farms by talking in terms of their “capacity”, hiding the fact that their actual output will waver between 100 per cent of capacity and zero. In Britain it averages around 25 per cent; in Germany… just 17 per cent.” “Germany is being horribly caught
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 16
out by precisely the same delusion about renewable energy that our own politicians have fallen for.
The more a country depends on such sources of energy, the more there will arise – as Germany is discovering – two massive technical problems. One is that it becomes incredibly difficult to maintain a consistent supply of power to the grid, when that wildly fluctuating renewable output has to be balanced by input from conventional power stations. The other is that, to keep that back-up constantly available can require fossil-fuel power plants to run much of the time very inefficiently and expensively (incidentally chucking out so much more “carbon” than normal that it negates any supposed CO2 savings from the wind).“
The article goes on to note that the levels of subsidy for wind and solar have made German electricity almost the most expensive in Europe, and that actual output in 2011 from Germany’s 29GW of capacity in onshore wind was just 5GW (17%). Germany has now commissioned firms such as RWE and E.on to build 16 new coal- fired and 15 new gas-fired power stations by 2020, with a combined output equivalent to some 38 per cent of Germany’s electricity needs. In Germany, this provision has taken precedence over EU CO2 reduction targets, which at the same time the UK government remains fixated upon, whilst delaying renewal and investment in stable power sources such as gas-fired and nuclear plants.
(reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power- chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html Chris Booker – Telegraph 22 September 2012 source document B.) DENMARK Wind turbines must be situated at a minimum distance of 4 × their height away from habitation. If the windmill is erected closer than 6 × its height, an estimation is carried out free of charge regarding the depreciation of the property value. If the loss is more than 1%, full compensation of the loss in property value is paid out. If the property is situated farther away than 6 × the height of the windmill, 4,000 DK is payable to have an evaluation of the loss in value carried out. If it is estimated that the depreciation is more than 1%, the loss in value of the property is paid out and the 4,000 DK reimbursed. If it is estimated that there is no loss in value of the property, the 4,000 DK is forfeited. Owners of windmills have to pay the compensation. NETHERLANDS Currently 1km setback. However, the Dutch government has abandoned the 2020 EU energy targets, have already slashed subsidies and are experiencing a growing popular backlash against massive onshore turbines
‘Holland’s Radical U-Turn On Climate and Energy Policy’, Translation of article by Michael Gassmann, Financial Times Deutschland, 9 February 2011. ITALY Determined by regional authorities i.e. Calabria: 5 × the height of the turbines (not specified if mast or total height). Basilicata: 2 km from urbanized areas. Campania: 10 × the turbine height from urbanized areas. Molise: 20 × the turbine height from urbanized areas. SPAIN : National: noise legislation applies. Regional: wind-power policies vary and some specify a setback. Examples:
Valencia: 1,000 m (3,281 ft) from any piece of land that may be built
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 17
upon.
Andalucia: 500 m (1,640 ft)
FRANCE The French Academy of Medicine recommends 1.5km (4,921 ft). There are examples of local authorities in rural areas protecting their local residents and environment by strongly opposing and blocking any turbine projects within 3km of dwellings. For example in November 2009 a turbine project was refused in an area of the Languedoc on the basis of noise and disruption to the 18 surrounding villages and also the damage the construction would do to the natural, and historic landscape, acknowledging the fire risk from moving metal parts & motors in a region already vulnerable to forest fires in summer.
US & CANADA : Dozens of jurisdictions scattered around the U.S. and Canada have adopted larger setback limits, often in the 800m (½mile) to 3.2km (2 mile) range from residences. These larger setbacks match what is recommended by many independent scientific bodies, medical authorities, and acoustical engineers.
In July 2012 the Canadian federal government launched a 2-year study into the effects of wind turbines on residents; results due mid- 2014. Regional politicians in Ontario and Ottawa have called for a moratorium on wind farm development until the results are known. In the meantime, in September 2012 a couple in Ontario are going to court to prevent the development of a wind farm near Lake Huron which could see turbines erected c.700m from their home – at least until the study is completed.
WILTSHIRE & THE PLANNING PROCESS
Wiltshire Council’s Amendment to Core Policy 42 will reduce the amount of uncertainty in the planning process for large scale wind farms.
Currently a very high proportion of the large scale wind farm planning applications are rejected by local communities and their Local Authorities, and the Applicant will invariably go to Appeal. This process of pre-application consultation, application, refusal, sometimes additional applications, and appeal extends over many years. Four years is not unusual.
The issue is highly contentious. For the Developer there is a great deal of profit at stake, and for local communities – their homes, health, and amenities are under threat. Both protagonists will battle until the final decision is made. The process is very time consuming and expensive for all stakeholders, and as previously mentioned, for local communities these years are a source of considerable worry. Over the whole process, there is this element of uncertainty for all concerned, right up to the final Appeal Decision.
The main arguments put forward by those opposing a development are based on the close proximity to built, as well as natural, assets. An argument sometimes put forward by the Developer is that the planning application is for a “temporary” structure (25yr operating life). “The appellant seeks a temporary (25 year) planning permission for the appeal A (wind farm) scheme”. (The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decisions, 22 October 2012, Appeal A Ref: APP/X1118/A?11/2162070 Land at Batsworthy Cross, Knowlestone, North Devon). Developers argue that the impacts of the development are reversible after 25 years. ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 18
In practice, the 25 year term is being and will continue to be extended, as subsequent applications are submitted and granted for more and/or larger turbines on the site concerned. Therefore it is impossible to say for how many years a particular wind farm will operate, and with a precedent set, is likely to continue for a period of time when common sense suggests that the wind farm has become “permanent”.
Some Inspectors will grant permission because of the “temporary” nature, as in the Batsworthy Cross Appeal above. Other Inspectors will reject permission because: “…there would be some impact and although these effects were reversible after 25 years, this was the equivalent of a generation” (Inspector Elizabeth Fieldhouse’s Appeal Decision for construction of 6 x 126 metre high turbines in Staffordshire reported 15 June 2012, dcservices.co.uk).
Wiltshire Council’s Amendment to Policy 42 on the exclusion zones will reduce the degree of uncertainty associated with the whole process of wind farm applications including Inspectors’ various interpretations of the law. Therefore one effect of this Policy will be to reduce the time, costs and worry for residents, local communities, planning officers, Council Members, Inspectors and Developers.
This submission document is based around concerns over the building of large-scale, industrial wind turbines close to homes and settled areas of the county and the potential impact of those machines on the physical and mental health of local residents. It is not a treatise against renewable energy or wind power in all forms and in all locations.
Wiltshire is the 13 th largest English county by land area, including 300 miles 2 of raised, mainly treeless Salisbury Plain in the middle, and some large agricultural estates to the south west. Although the MoD are likely to be unwilling to accept large turbine development on the Plain, it cannot be impossible to find some suitable unoccupied areas for wind farm development sufficiently distant from human habitation, which would be less visually obtrusive and with no potential effect on human health and wellbeing. The costs of installation at such sites may be higher, but development costs, given the substantial financial support and profitability independent companies receive, should not be the criteria which rules out development in uninhabited areas. making substantial profits
Wiltshire Council could do more to encourage companies operating in Wiltshire to have solar panels on their warehouse, offices, and factory roofs as a way forward which is low cost (to the council) and least detrimental to the health, well-being and living conditions of county residents. The roofs of Council premises, schools, swimming pools and care homes could all be fitted with solar panels. There are many alternative methods of generating renewable energy other than industrial wind farms constructed onshore overpowering residential premises.
POLITICAL VIEWS
In January 2012, 106 Conservative MP’s signed a letter to the Prime Minister objecting to the subsidies received by the onshore wind industry, describing them as “inefficient and intermittent”; and many MPs are now strongly campaigning against the proliferation of onshore wind farms. Leading names include Chris Heaton-Harris, Peter Luff and Matthew Hancock. In the House of Lords, Lord Reay’s Private Member’s Bill had its first reading on 14 May 2012: this proposes minimum distances according to height of the turbine, forming the basis for Wiltshire Council’s Policy 42 Amendment. In 2011/12 a House of Commons Private Member’s Bill on Proximity of Habitation was also submitted by Chris Heaton-Harris and Peter Luff. (See Appendices 4 & 6.)
At present, the DECC summarises that “Given the existing evidence [for the impact of onshore wind turbines on health] the Government’s view is that properly sited wind farms do not have a
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 19
direct effect on public health, and that the planning system is fit for purpose determined on a case by case basis whether sites are appropriate for development. Government will continue to monitor its position based on the latest evidence available.” (Our italics). ( source: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/wind/onshore/questions/onshorewind_q4/onshorewind_q4.aspx .) It is precisely the issue of appropriate siting which is addressed by the proposed Amendment.
The Localism Act (2011) sets out “a series of measures with the potential to achieve a substantial and lasting shift in power away from central government and towards local people.’ In April 2012 the Prime Minister said “Top-down regional targets will not trump local concerns and aspirations of local residents when local plans are made”; and “We shouldn't be plonking wind farms all over communities that do not want them. The people who live in a community know what’s best for their community and we should give them a greater say."
Wiltshire Council’s separation distances do not apply where there is support from the local community, or when smaller turbine installations are involved. These principles are very much in keeping with the spirit and intention of these legislative measures mentioned above.
Greg Clark, Planning Minister in the Foreword to the NPPF (March 2012) states:
‘In order to fulfil its purpose of helping achieve sustainable development, planning must not simply be about scrutiny. Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives. This should be a collective enterprise. Yet, in recent years, planning has tended to exclude, rather than to include, people and communities. In part, this has been a result of targets being imposed, and decisions taken, by bodies remote from them. Dismantling the unaccountable regional apparatus and introducing neighbourhood planning addresses this. Our historic environment – buildings, landscapes, towns and villages – can better be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers.’
In House of Commons, Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con) made a statement including the following :
“At the heart of our politics we should place the ethic of reciprocity - the idea that everyone has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others. Put more simply, that means “Do as you would be done by”. Sometimes, of course, we have to balance the different rights of competing groups. For example, a new high-speed rail line will be fought by communities close to its route, whatever the wider benefits that it brings. It is then that politicians have to choose.
A visit to the home of two of my constituents in the small settlement of Sheriffs Lench in the Vale of Evesham started the process that led me to this Bill. [See Bill on Proximity to Habitation mentioned above. ] When I saw just how close to their home Scottish Power Renewables plans to put a 125 metre high wind turbine, as part of a larger wind farm plan for the area, I realised that I would not like that done to me. The turbines proposed are among the largest ever constructed in England. They will be half as high again as Big Ben and only a little lower than the London Eye, and, in the open countryside, that is huge. It is roughly equivalent to a 40-storey building. In the case of this wind farm, the nearest home to those massive structures would be only 508 metres away, with many more homes about 600 metres from a turbine. That is too close. I ask myself whether the wider social good is served by building such enormous renewable energy sources so close to the homes of hundreds of my constituents, or whether the sacrifice being asked of them, and the damage to be done to a beautiful part of the Vale of Evesham, is too great.
I also noted that the turbines in Worcestershire would not be allowed in a similar location in Germany, or in large areas of Spain and Italy. Denmark is one of the most successful ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 20
countries in the development of onshore wind power, and I understand that if Danish rules applied, the turbines in my constituency could be built, but many householders would become liable for compensation for loss of property value. England and Wales stand apart from the developing pattern of regulation of onshore wind on mainland Europe. Indeed, in Scotland, too, guidelines specifying what is acceptable are already in place.
I concluded that the disadvantages of the wind farm proposed for my constituency outweigh the likely benefits. If I felt that way, I had to do something, and the Bill that I am asking leave to present today is that something. My Bill has extraordinary levels of support around the country. Communities from the West Country to Cumbria, from Gloucestershire to Derbyshire, from County Durham to East Anglia, and of course from Worcestershire, have bombarded me, and their own MPs, with e-mails.
In my view, we have foolishly underestimated the role that solar-thermal technology can play in providing hot water in homes, and we are late in introducing smart meters to reduce demand.
If other technologies can help us to meet our challenging renewable energy targets, and if wind power itself is still the subject of innovation, with smaller, more powerful, less visually intrusive turbines in development - it is right that we take, in the short term at least, a precautionary approach to the siting of onshore wind turbines very close to homes in England and Wales.
There are different concerns about wind farms. Noise, especially low frequency noise, the flicker effect and the resulting health implications are just some of those concerns. I have been impressed by the personal accounts of such concerns in many of the hundreds of e- mails that I have received. However, although the science may not yet be settled on those matters, the visual intrusion of wind turbines is a matter of objective fact.
[I propose] an approach, which is used in some European countries […] specifying set-back distances from turbines in proportion to their total height. In other words, the distance from the base of the turbine to the nearest home should be at least a fixed multiple of the height of the turbine to the tip of the blades. The distance would then depend on the multiple. The 125 metre turbines proposed for my constituency would have to be set back 16 times their height to achieve a separation of 2 km, while a smaller 100 metre turbine, using the same multiple, would be set back 1.6 km. A smaller multiple would produce smaller distances.
I am clear that there must be a reasonable space between such giants and local communities.” (Hansard, Nov 2009, Col.746)
John Hayes, the nation’s new Energy Minister, reported on 16 October 2012: “ The UK.should also work harder to assess the views of communities where the facilities will be located… There has to be much more done to engage communities and to ensure that wind goes where people want it. ” On 31 October 2012, following on from earlier statements made by Ministers Ed Davey & Greg Barker (15 April, 25 April and September 2012), Mr Hayes was reported in the UK press as stating that "If you look at what has been built, what has consent and what is in the planning system…even if a minority of what's in the system is built we are going to reach our 2020 target ." This is confirmed by the DECC statement (September 2012) “To meet the trajectory set out in the Renewable Energy Roadmap, we expect to need up to 13GW of onshore wind by 2020.” Their website gives the following: • 5 GW (approx.) of onshore wind (3,350 turbines) installed in the UK. • 6 GW (approx.) of onshore wind are awaiting construction (2,682 turbines) • 7 GW (approx.) in the planning system (3,063 turbines). (ref: Renewable Energy Magazine/ DECC http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn12_105/)
Thus only 30% of the turbines already in Planning need to be approved to meet the 2020 ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 21
target of 13GW, and will exceed target if more are agreed. As some existing turbines may be replaced by higher-KW output turbines already in Planning, it would indeed seem quite apparent that no additional onshore turbine applications are required to meet the UK’s targets.
LEGAL COMMENTS AND OPINION
In the recent case of Davis v Fenland Windfarms Ltd, the residents sued for £2.5m compensation from the landowner and the developer. The Davis’ home was 930m from the closest turbine. After many years of legal process in the High Court, in December 2011 the case settled out of court at a sum which reflected the strength of their case, as did the application of a strict gagging order accompanying the settlement. The Davis’ case was supported by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) ruling that a discount would be applied to the Council Tax due to loss of value as a result of the wind turbine.
As part of the settlement, the Davis’ home (Grays Farm, Deeping St Nicholas, Lincolnshire) was purchased for £125,000 by the developer, a sum 24% less than at last valuation in 2007, even though other properties in the village had increased significantly in value over the previous 5 years (evidenced by the Land Registry house price records and www.nethouseprices.co.uk ).
The VOA has stated “that for council tax purposes having wind turbines built near homes can sharply decrease their value and the VOA has consequently been prepared to move such houses into a lower council tax band.” (VOA July 2012).
Other UK legal cases have acknowledged detrimental impact of onshore wind turbines on local residents: In the Den Brook case in May 2011 the U.K. High Court confirmed the validity of the pulsing "blade swish (or thump)" noise, or "amplitude modulation", [such that the turbine noise (measured in 125-millisecond intervals 3.5-35 metres outside a dwelling) cannot rise or fall by more than 3 dB within any 2-second period more than five times in any 1-minute period with an average sound level of 28 dBA or more, six or more times in any hour.]
In 2004 in Furness (Holding vs Moon), the previous owners of a house were required to compensate the buyers because they had not disclosed the wind farm project affecting the house. District Judge Buckley decided that this amounted to ‘material misrepresentation’ and ordered the Holdings to pay compensation of 20 per cent of the market value of the house in 1997, £12,500, plus interest, because of damage to visual amenity, noise pollution and the ‘irritating flickering’ caused by the sun going down behind the moving blades of the turbines 550 metres [1,804 ft] from the house.”
The Localism Act (2011) and Environmental & Planning legal opinion are referenced in Appendices 15 & 16. Liability for nuisance claims and damages (potential health impacts and loss of property values) currently is seen to lie primarily with the developers and landowners (see the Davis case noted above). However it is also being recognised that governments and planning authorities may begin to share the burden of liability, as pointed out by Senator Nick Xenophon of South Australia in his interview with Today Tonight in June 2012 ( see reference link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYq8pO_5pZ0 , also above , and Appendices 18 & 19).
______Prepared by the STOP GRANGE FARM WIND FARM (SGFWF) campaign group. 31 October 2012 www.stopgrangefarmwindfarm.com Email: [email protected]
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 22
LIST OF APPENDICES
MEDICAL REVIEWS & HEALTH EFFECTS : REPORTS & STUDIES
1. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health Noise & Health September/October 2012 14:237-43 www.noiseandhealth.org Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD.
Michael A. Nissenbaum, Northern Maine Medical Center, Fort Kent, Maine, USA Christopher D Hanning Honorary Consultant in sleep medicine,Sleep Disorders Service, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester LE5 4PW Jeffery J. Aramini, Intelligent Health Solutions, Guelph, Ontario
2. Wind turbine noise seems to affect health adversely and an independent review of evidence is needed . British Medical Journal BMJ 2012;344:e1527 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1527 (Published 8 March 2012)
Christopher D Hanning Honorary Consultant in sleep medicine,Sleep Disorders Service, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK
Alun Evans, Professor emeritus, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University of Belfast, Institute of Clinical Science B, Belfast, UK
3. Wind Turbines & Proximity to Homes: The Impact of Wind Turbine Noise on Human Health A review of the literature and discussion of the issues . Dr Barbara J Frey, BA MA Univ.of Minnesota, Peter J Hadden BSc (Est Man) FRICS January 2012
SEPARATION DISTANCES (PLANNING & POLICY EXAMPLES)
4. Wind turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill (HL 17)
July 2010 Lord Reay, House of Lords
5. Minimum 2km Exclusion Zone around Dwellings
National Alliance for Windfarm Action Groups Justification paper
Oct 2009 Dr Nina Pierpoint, MD, PhD, John Hopkins University, USA
6. Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) Bill 2010-12 SO23
2nd Reading HoC 30 March 2012 Chris Heaton-Harris, MP Daventry, Peter Luff, MP Mid-Worcestershire, Andrew Percy, Sarah Newton, Natascha Engel, Matthew Hancock, Nigel Adams, Karen Lumley, Alec Shelbrooke, Andrea Leadsom, Mark Pawsey, Richard Bacon and Andrew Griffiths.
7. Wind Energy Statement Lincolnshire County Council 6 June 2012
8. Wind Turbines Supplementary Planning Document and Emerging Policy Milton Keynes Town Council Adopted July 2012
9. Distance Limit debate Federal Parliament of Australia, March 2012
ACOUSTIC REVIEWS, VIBRATION, NOISE & LIGHT EFFECTS
10. The Den Brook Amplitude Modulation Noise Condition Renewable Energy Foundation, Tuesday, 01 November 2011 (Attached)
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 23
11. Dean-Waubra Noise Impact Assessment Report July 2010, Dr Robert Thorne, Noise Measurement Services, South Brisbane, Australia see link http://www.windaction.org/documents/2851
12. Shadow Flicker and epilepsy report Ashton University, Birmingham
13. Comments on Case 12-F-0036– Electric Generation Siting & the Environment, Major Electric Generating Facilities E-Coustic Solutions, Richard R James, Okemos, Missouri, USA May 2012
14. Where ETSU is Silent , Richard Cox, David Unwin & Trevor Sherman, June 2012.
15. ETSU-R-97 Why it is Wrong Dick Bowdler, July 2005
TURBINE FAILURES & ACCIDENTS
16. Turbine damage Llandinam, Wales, December 2011 Shropshire Star 13 Jan 2012
17. Turbine Failure incident 2008 Cornwall Light & Power (now REG Windpower)
LEGAL & POLITICAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
18. Localism Bill review, Law Gazette, July 2011
19. Environmental & Planning Law newsletter, compensation case review March 2012
OTHER LINKS & SOURCES
A. Wind Turbines, Sound and Infrasounds, Dr Marjolaine Villey-Migraine , December 2004 Université Paris II-Panthéon-Assas, see links http://asso.acide89.free.fr/1- eoliennes-sons-et-infrasons-marjolaine-villey-migraine_%281%29.pdf and for English- language translation http://www.expertopinions.org.uk/article/a-critic-of-wind- turbines/
B. Germany’s Wind Power Chaos Should be a Warning to the UK , Chris Booker – Telegraph 22 September 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys- wind-power-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html
C. National Opposition to Windfarms Charter http://www.nowind.org.uk/
D. DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/wind/onshore/questions/onshorewind_q4/on shorewind_q4.aspx
E. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9114054/David-Cameron-says-countryside- wind-farms-have-been-wasteful-of-public-money.html
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 24
APPENDIX 1 HEALTH: NOISE & HEALTH Sept/Oct 2012
Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health Michael A. Nissenbaum, Jeffery J. Aramini 1, Christopher D. Hanning 2 Northern Maine Medical Center, Fort Kent, Maine, USA, 1Intelligent Health Solutions, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 2University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK www.noiseandhealth.org Noise & Health, September-October 2012, Volume 14 Issue 60 pp237-43
Abstract
Industrial wind turbines (IWTs) are a new source of noise in previously quiet rural environments. Environmental noise is a public health concern, of which sleep disruption is a major factor. To compare sleep and general health outcomes between participants living close to IWTs and those living further away from them, participants living between 375 and 1400 m (n = 38) and 3.3 and 6.6 km (n = 41) from IWTs were enrolled in a stratified cross-sectional study involving two rural sites.
Validated questionnaires were used to collect information on sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index — PSQI), daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Score — ESS), and general health (SF36v2), together with psychiatric disorders, attitude, and demographics. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the effect of the main exposure variable of interest (distance to the nearest IWT) on various health outcome measures. Participants living within 1.4 km of an IWT had worse sleep, were sleepier during the day, and had worse SF36 Mental Component Scores compared to those living further than 1.4 km away. Significant dose-response relationships between PSQI, ESS, SF36 Mental Component Score, and log-distance to the nearest IWT were identified after controlling for gender, age, and household clustering. The adverse event reports of sleep disturbance and ill health by those living close to IWTs are supported.
Introduction
Environmental noise is emerging as one of the major public health concerns of the twenty-first century. [1] The drive to ‘renewable’, low-carbon energy sources, has resulted in Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) being sited closer to homes in traditionally quiet rural areas to reduce transmission losses and costs. Increasing numbers of complaints about sleep disturbance and adverse health effects have been documented, [2-4] while industry and government reviews have argued that the effects are trivial and that current guidance is adequate to protect the residents. [5,6] We undertook an epidemiological study to investigate the relationship between the reported adverse health effects and IWTs among residents of two rural communities.
Methods
General study design
This investigation is a stratified cross-sectional study involving two sites: Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine, USA. A questionnaire was offered to all residents meeting the participant-inclusion criteria and living within 1.5 km of an industrial wind turbine (IWT) and to a random sample of residents, meeting participant inclusion criteria, living 3 to 7 km from an IWT between March and July of 2010. The protocol was reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board Services, of Aurora, Ontario, Canada.
Questionnaire development
Adverse event reports were reviewed, together with the results of a smaller pilot survey of Mars Hill residents. A questionnaire was developed, which comprised of validated instruments relating to mental and physical health (SF- 36v2)[7] and sleep disturbance ((Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)[8] and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)[9]).
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 25
In addition, participants were asked before-and-after IWT questions about sleep quality and insomnia, attitude toward IWTs, and psychiatric disorders. A PSQI score > 5 was taken to indicate poor sleep and an ESS score > 10 was taken to indicate clinically relevant daytime sleepiness.[1-4] Responses to functional and attitudinal questions were graded on a fivepoint Likert scale with 1 representing the least effect and 5 the greatest. The questionnaire is available on request.
Study sites and participant selection
The Mars Hill site is a linear arrangement of 28 General Electric 1.5 megawatt turbines, sited on a ridgeline. The Vinalhaven site is a cluster of three similar turbines sited on a low-lying, tree-covered island. All residents living within 1.5 km of an IWT, at each site, were identified via tax maps, and approached either door-to-door or via telephone and asked to participate in the study (near group). Homes were visited thrice or until contact was made. Those below the age of 18 or with a diagnosed cognitive disorder were excluded. A random sample of households in similar socioeconomic areas, 3 to 7 km away from IWTs at each site, were chosen to participate in the study to allow for comparison (far group). The households were approached sequentially until a similar number of participants were enrolled. A nurse practitioner supervised the distribution and ensured completion of the questionnaires. Simultaneous collection of sound levels during data collection at the participants’ residences was not possible, but measured IWT sound levels at various distances, at both sites, were obtained from publically available sources. At the Mars Hill site, a four quarter study was conducted and data from all four seasons were reported by power outputs at several key measurement points. The measurement points were located on or near residential parcels. The predicted and measured levels at full power were derived from figures in the Sound Level Study, Compilation of Ambient and Quarterly Operations Sound Testing, and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection Order No. L-21635-26-A-N. Measured noise levels versus distance at Vinalhaven were taken over a single day in February 2010, with the turbines operating at less than full power in moderate-to-variable northwest winds aloft (R and R, personal communication, 2011). Table 1 shows the estimated and measured noise levels at locations of varying distances and directions from the turbines at Mars Hill and Vinalhaven.
Data handling and validation
The Principal Investigator (Michael Nissenbaum, MD) did not handle data at any point in the collection or analysis phase. Questionnaire results were coded and entered into a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 2007). Each questionnaire generated over 200 data elements. The distance from each participant’s residence to the nearest IWT was measured using satellite maps. The SF36-V2 responses were processed using Quality Metric Health Outcomes™ Scoring Software 3.0 to generate Mental (MCS) and Physical (PCS) Component Scores. Data quality of the SF36-V2 responses was determined using QualityMetric Health Outcomes™ Scoring Software 3.0. All SF36-V2 data quality indicators (completeness, response range, consistency, estimable scale scores, internal consistency, discriminant validity, and reliable scales) exceeded the parameter norms. SF 36-V2 missing values were automatically accommodated by the scoring systems (99.9% questions were completed). No missing values were present for other parameters (ESS, PSQI, psychiatric and attitudinal observations, and demographics).
Table 1: Measured and predicted noise levels at Mars Hill and Vinalhaven Mars hill Distance to nearest turbine (m)1 Predicted max. LAeq 1 hr1 Measured noise LAeq 1 hr1 Average Range
244 51 52 50 – 57 320 48 50 48 - 53 366 47 49 47 – 52 640 42 44 40 – 47 762 41 43 41 - 46 1037 39 41 39 – 45 1799 35 37 32 - 43 Vinalhaven Distance to nearest turbine (m)1 Measured Noise LAeq2 Trend Average Range 152 53 51 – 61 366 46 38 – 49 595 41 39 -49 869 38 32 – 41 1082 36 34 – 43
1 Values read or derived from report figures; accuracy + /- 50 m and + /- 1 Db 2 Values obtained with wind turbine noise dominating the acoustical environment, two-minute measurements during moderate-to-variable northwest winds aloft (less than full power)
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 26
Statistical analysis
All analyses were performed using SAS 9.22.[10] Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the effect of the main exposure variable of interest (distance to the nearest IWT) on the various outcome measures. Independent variables assessed included the following: Site (Mars Hill, Vinalhaven); Distance to IWT (both as a categorical and continuous variable); Age (continuous variable); Gender (categorical variable). The dependent variables assessed included the following: Summary variables — Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), SF36-V2 Mental Component Score (MCS), SF36-V2 Physical Component Score (PCS); Before and after parameters — sleep, psychiatric disorders (both self-assessed and diagnosed by a hysician), attitude toward IWTs; and Medication use (both over-the-counter and prescription drugs). A P value of <0.05 was regarded as being statistically significant.
Results
Study participants
Thirty-three and 32 adults were identified as living within 1500 m of the nearest IWT at the Mars Hill (mean 805 m, range 390 – 1400) and Vinalhaven sites (mean 771 m range 375 – 1000), respectively. Twenty-three and 15 adults at the Mars Hill and Vinalhaven sites respectively, completed the questionnaires. Recruitment of participants into the far group continued until there were similar numbers as in the near group, 25 and 16 for Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, respectively [Table 2].
Table 2: Demographic data of Mars Hill and Vinalhaven study participants
Distance (m) from residence to nearest IWT (mean) Parameter 375 – 750 751 – 1400 330 – 5000 5300 - 6600 (601) (964) (4181) (5800) Sample size 18 20 14 27 Household clusters 11 12 10 23 Mean age 50 57 65 58 Male / Female 10 / 8 12 / 8 7 / 7 11 / 16 Mean time in home 1 14 21 30 24 1 Years that study participants lived in the home
Statistical results
The binomial outcomes were assessed using either the GENMOD procedure with binomial distribution and a logit link; or when cell frequencies were small (< 5), Fisher’s Exact Test. When assessing the significance between variables with a simple score outcome (e.g., 1 – 5), the exact Wilcoxon Score (Rank Sums) test was employed using the NPAR1WAY procedure. Continuous outcome variables were assessed using the GENMOD procedure with normal distribution.
When using the GENMOD procedure, age, gender, and site were forced into the model as fixed effects. The potential effect of household clustering on statistical significance was accommodated by using the REPEATED statement. Effect of site as an effect modifier was assessed by evaluating the interaction term (Site*Distance).
Participants living near IWTs had worse sleep, as evidenced by significantly greater mean PSQI and ESS scores [Table 3]. More participants in the near group had PSQI > 5 (P = 0.0745) and ESS scores > 10 (P = 0.1313), but the differences did not reach statistical significance. Participants living near IWTs were significantly more likely to report an improvement in sleep quality when sleeping away from home.
The near group had worse mental health as evidenced by significantly higher mean SF36 MCS (P = 0.0021) [Table 3]. There was no statistically significant difference in PCS (P = 0.9881). Nine participants in the near group reported that they had been diagnosed with either depression or anxiety since the start of turbine operations, compared to none in the far group. Nine of the 38 participants in the near group reported that they had been prescribed new psychotropic medications since the start of turbine operations compared with three of 41 in the far group (P = 0.06).
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 27
Table 3: Sleep and mental health outcomes of the study participants grouped by distance from the nearest IWT
Distance (m) from residence to nearest IWT (mean) Parameter 375-750 751-1400 375-1400 3300-5000 5300-6600 3000-6600 P-Value 1 (601) (964) (792) (4181) (5800) (5248) Mean PSQI 2 8.7 7.0 7.8 6.6 5.6 6.0 0.0461 % PSQI score > 5 3 77.8 55.0 65.8 57.1 37.0 43.9 0.0745 Mean ESS 4 7.2 8.4 7.8 6.4 5.3 5.7 0.0322 % with ESS score > 10 5 16.7 30.0 23.7 14.3 7.4 9.8 0.1313 Mean worsening sleep score post IWTs 6 3.2 3.1 3.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 < .0001 Improved sleep when away from IWTs 9 / 14 5 / 14 14 / 28 1 / 11 1 / 23 2 / 34 < .0001 % New sleep medications post IWTs 11.1 15.0 13.2 7.1 7.1 7.3 0.4711 New diagnoses of insomnia / / 2 / / 0 Mean SF36 MCS 40.7 43.1 42.0 50.7 54.1 52.9 0.0021 % Wishing to move away post IWTs 77.8 70.0 73.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 < .0001 1 Testing difference of 375 – 1400 m group with 3000 – 6600 m group 2 Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index 3 PSQI > 5 is considered a ‘poor sleeper’ 4 Epworth Sleepiness Scale 5 About 10 – 20 percent of the general population has ESS scores > 10 6 (New sleep problems + Worsening sleep problem)/2; Strongly Agree (5) - Strongly disagree (1)
The ESS, PSQI, and SF36 scores were modeled against distance from the nearest IWT (Score = ln (distance) + gender + age + site [controlled for household clustering]), and the results are shown in Figures 1–3. In all cases, there were clear and significant dose-response relationships (P < 0.05), with the effect diminishing with increasing log-distance from IWTs. Log-distance fit the health outcomes better than distance. This was expected given that noise drops off as the log of distance. Measured sound levels were plotted against distance at the two sites on Figures 1-3.
Figure 1: Modeled Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) versus distance to nearest IWT (mean and 95% confidence limits) Regression equation: PSQI = ln (distance) + sex + age + site [controlled for household clustering]. Ln (distance) p-value = 0.0198
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 28
Figure 2: Modeled Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) versus Distance to nearest IWT (mean and 95% confidence limits) Regression equation: ESS = ln (distance) + sex + age + site [controlled for household clustering)]. ln (distance) p-value = 0.0331
There were no statistically significant differences between the near and far groups with respect to age, gender, or duration of occupation. In addition, Site, and Site*Distance were not significant, indicating that the modeled exposure-outcome relationships were similar across both sites.
Discussion
This study supports the conclusions of previous studies, which demonstrate a relationship between proximity to IWTs and the general adverse effect of 'annoyance',[11-13] but differs in demonstrating clear dose-response relationships in important clinical indicators of health including sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and mental health. The levels of sleep disruption and the daytime consequences of increased sleepiness, together with the impairment of mental health and the dose-response relationships observed in this study (distance from IWT vs. effect) strongly suggest that the noise from IWTs results in similar health impacts as other causes of excessive environmental noise 1.
Figure 3: Modeled SF36 Mental Component Score (MCS) versus Distance to nearest IWT (mean and 95% confidence limits) Regression equation: MCS = ln (distance) + sex + age + site [controlled for household clustering]. ln (distance) p-value = 0.0014 ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 29
The degree of effect on sleep and health from IWT noise seems to be greater than that of other sources of environmental noise, such as, road, rail, and aircraft noise. Bray and James have argued that the commonly used noise metric of LAeq (averaged noise level adjusted to human hearing) is not appropriate for IWT noise, which contains relatively high levels of low frequency sound (LFN) and infrasound with impulsive characteristics.[14] This has led to an underestimation of the potential for adverse health effects of IWTs.
Potential biases
Reporting and selection biases in this study, if they existed, may have underestimated the strength of the association between distance to IWTs and health outcomes. Both Mars Hill and Vinalhaven residents gain financially from the wind projects, either through reduced electricity costs and / or increased tax revenues. The fear of reducing property values was also cited as a reason for downplaying the adverse health effects. Conversely, the possibility of legal action could result in symptoms being over stated. It was clear to the respondents that the questionnaire was directed at investigating adverse health effects potentially associated with IWT noise and no distractor questions were included. Nevertheless, given the large differences in reported adverse health effects between participants living within 1400 m and those living beyond 3300 m of an IWT, we do not believe that bias alone could have resulted in the differences demonstrated between the groups. In addition, the finding of strong dose-response relationships with log-distance, together with extensive subanalyses using survey questions more and less likely to be influenced by bias demonstrating similar results, further support the existence of causative associations.
Visual impact and attitude are known to affect the psychological response to environmental noise.[11,15,16] At both sites, turbines are prominent features of the landscape and were visible to a majority of respondents; at Mars Hill, IWTs are sited along a 200 m high ridge, and Vinalhavenis a flat island. The visual impact on those living closest to turbines was arguably greater than on those living some distance away. Most residents welcomed the installation of IWTs for their proposed financial benefits and their attitudes only changed once they began to operate and the noise and health effects became apparent. Pedersen estimates that, with respect to annoyance, 41% of the observed effects of IWT noise could be attributed to attitude and visual impact.[11] The influence of these factors on other consequences, such as the health effects investigated in this study, remains to be determined. Even as these factors may have contributed to the reported effects, they are clearly not the sole mechanism and health effects are certain.
Mechanisms
A possible mechanism for the observed health effects is an effect on sleep from the noise emitted by IWTs. Industrial wind turbines emit high levels of noise with a major low frequency component. The noise is impulsive in nature and variously described as ‘swooshing’ or ‘thumping’. [12] The character, volume, and frequency of the noise vary with changes in wind speed and direction. Industrial wind turbine noise is more annoying than road, rail, and aircraft noise, for the same sound pressure, presumably due to its impulsive character.[12,15] Pedersen concludes that it is noise that prevents restoration, that those subjected to it are unable to find psychological recovery in their homes because of its intrusive nature.[16] Noise can affect sleep by preventing sleep onset or return to sleep following spontaneous or induced awakening. Clearly, attitude and psychological factors such as noise sensitivity may be important in influencing the ability to fall asleep, but it should be noted that noise sensitivity is, in part, heritable.[17]
Noise also affects sleep by inducing arousals, which fragment sleep, reducing its quality and leading to the same consequences as sleep deprivation. [18] There is good evidence that road, rail, and aircraft noise induce arousals and lead to daytime consequences and there is no reason to suppose that IWT noise will not have a similar effect.[19-23] A recent study on the likelihood of different hospital noises that induce an arousal shows a considerable effect of sound character, with impulsive noises being more likely to induce an arousal.[24] It has also been shown that there is individual variability in the likelihood of an arousal in response to noise, which may be predicted from a spindle index, a measure of sleep quality.[25]
ESS assesses daytime sleepiness from the self-assessed propensity to fall asleep in different situations averaged over several weeks.[9] It is widely used in sleep medicine to assess daytime sleepiness, and scores in excess of 10 are deemed to represent clinically relevant excessive daytime sleepiness. If sleep is only disrupted occasionally, the ESS will not be affected, as the sleep deficit can be compensated on other nights. Changes in the ESS score observed in this study imply that sleep has been disrupted to a degree where compensation is not possible in at least some participants. PSQI also examines the sleep quality averaged over a period of weeks, scores in excess of 5 are deemed to represent poor quality sleep.[8] An individual’s score will not be significantly affected by occasional disrupted nights, thus confirming the conclusions drawn from the ESS data. It is noteworthy also that significant changes in ESS and PSQI have been observed, despite the scatter in values indicative of the typical levels of impaired sleep found in the general population.[8,9]
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 30
Other mechanisms than sleep disruption cannot be excluded as an explanation for the psychological and other changes observed. Low frequency noise, and in particular, impulsive LFN, has been shown to be contributory to the symptoms of ‘Sick Building Syndrome,’ which has similarities with those reported here.[26,27] Salt has recently proposed a mechanism, whereby, infrasound from IWTs could affect the cochlear and cause many of the symptoms described.[28]
We assessed causality using a well-accepted framework .[29] Although the measured parameters (ESS, PSQI, and SF36) assess the current status, the evidence of the respondents is that the reported changes have followed the commencement of IWT operation. This is supported by the reported preferences of the residents; the great majority of those living within 1.4 km expressed their desire to move away as a result of the start of turbine operations. However, a study of the same population before and after turbine operation will be necessary to confirm our supposition. We believe that there is good evidence that a time sequence has been established. The association between distance to IWT and health outcome is both statistically significant and clinically relevant for the health outcomes assessed, suggesting a specific association between the factors. Given that this is the first study investigating the association between IWTs and a range of health outcomes, the consistency and replication to prove causation is limited. However, this study includes two different study populations living next to two different IWT projects. Despite these differences, the study site was not a significant effect modifier among any of the measured outcomes. In addition, adverse health effects similar to those identified in this study among those living near IWTs, have been documented in a number of case-series studies and surveys.[2-4,30] Finally, causal association can be judged by its coherence with other known facts about the health outcomes and the causal factor under study. The results of this study are consistent with the known effects of other sources of environmental noise on sleep.
The data on measured and estimated noise levels were not adequate to construct a dose-response curve and to determine an external noise level below which sleep disturbance will not occur. However, it is apparent that this value will be less than an average hourly LAeq of 40 dBA, which is the typical night time value permitted under the current guidance in most jurisdictions.
Conclusions
We conclude that the noise emissions of IWTs disturbed the sleep and caused daytime sleepiness and impaired mental health in residents living within 1.4 km of the two IWT installations studied. Industrial wind turbine noise is a further source of environmental noise, with the potential to harm human health. Current regulations seem to be insufficient to adequately protect the human population living close to IWTs. Our research suggests that adverse effects are observed at distances even beyond 1 km. Further research is needed to determine at what distances risks become negligible, as well as to better estimate the portion of the population suffering from adverse effects at a given distance.
Acknowledgments We thank Dr. Carl Phillips, Rick James, INCE and Robert Rand, INCE for their review of the manuscript. How to cite this article: Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health 2012;14:237-43. Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared. TEXT ARTICLES Address for correspondence: Michael A. Nissenbaum, MD, Northern Maine Medical Center, 194 E. Main Street, Fort Kent, Maine 04743, USA E-mail: [email protected]
References 1. World Health Organisation. Night noise guidelines for Europe. Copenhagen. 2009. 2. Frey BJ, Hadden PJ. Noise radiation from wind turbines installed near homes: Effects on health. 2007. [Last cited on 2010 July 18]. Available from: www.windnoisehealthhumanrights.com 3. Pierpont N. Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment. Santa Fe, (NM): K Selected Publications; 2009. 4. Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects, Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2011;31:334-45. 5. Colby WD, Dobie R, Leventhall G, Lipscomb DM, McCunney RJ, Seilo MT, et al. Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects; An Expert Panel Review. American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations. 2009. [Last cited on 2011 Oct 31]. Available from: www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/upload/AWEA _and_CanWEA_Sound_White_Paper.pdf
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 31
6. National Health and Medical Research Council. Wind Turbines and Health: A rapid review of the evidence. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. 2010. [Last cited on 2011 Oct 31]. Available from: www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/ publications/attachments/new0048_evidence_review_wind_turbines_ and_health.pdf. 7. QualityMetric. SF-36v2 Health Survey. [Last cited on 2011 Oct 31]. Available from: www.qualitymetric.com/WhatWeDo/ SFHealthSurveys/SF36v2HealthSurvey/tabid/185/Default.aspx. 8. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF 3rd, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI): A new instrument for psychiatric research and practice. Psychiatry Res 1989;28:193-213. 9. Johns MW. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: theEpworth sleepiness scale. Sleep 1991;14:540-5. 10. SAS/STAT 9.22 User’s guide. SAS Institute Inc. 100 SAS Campus Drive Cary, NC 27513-2414 USA. 11. Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;126:634-43. 12. van den Berg GP, Pedersen E, Bouma J, Bakker R. Project WINDFARMperception. Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. FP6-2005-Science-and-Society-20. Specific Support Action Project no. 044628. 2008. 13. Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks KN, Hill EM. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise Health 2011;13:333-9. 14. Bray W, James R. Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception. Proceedings of Noise-Con; 2011, July 25-7;Portland, Oregon. 15. Pedersen E, Waye KP. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise--a dose-response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:3460- 70. 16. Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Wind turbines – low level noise sources interfering with restoration? Environ Res Lett 2008;3:1-5. 17. Shepherd D. Wind turbine noise and health in the New Zealand context. In: Rapley B, Bakker H, editors. Sound, Noise, Flicker and the Human Perception of Wind Farm Activity. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Atkinson and Rapley Consulting Ltd; 2010. p. 13-63. 18. Meerlo P, Sgoifo A, Suchecki D. Restricted and disrupted sleep: effects on autonomic function, neuroendocrine stress systems and stress responsivity. Sleep Med Rev 2008;12:197-210. 19. de Kluizenaar Y, Janssen SA, van Lenthe FJ, Miedema HM, Mackenbach JP. Long-term road traffic noise exposure is associated with an increase in morning tiredness. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;126:626-33. 20. Basner M, Glatz C, Griefahn B, Penzel T, Samel A. Aircraft noise: Effects on macro- and microstructure of sleep. Sleep Med 2008;9:382-7. 21. Basner M. Nocturnal aircraft noise exposure increases objectively assessed daytime sleepiness. J Sleep Res 2008;17:Suppl 1;P512. 22. Elmenhorst E, Basner M. Effects of Nocturnal Aircraft Noise (Volume 5): Performance. Institute of Aerospace Medicine of the German Aerospace Center (DLR), Cologne. DLR-Forschungsbericht 2004-11. 2008. 23. Elmenhorst EM, Elmenhorst D, Wenzel J, Quehl J, Mueller U, Maass H, et al. Effects of nocturnal aircraft noise on cognitive performance in the following morning: dose-response relationships in laboratory and field. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2010;83:743-51. 24. Solet JM, Buxton OM, Ellenbogen JM, Wang W, Carballiera A sleep study. Concord, CA: The Center for Health Design. 2010. [Last cited on 2011 Oct 31]. Available from: http://www.healthdesign.org/ sites/default/files/Validating%20Acoustic%20Guidelines%20for%20HC%20Facilities_Sound%20Sleep%20Study. pdf. 25. Dang-Vu TT, McKinney SM, Buxton OM, Solet JM, Ellenbogen JM. Spontaneous brain rhythms predict sleep stability in the face of noise. Curr Biol 2010;20:R626-7. 26. Niven RM, Fletcher AM, Pickering CA, Faragher EB, Potter IN, Booth WB, et al. Building sickness syndrome in healthy and unhealthy buildings: An epidemiological and environmental assessment with cluster analysis. Occup Environ Med 2000;57:627-34. 27. Persson Waye K, Rylander R, Benton S, Leventhall HG. Effects on performance and work quality due to low frequency ventilation noise. J Sound Vib 1997;205:467-74. 28. Salt A, Kaltenbach J. Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2011;31:296-302. 29. Susser M. Criteria of Judgment. In: Causal Thinking in the Health Sciences - Concepts and Strategies of Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1973. 30. Phillips C. Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2011;31:303-15.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 32
APPENDIX 2 HEALTH: BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 8 Mar 2012 BMJ March 2012 : New Peer-Reviewed “Wind turbine noise seems to affect health adversely, and an independent review of evidence is needed” Published by Christopher D. Hanning, MD ,† and Alun Evans, MD ,‡ British Medical Journal (3/8/12) http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Hanning-2012.pdf
The evidence for adequate sleep as a prerequisite for human health, particularly child health, is overwhelming. Governments have recently paid much attention to the effects of environmental noise on sleep duration and quality, and to how to reduce such noise. 1However, governments have also imposed noise from industrial wind turbines on large swathes of peaceful countryside. The impact of road, rail, and aircraft noise on sleep and daytime functioning (sleepiness and cognitive function) is well established. 1Shortly after wind turbines began to be erected close to housing, complaints emerged of adverse effects on health. Sleep disturbance was the main complaint. 2Such reports have been dismissed as being subjective and anecdotal, but experts contend that the quantity, consistency, and ubiquity of the complaints constitute epidemiological evidence of a strong link between wind turbine noise, ill health, and disruption of sleep. 3
The noise emitted by a typical onshore 2.5 MW wind turbine has two main components. A dynamo mounted on an 80 m tower is driven through a gear train by blades as long as 45 m, and this generates both gear train noise and aerodynamic noise as the blades pass through the air, causing vortices to be shed from the edges. Wind constantly changes its velocity and direction, which means that the inflowing airstream is rarely stable. In addition, wind velocity increases with height (wind shear), especially at night, and there may be inflow turbulence from nearby structures—in particular, other turbines. This results in an impulsive noise, which is variously described as “swishing” and “thumping,” and which is much more annoying than other sources of environmental noise and is poorly masked by ambient noise. 4, 5
Permitted external noise levels and setback distances vary between countries. UK guidance, ETSU-R- 97, published in 1997 and not reviewed since, permits a night time noise level of 42 dBA, or 5 dBA above ambient noise level, whichever is the greater. This means that turbines must be set back by a minimum distance of 350-500 m, depending on the terrain and the turbines, from human habitation.
The aerodynamic noise generated by wind turbines has a large low frequency and infrasound component that is attenuated less with distance than higher frequency noise. Current noise measurement techniques and metrics tend to obscure the contribution of impulsive low frequency noise and infrasound. 6 A laboratory study has shown that low frequency noise is considerably more annoying than higher frequency noise and is harmful to health—it can cause nausea, headaches, disturbed sleep, and cognitive and psychological impairment. 7 A cochlear mechanism has been proposed that outlines how infrasound, previously disregarded because it is below the auditory threshold, could affect humans and contribute to adverse effects. 8 Sixteen per cent of surveyed respondents who lived where calculated outdoor turbine noise exposures exceeded 35 dB LAeq (LAeq, the constant sound level that, in a given time period, would convey the same sound energy as the actual time varying sound level, weighted to approximate the response of the human ear) reported disturbed sleep. 4 A questionnaire survey concluded that turbine noise was more annoying at night, and that interrupted sleep and difficulty in returning to sleep increased with calculated noise level. 9 Even at the lowest noise levels, 20% of respondents reported disturbed sleep at least one night a month. In a meta-analysis of three European datasets (n=1764), 10 sleep disturbance clearly increased with higher calculated noise levels in two of the three studies. In a survey of people residing in the vicinity of two US wind farms, those living within 375-1400 m reported worse sleep and more daytime sleepiness, in addition to having lower summary scores on the mental component of the short form 36 health survey than those who lived 3-6.6 km from a turbine. Modelled dose-response curves of both sleep and health scores against distance from nearest turbine were significantly related after controlling for sex, age, and household clustering, with a sharp increase in effects between 1 km and 2 km. 11 A New Zealand survey showed lower health related quality of life, ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 33
especially sleep disturbance, in people who lived less than 2 km from turbines. 12
A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children, 1 and it may have important implications for public health. When seeking to generate renewable energy through wind, governments must ensure that the public will not suffer harm from additional ambient noise. Robust independent research into the health effects of existing wind farms is long overdue, as is an independent review of existing evidence and guidance on acceptable noise levels.
Author disclosure re. competing interests: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; CDH has given expert evidence on the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep and health at wind farm planning inquiries in the UK and Canada but has derived no personal benefit; he is a member of the board of the Society for Wind Vigilance; AE has written letters of objection on health grounds to wind farm planning applications in Ireland. This article was not commissioned by the British Medical Journal, and it was externally peer reviewed. References: 1. World Health Organization. Burden of disease from environmental noise. 2011. 2. Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:334-9. 3. Phillips C. Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:303-8. 4. Pedersen E, PerssonWaye K. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise—a dose- response relationship. J AcoustSoc Am 2004;116:3460-70. 5. Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Can road traffic mask sound from wind turbines? Response to wind turbine sound at different levels of road traffic sound. Energy Policy 2010;38:2520-7. 6. Bray W, James R. Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception. Proceedings of Noise-Con 2011, Portland, Oregon, 25-27 July 2011. Curran Associates, 2011. 7. Møller M, Pedersen C. Low frequency noise from large wind turbines. J AcoustSoc Am 2010;129:3727-44. 8. Salt A, Kaltenbach J. Infrasound from wind turbines could affect humans. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:296-303. 9. Van den Berg G, Pedersen E, Bouma J, Bakker R. Project WINDFARMperception. Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. FP6-2005-Science-and-Society-20.Specific support action project no 044628, 2008. 10. Pedersen E. Effects of wind turbine noise on humans. Proceedings of the Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg Denmark 17-19 June 2009. 11. Nissenbaum M, Aramini J, Hanning C. Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report. Proceedings of 10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), 2011, London, UK.Curran Associates, 2011. 12. Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks K, Hill E. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life. Noise Health 2011;13:333-9.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 34
APPENDIX 3 HEALTH: FREY HADDEN REPORT 2012
NOISE RADIATION FROM WIND TURBINES INSTALLED NEAR HOMES: EFFECTS ON HEALTH By Barbara J Frey, BA, MA (University of Minnesota) and Peter J Hadden, BSc (Est Man), FRICS.
The 140 page report was published in January 2012 and is specific to wind turbine noise guidelines in the UK. The Conclusions and Recommendations are included here.
Conclusions The experience of famillies internationally show conclusively that when wind turbines are built in proximity to houses, the environmental noise pollution adversely impacts on people's health. Wind turbines emit noise with many characteristics – pulsating noise, intermittency, tonal qualities, amplitude modulation and low frequency noise – which singly or in combination merit special attention and limits because of observed, unwanted impacts on health, according to the World Health Organizations' guidelines. These findings are reflected also in the pilot studies conducted during the past few years by physicians in the UK, the USA, an in Australia, where results indicated that families are suffering from various degrees of negative health and sleep issues because of environment noise from wind turbines. Despite evidence-based research studies that demonstrate a relationship between the adverse impacts of environmental noise on health, some governments – including that of the UK – have instead opted to follow the advice of acoustic engineers from the wind energy industry. This approach favours industrial development, constructing wind turbines in proximity to homes and other sensitive facilities, to the detriment of public health. Although acoustic engineers and engineers involved with wind turbine design acknowledge that predicting acoustic radiation from wind turbines is imprecise, with variable and often doubtful results, the UK Government continues to foster self-regulation by the wind energy industry. This has led to the current situation, with inadequate standards of protection from environmental noise pollution for neighbouring families.
As governments encouraged more wind turbine installations, and with more constructed near homes and communities because of inadequate guidance, complaints about noise increased. Several governments have responded and recently imposed stricter regulation on the wind energy industry after assessing community and family complaints and health issues, as well as by assessing current evidence-based research and reports on environmental noise and its injuries to health: Denmark lowered allowable wind turbine noise emissions, including stricter regulation on low frequency noise, both outside and inside homes and other facilities and areas; the State Government of Victoria, Australia, increased set-back distances to a minimum of 2km between a wind turbine and a residence; and Japan has initiated an epidemiological study of the impacts of wind turbine noise on people.
Moreover, the WHO reports – Guidelines for Community Noise, Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, and the Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise, along with evidence-based research findings, indicate that the inaudible effects of noise (e.g. low frequency noise), as well as the audible, may have significant impacts on people. Current UK guidance is not only out-dated, it does not include these recent guidelines from the World Health Organization. Indeed, UK guidance does not incorporate methods that reflect how humans perceive and react to sounds and noise, especially dose-exposure-response relationships. These have a relationship to how noise affects health and sleep and a sense of well-being. Furthermore, because the UK Government, through its agencies, ministers and civil servants, is aware of issues with wind turbine noise guidance, there are potential human rights violations, because those with health complaints apparently related to wind turbines constructed in proximity to their homes have been ignored in their efforts to seek changes, controls, or redress. Furthermore, recent UK Planning Legislation closed a route that had been available to ordinary families seeking recourse in order to protect themselves from environmental pollution. Noise conditions are unwieldy, and difficult and expensive to enforce; thus, people are exposed to unremitting environmental noise, with the consequent injuries to health and loss of amenity, through no faults of their own.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization reports and medical evidence offer methods and guidance that deal effectively with industrial environmental noise and offer a degree of protection to the public's health, if
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 35
Government would choose to respond to the science of the matter, rather than to political and economic expediency.
Recommendations Although the underlying mechanisms are not yet fully understood, when wind turbines are built near homes, it is undeniable that their noise causes a constellation of unwelcome effects, with varying degrees, on health, sleep, and health quality of life. Further study may reveal the cause/effect, dose/exposure relationships, but as these are undetermined, the precautionary principle should apply in order to protect the public health. Preventive proactive policy functions to preserve the public's health, whereas reactive palliative responses are often inadequate, not to mention, too late. Although government agencies and the wind energy industry and their consultants contend that the adverse health effects are conjecture or negligible or 'mere' annoyance, one may also argue that their calculations are based on models that make unproven assumptions about what sounds are or are not annoying to people. Wind turbine noise calculations were not tested on subjects in field study scenarios. Furthermore, leading acousticians disagree on the methodologies to measure, analyse, predict, and prevent wind turbine noise. Current guidelines rely on calculations that are based on variables that result in imprecise and inaccurate predictions of actual wind turbine noise and how people living nearby perceive the noise. Therefore, wind turbines should not be sited near homes, communities, or other sensitive facilities, e.g. schools, and residential homes for special populations, such as the chronically ill or aged. The precautionary principle should apply.
The guidance for and the methodology to measure wind turbine noise should be straightforward and easily applied by local planning authorities and environmental health officers and – importantly – enforceable by them without delays. Denmark has introduced guidelines for wind turbine noise that reduces previous allowable levels; noise must now remain below limits both indoors and outdoors, and the guidance includes audible noise as well as inaudible noise, such as low frequency noise. Denmark's guidance also acknowledges that background noise does not mask wind turbine noise. Therefore, background noise is not a basis for setting audible noise levels. These standards comply with the WHO reports and their findings; the UK should do no less. The dBA measure noise from the wind turbine(s) should not exceed levels in the bedroom at night with the window partly open, of not more than 30 dBA LAmax, nor within amenity areas around the home where the limit will be L night, outside, 30dBA, or as prescribed by the World Health Organization’s research updates on environmental noise. Regarding amplitude modulation (AM), the guidance must not exceed the parameters set in Planning Appeal Decision APP/Q1153/A/06/2017163,S.20: "20.a. A change in the measured LAeq, 125 milliseconds turbine noise level of more than 3dB (represented as a rise and fall in sound energy levels each of more than 3dB) occurring within a 2 second period. 20.b. The change identified in (a) above shall not occur less than 5 times in any one minute period provided the LAeq, 1 minute turbine sound energy level for that minute is not below 28dB. 20.c. The changes identified in (a) and (b) above shall not occur for fewer than 6 minutes in any hour." [See Hulme, APP/Q1153/A/06/201163] Public health policy for the environmental noise of wind turbines should link directly to the EC Environmental Noise Directive, and the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise, Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, and the Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise. These are reports by independent, international, multidisciplinary panels with expertise in their fields. As guidance is updated, national guidance should change to reflect current knowledge and practice. To evaluate these guidelines and their implementation for national application, the UK Government should empanel an independent committee, based on the WHO model, i.e. comprised of medical experts independent of the wind industry, in sleep medicine, physiology, psychoacoustics, and epidemiology, and to consult with acousticians as deemed necessary. Although acousticians or medical experts working within or as consultants to the wind energy industry would be welcome to submit comments, they would have to recuse themselves from participation in devising guidance and methods. The panel should be led by the Public Health department of State, not by an agency such as DECC, whose objectives differ from those departments whose primary objectives are health protection and disease prevention.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 36
Because prediction of wind turbine noise is an uncertain process, the principles with Lord Reay's bill, "Wind Turbine Minimum Distance from Residential Premises", presented to the House of Lords, should be adopted as a matter of urgency, but with these reduced set-backs, which accommodate more recent research and guidance, e.g. the Danish EPA guidance 2011, the State of Victoria, Australia guidance, the WHO Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise 2011. Wind turbine heights (to blade tip) Setback between nearest residence to the wind turbine height; up to 25m - 1km; 25m-35m - 1.5km; 35m-100m - 2km; Greater than 100m - 3km [Lord Reay. Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [HL] 2010-11 http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/windturbinesminimumdistancesfromresidentialpremiseshl.html]
These should be considered minimum set-back distances depending upon, e.g., local terrain, the size of the array, terrain, blade flicker, and agricultural and community needs. As part of the application process, noise background levels should also be measured indoors, in rooms used by families or other sensitive facilities, e.g. the sitting/living room, other communal rooms, the study, as well as bedrooms, with the window of that room open.
Compliance testing and enforcement of conditions are essential; it is common practice in industrial situations. This is vital because noise prediction may need recalculation. The hours of operation may require limits or possibly shutdown during the night or in certain meteorological conditions.
Ongoing compliance with guidance and conditions is the responsibility of the wind turbine owners. A warranty should be provided to the local authority that certifies that the wind turbines will not exceed the prescribed noise emission levels. If the noise exceeds the allowable limit, then the wind energy company must close down the site until the Environmental Health Officer approves a plan for amelioration that will most likely meet the original conditions. Alternatively, the developer may arrange to purchase all neighbouring properties exposed to the environmental noise pollution, at their fair market value prior to the wind turbine scheme, plus compensation for moving home.
The local authority must also accept responsibility to investigate noise complaints.
To reiterate, the precautionary principle should prevail. Either locate wind turbines further away from homes and communities, or invoke a moratorium, in order to protect the public's health. The policy and the practice should be proactive, not reactive.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 37
APPENDIX 4 SEPARATION DISTANCES : LEGAL/POLITICAL: HoL BILL
House of Lords Private Members Bill 2011/12
1 Planning permission (1) No relevant authority may grant planning permission for the construction of a wind turbine generator unless it meets the minimum distance requirement under section 2, subject to the exception in section 3. (2) “Relevant authority” means the local authority or government department with the power to grant planning permission for a wind turbine generator.
Requirements for minimum distance (1) The “minimum distance requirement” means the necessary minimum distance between the wind turbine generator and residential premises as set out in subsection (4). (2) “Residential premises” means any premises the main purpose of which is to provide residential accommodation, including farmhouses. (3) If a number of wind turbine generators are being built as part of the same project the minimum distance requirement applies to each wind turbine generator individually. (4) If the height of the wind turbine generator is— (a) greater than 25m, but does not exceed 50m, the minimum distance requirement is 1000m; (b) greater than 50m, but does not exceed 100m, the minimum distance requirement is 1500m; (c) greater than 100m, but does not exceed 150m, the minimum distance requirement is 2000m;
2 Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [HL] (d) greater than 150m, the minimum distance requirement is 3000m. (5) The height of the wind turbine generator is measured from the ground to the end of the blade tip at its highest point. (6) There is no minimum distance requirement if the height of the wind turbine generator does not exceed 25m. (7) If planning permission is granted on the condition that the proposed wind turbine generator meets the minimum distance requirement under subsection (5) the actual height of the wind turbine generator must not exceed the maximum height in relation to that minimum distance.
3 Exception (1) The local authority may grant planning permission for the construction of a wind turbine generator which does not meet the minimum distance requirement under section 2(4) if the condition under subsection (2) is met. (2) The condition is that the owners of all residential premises which fall within the minimum distance requirement for the proposed wind turbine generator must agree in writing to the construction of the wind turbine generator. (3) It is the duty of a relevant authority to ensure that no written agreement is elicited by unlawful means and that all necessary written agreements have been received before planning permission is granted.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 38
APPENDIX 5 SETBACK DISTANCES: CASE FOR 2km EXCLUSION ZONE (NAWAG) – EXCERPTS
EXTRACTS from Policy Document for MINIMUM 2km EXCLUSION ZONE AROUND DWELLINGS National Alliance of Windfarm Action Groups (NAWAG)
Document contents ( only 4 highlighted sections attached herewith): page Executive Summary 1 Background 3 The obligation of the UK government 3 The focus of the paper 5 The impact of industrial wind turbines on health 6 Why do people living near turbines get ill? 11 Safety and wind turbines 15 Visual amenity and wind farms 17 Wind turbines, tourism and jobs 20 House prices and wind turbines 22 Conclusion and recommendations 24 Appendix References and additional references 26 Conclusions of the French National Academy of Medicine 30 Nina Pierpont s testimony to the New York State Legislature 31 Vibroacoustic disease and wind turbines 34 Overall conclusions from „Location, Location, Location 35 Overall recommendations from „Location, Location, Location 36 Additional information on sleep deprivation and health 38 Salford University Report and REF response 39 Conclusions from „Location, Location, Location 40
THE IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES ON HEALTH (page 6)
In March 2006, the French National Academy of Medicine issued its report on: The Repercussions of Wind Turbine Operation On Human Health. In this document they wrote: ‘In current scientific literature, there is very little data on the potential hazards for humans that are posed by wind turbines Reviewing current knowledge and assessing the possibility of this harmfulness was the mission of this work group, and led it to propose a number of recommendations to the Board of Directors’. 7
Its conclusions are in the Appendix to this document. However, the committee members made some very valuable recommendations which are quoted here. 1. To demonstrate the possible harmfulness of wind turbine noise on humans, the Academy considers it is essential that two types of studies be conducted involving:
The development of a procedure for recording , over a period of several weeks, the noise created by wind turbines in homes, then analyzing that noise at different times in order to apply this expertise to the populations in question. An epidemiological investigation into the possible health consequences of this wind turbine noise on the populations which will be correlated with the installation distances of these machines and the results of the measurements proposed above.
2. Pending the results of these studies, the Academy recommends that the public authorities take the following measures immediately:
As a precautionary measure, suspend the construction of wind turbines whose parks have
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 39
over 2.5 MW of power when they are located less than 1.5 km from homes. Modify article 98 of the law of July 2, 2003, as appropriate so that these wind turbines are considered industrial facilities if they exceed a certain power and so that their installation be henceforth subject to specific regulations that account for the highly distinctive sound nuisances that they create.
This study was undertaken because, as more and taller, turbines are being built closer and closer to homes, accounts are being collected from people living close to industrial wind turbines who believe that they are being made ill by their presence. Some are quoted in the French document; others are quoted in a paper by Doctor Amanda Harry 8, an English GP, and another by Welsh Doctor Bridget Osborne 9. More are quoted in a peer reviewed and highly commended research document by Dr Nina Pierpont, MD and PhD. Dr Pierpont s research is shortly to be published in book form. She gave evidence before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee on March 2006 10 , a copy of which is to be found in the Appendix.
The following quotation gives a flavour of what people are experiencing, and it helps to explain the fear with which people threatened by a wind turbine planning application respond when they first learn about it and start their researches. This quotation seems to be fairly representative. It was gathered at an inquiry held at Askam in Cumbria inJanuary 2004 into the problems being experienced by people living close to a wind farm. This respondent, known only as Member of Family O3 said: ‘They were noisy immediately, blades ‘whooshing’ around ….. if the wind is from the East, or the South, the noise is horrendous. You can’t get away from the noise, where can you go? It’s all around outside and you get it inside the house as well. It’s worst during the night. I have to ‘bed hop’ to get any sleep …. But it doesn’t work… This noise is like a washing machine that’s gone wrong. It’s whooshing, drumming, constant drumming noise. It is agitating. It is frustrating. It is annoying. It wears you down. You can’t sleep at night and you can’t concentrate during the day ….. It just goes on and on…..It’s torture…{four years later} You just don’t get a full night’s sleep and when you drop off it is always disturbed and only like ‘cat napping’. You then get up, tired, agitated and depressed and it makes you short-tempered… Our lives are hell.’ 11 In 1998, the German Academic Initiative Group, endorsed by more than 100 university professors, wrote in the Darmstadt Manifesto that : ‘More and more people are describing their lives as unbearable when they are directly exposed to the acoustic and optical effects of wind farms. There are reports of people being signed off sick and unfit for work. There are a growing number of complaints about symptoms such as pulse irregularities and states of anxiety, which are known to be from the effects of infrasound (sound frequencies below the normal audible limit).’
Residents of Bradworthy in North Devon describe their concerns about the impact of shadow flicker on their health. A resident living only 533 m from three wind turbines which are 85 m high (so much smaller than ones being proposed today of over 125 m high) complained that he experiences:
‘Strobe or shadow flicker entering my Kitchen, Conservatory and Sitting room, all on the East side, when the sun rises in the east, in autumn and Winter behind the wind turbines. This will last for three months and is NOT ACCEPTABLE…. The prolonged flicker causes a headache, affects my eyes and causes disorientation.’ 13
Complainants often mention that they were told before the site was built that the problems they are experiencing would never occur, as with the resident of Bradworthy. They also frequently complain that the problems they then experience are not dealt with effectively after the site is built. The gradual but inexorable accumulation of such evidence has led Dr Nina Pierpont to identify what she has now called „Wind Turbine Syndrome . ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 40
A description can also be found in the evidence given to the New York State Legislature in the appendix. She told the Legislature that she, a doctor in Australia and a doctor in England were all studying the syndrome and identifying the same symptoms. These are: • Sleep problems: Noise or physical sensations which make it hard to go to sleep and cause frequent awakening. • Headaches, which are increased in frequency or severity. • Dizziness, unsteadiness, and nausea • Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability and depression • Problems with concentrating and learning • Tinnitus (ringing in the ears)
Dr Pierpont explained that not everyone near turbines experiences any or all of these symptoms, because people have different levels of susceptibility, known as „risk factors . She explained that epidemiologic studies of these risk factors and the proportion of people who get the symptoms were underway. She said chronic sleep disturbance was the most common problem. She argued that exhaustion, mood problems and problems with concentration and 14 learning were „the natural outcomes of poor sleep . The paper produced by National Wind Watch: Simple Guidelines for Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks 15 , written by George Kamperman and Rick James in July 2007 argues that the people most likely to be affected by wind turbine noise are children, people with pre- existing sleep disorders and the elderly. Some people are unaffected, while some nearby neighbours develop serious health effects caused by exposure to the same turbine noise. They argue that the most common problem is chronic sleep deprivation during nighttimes. They argue that medical research documents show that this may develop into far more serious physical and psychological problems.
The consequences for health of poor sleep are fully investigated in a paper by Dr Christopher Hanning called: Sleep Disturbance and Wind Turbine Noise 16 . On page 5 he writes: ‘Inadequate sleep has been associated not just with fatigue, sleepiness and cognitive impairment but also with increased risk of obesity, impaired glucose tolerance (risk of diabetes), high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer and depression. Sleepy people have an increased risk of road traffic accidents’.
SAFETY AND WIND TURBINES (page 15 )
It is logical to say that, the more industrial wind turbines there are, the more related accidents there are likely to be. A number of issues are relevant to an argument about the need for a 2km exclusion zone from homes. An analysis of wind turbine accidents can be found on www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk. 31 This is regularly updated but does not claim to be fully comprehensive and may only represent „the tip of the iceberg . The figures given on the site in June 2009 are: Average number of recorded accidents: 2002 – 2008 65.4 1995 – 2001 15.9
The closer that industrial wind turbines get to homes, and the higher these turbines are built, the more relevant these considerations will become, although some of the risks described are undoubtedly small. In some cases, it is wind farm workers who are clearly most at risk. Issues that relate to safety include:
Blade failure : the biggest number of recorded incidents was due to blade failure which can arise for a number of reasons. It results in either whole blades or pieces of blade being thrown from the turbines. Between 1990 and June 2009 154 incidents were identified. Of these, 14 ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 41
occurred between January and June 30 2009. Pieces of blades are documented as travelling over 400 m, but for turbines that are rather smaller than ones being built andproposed today. This is a major reason why we believe there should be a minimum distance of at least 2km between turbines and occupied housing in order to adequately address public safety issues.
Fire : this is the second most common accident cause in incidents identified. It can arise from a number of sources and some turbine types appear to be more susceptible than others. A total of 131 fire incidents were recorded between 1990 and June 2009. The problem for fire brigades is that the fire often occurs too high up for the brigade to take any action – leaving the fire to burn itself out instead. The problem in windy/stormy conditions, particular if the summer is warm and dry, is that combustible material may be scattered over a wide area. This could again prove a risk in areas close to forests or moorland or close to houses and supports the argument for a sensible exclusion zone.
Structural failure : the data shows this to be the third most common accident cause and refers to a major component failure under conditions which components should be designed to withstand. This mostly relates to tower collapse and storm damage. It may be the result of poor quality control, lack of or inadequate maintenance and component failure. There were 75 examples found between 1998 and 2009. The annual number of structural failures has increased, with 11 in 2007 and 9 in 2008. So far there have been 6 up to June 30 2009. Smaller turbines are now being built closer to buildings like schools, which may have an impact in the future.
Ice throw . Some Canadian wind farms have warning signs posted asking people to stay at least 305m from turbines in icy conditions. If such recommendations were adopted here, then many bridleways and footpaths near wind farms would become unusable during very cold times. Ice throw has been reported up to 140m. A report published in 2003 reported 880 icing events between 1990 and 2003 in Germany alone. 33% of these were on the lowlands and on the coastline. 32
Dr Terry Matilisky, Associate Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Rutgers University, says: „The bottom line is that ice, debris or anything breaking off the wind turbine blades (including the blades 33 themselves) can impact a point almost 1700 feet away from the base of the turbines’.
Risk Analysis of Ice Throw from Wind Turbines. 34 This paper was presented by Henry Seifert, Annette Westerhellweg, JurgenKroning et al to the Boreas 6 conference at Pyha, Finland, 9 – 11 April 2009. They write on page 5:
‘If a wind turbine operates in icing conditions which are described (in the text) two types of risks may occur if the rotor blades collect ice. The fragments from the rotor blades are thrown off from the operating turbine due to the aerodynamic and centrifugal forces or they fall down from the turbine when it is shut down or idling without power production’.
There seems to be no form of regulatory system in the UK to monitor and investigate turbine reliability and safety. This situation should be contrasted with the aviation industry, where the CAA keeps a tight rein on aircraft safety standards, with maintenance procedures under constant review and aircraft incidents and accidents subject to rigorous investigation. In some circumstances, aircraft are grounded until the root cause of the problem has been identified and remedial action implemented.
It is distressing but necessary to point out that during the period of time that this report was written, the first death on a wind farm has occurred on a site at Thurso in Scotland so this situation may be up for review in the immediate future.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 42
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION (page 24) The conclusion of this paper is self-evident. Taller and taller turbines are being built closer and closer to homes without due regard to the impact on people ‟s health, enjoyment of their homes and private lives, on tourism and employment and on the cultural heritage of this country. We are in fact in danger of destroying much that we value in the name of saving it.
Vested and financial interests (BWEA, wind developers) have adopted a „WARYDU ‟ attitude to objectors: „we are right, you don ‟t understand ‟ and continue to disregard empirical evidence. Such evidence must be given the full recognition it deserves, and be given appropriate weight in the planning system, in the training that planners receive, and in the training that councillors who sit on planning committees also receive. In particular, any training provided by organisations such as the BWEA must be balanced by training provided by organisations like the Renewable Energy Foundation.
A 2 km exclusion zone around dwellings would go some way towards protecting vulnerable people from the damage that a rapidly accumulating body of credible evidence suggests is being done every day, to growing numbers of people, throughout the country. It seems in the present circumstances that this exclusion zone will need to be backed by statute to give it the force it needs to protect ordinary people.
Credible research must be undertaken by unbiased researchers into the effects of wind turbines on health, after which a 2 km exclusion zone may prove to be too conservative in scale, and a wider one introduced, especially if ever-taller turbines continue to be built.
It is the responsibility of the government to see that this happens, in the light of its responsibilities to individuals under the terms of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into British Law under the Human Rights Act.
There is a need in the meantime for ministers such as Ed Miliband and Lord Hunt to engage with people involved in protests such as NAWAG in a meaningful way. A way forward immediately would be for them to attend a conference organised by members of NAWAG in the North East, preferably before the end of 2009.
Nina Pierpont’s Testimony to the New York State Legislature (page 31)
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD MD, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1991 PhD, Population Biology, Princeton University, 1985 BA, Biology, Yale University, 1977 Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics www.ninapierpont.com
I am here to talk to you today as a physician-scientist about a clinical phenomenon called Wind Turbine Syndrome. This is relevant to today‘s hearing because it critically affects implementation of the RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) in terms of the siting of industrial wind turbines. Current siting practices (which are solely industry-driven) disregard public health. The supervision of the legislature—of this committee—is needed to create siting standards to protect the citizenry, all the citizenry, including citizens who are rural, old, ill, impaired, and very young. Federal agencies are trying to put the brakes on willy-nilly wind turbine construction, citing, for instance, wildlife issues. The GAO (Government Accountability Office) last fall told US Fish and Wildlife to get involved. The National Academy of Sciences in April 2005 initiated a 20- month study on environmental impacts whose final report is due in December this year. There also needs to be a focus on human health, and the state needs to step up to the plate in terms of regulation.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 43
I live in Franklin County, the poorest in NY State. Two years ago, after passage of the RPS, wind energy companies showed up there in force, as they have in all the poor, rural parts of the state. They showed up with no controls whatsoever, unregulated by either the legislature or NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research & Development Authority). Our town boards, made up of farmers, teachers, corrections officers, etc., were told, “You guys handle this,” by our state representatives. I got involved as a responsible citizen and physician. Over the last 1½ years I have done a lot of reading, research, and interviews. I have spoken at town board meetings and before the St. Lawrence County Legislature, and published alone or with my husband (a retired university professor) numerous editorials and letters to the editor in local newspapers. My focus has been health issues and to some degree wildlife, in which I also have credentials in my PhD.
I get a lot of slander and abuse from the wind salesmen. Their favorites are saying that my abundantly referenced and footnoted articles, like the one before you (note: a separate handout), have ―no evidence,ǁ or that I think wind turbines cause mad cow disease. The latter smear came from a town meeting in Ellenburg, NY, in October 2004, when I presented information culled from the medical literature on possible effects of low frequency noise. This included a paper out of the UK linking low frequency sound to prion diseases by a complex and highly speculative mechanism. I was very clear how speculative it was, but apparently the concept of something being speculative was over their heads, including over the heads of wind salesmen in the room.
Dr Pierpont on Wind Turbine Syndrome: Sensitivity to low frequency vibration is a risk factor. Contrary to assertions of the wind industry, some people feel disturbing amounts of vibration or pulsation from wind turbines, and can count in their bodies, especially their chests, the beats of the blades passing the towers, even when they can‘t hear or see them. Sensitivity to low frequency vibration in the body or ears is highly variable in people, and hence poorly understood and the subject of much debate.
Another risk factor is a preexisting migraine disorder. Migraine is not just a bad headache; it‘s a complex neurologic phenomenon which affects the visual, hearing, and balance systems, and can even affect motor control and consciousness itself. Many people with migraine disorder have increased sensitivity to noise and to motion—they get carsick as youngsters, and seasick, and very sick on carnival rides. Migraine-associated vertigo (which is the spinning type of dizziness, often with nausea) is a described medical entity. Migraine occurs in 12% of Americans. It is a common, familial, inherited condition.
To keep our balance and feel steady in space, we use three types of input: from our eyes (seeing where we are in space), from stretch receptors in joints and muscles, and from balance organs in the inner ear. At least two of these systems have to be working, and agreeing, to maintain balance. If the systems don‘t agree, as in seasickness or vertigo, one feels both ill and unsteady. Wind turbines impinge on this system in two ways: by the visual disturbance of the moving blades and shadows, and by noise or vibration impacting the inner ear.
Other candidate risk factors for susceptibility to Wind Turbine Syndrome are age-related changes in the inner ear. Five percent (5%) of otherwise healthy people from age 57 to 91 experience dizziness, and 24% experience tinnitus or ringing. Damage to the ears or hearing from other causes, such as noise exposure, is also a potential risk factor. Inner ear organs are closely linked, by proven neurological connections, to the brain systems which control mood, anxiety, and one‘s sense of well-being. Disturbing the inner ear disturbs mood, not because a person is a whiner or doesn‘t like turbines, but because of neurology.
Data from a number of studies and individual cases document that in rolling terrain, disturbing ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 44
symptoms of the Wind Turbine Syndrome occur up to 1.2 miles from the closest turbine. Inlong Appalachian valleys, with turbines on ridge-tops, disturbing symptoms occur up to 1.5 miles away. In New Zealand, which is more mountainous, disturbing symptoms occur up to 1.9 miles away. In New York State, with its mixed terrain, I recommend a setback of 1.5 miles (8000 ft.) between all industrial wind turbines and people‘s homes or schools, hospitals, or similar institutions. This setback should be imposed immediately for turbines not yet built. The legislature might want to set up a panel of clinicians to review the data and medical information I refer to here, but until this happens, and as research continues, a moratorium on all wind turbine construction within 1.5 miles of homes would be appropriate.
To recapitulate, there is in fact a consistent cluster of symptoms, the Wind Turbine Syndrome, which occurs in a significant number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. There are specific risks factors for this syndrome, and people with these risk factors include a substantial portion of the population. A setback of 1.5 miles from homes, schools, hospitals, and similar institutions will probably be adequate, in most NY State terrain, to protect people from the adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines.
I am not for or against the RPS. I‘m an intelligent person and I support renewable energy. I am not here to shoot down wind energy, which probably has its place, though that place is not near people‘s homes or near schools, hospitals, or other locations where people have to sleep or learn. I would like to stress that these are not ‘farms’. One doesn‘t ‘farm’ wind any more than one ‘farms’ water in a hydroelectric dam or ‘farms’ neutrons in an atomic plant. These are large, industrial installations. They make large-scale, industrial noise. Jet engines is the most common description I hear in surveying people—a jet engine that doesn‘t go away and which you can‘t get used to.
A syndrome in medicine is a constellation of symptoms and findings which is consistent from person to person. Defining a syndrome is the first step in investigating any new disease. The symptom cluster has to make sense in terms of pathophysiology—there has to be a plausible mechanism in terms of how the body and brain work. Defining a syndrome, and making that knowledge available to the medical community, lets other doctors go from scratching their heads over weird presentations of illness which are coming through their offices, to being able to validate and name what is going on and start to do something about it. It also opens the door to epidemiologic studies to define prevalence and risk factors, which will guide prevention and treatment.
Describing and documenting symptoms is the province of physicians. So is research on the causes of diseases. Deciding whether people have significant symptoms is not within the expertise of engineers or specialists in acoustics, even when the symptoms appear to be caused by noise. We physicians appreciate the noise data which engineers provide, but this data has nothing to do with whether people have symptoms or not. One British acoustics expert, Dr.Geoff Leventhall, is especially outrageous in this regard, insisting that people can‘t have symptoms because turbines don‘t, he says, produce low frequency noise. His fallback, for which he is well paid by the industry, is that people make uptheir complaints. But he‘s not trained to distinguish whether people are making up their complaints, or to know about the range of physical, psychiatric, and neurological symptoms people might have. A related point: the hallmark of a good doctor is one who takes symptoms seriously and pursues them until they are understood (and ameliorated). This includes symptoms related to the brain, our most complex organ - symptoms which may be neurologic, psychiatric, or physical.
Three doctors that I know of are studying the Wind Turbine Syndrome: myself, one in England, and one in Australia. We note the same sets of symptoms. The symptoms start when local turbines go into operation and resolve when the turbines are off or when the person is out of ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 45
the area.
The symptoms include:
1) Sleep problems: noise or physical sensations of pulsation or pressure make it hard to go to sleep and cause frequent awakening. 2) Headaches which are increased in frequency or severity. 3) Dizziness, unsteadiness, and nausea. 4) Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, and depression. 5) Problems with concentration and learning. 6) Tinnitus (ringing in the ears).
Not everyone near turbines has these symptoms. This does not mean people are making them up; it means there are differences among people in susceptibility. These differences are known as risk factors. Defining risk factors and the proportion of people who get symptoms is the role of epidemiologic studies. These studies are under way. Chronic sleep disturbance is the most common symptom. Exhaustion, mood problems, and problems with concentration and learning are natural outcomes of poor sleep. “
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 46
APPENDIX 6 SEPARATION DISTANCES: LEGAL/POLITIAL: HoC BILL
House of Commons Private Members Bill 2011/12
Give powers to local planning authorities to specify the minimum distances permissible between onshore wind turbines of certain dimensions and the nearest habitation; and for connected purposes.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1 Local authority powers Notwithstanding any existing statutory provision, local authorities may specify a “recommended best practice set-back distance” between onshore wind turbines and habitations in their neighbourhood development plans.
2 Interpretation In this Act— “habitation” means any premises the main purpose of which is to provide residential accommodation, including farmhouses; “neighbourhood development plans” has the same meaning as in the Localism Act 2011; “recommended best practice set-back distance” means the recommended minimum distance between the onshore wind turbine and habitations as set out in section 3.
3 Recommended best practice set-back distance (1) The recommended best practice set-back distance shall be expressed as a multiple of the turbine rotor diameter, and in the absence of a decision under subsection (2), shall be ten times the turbine rotor diameter. (2) Local authorities wishing to increase or reduce the multiple will have the power to do so only following a debate and a vote in a full Council meeting.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 47
APPENDIX 7 PLANNING & POLICY LINCOLNSHIRE CC STATEMENT JUNE 2012 http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/residents/environment-and-planning/planning-and-development/wind-farms?tab=downloads
LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL WIND ENERGY POSITION STATEMENT ( Revised) a) Landscape and Visual Impact
The County Council is very concerned that the proliferation of onshore wind farm proposals would, if approved and implemented, result in the industrialisation and urbanisation of a highly rural county renowned and characterised by its big skies and uninterrupted vistas. The introduction of strong vertical structures in a landscape with a horizontal emphasis would, it is considered, be alien in a predominately flat landscape reducing the remoteness of the landscape and diminishing the visual impact of the subtly undulating areas of the Wolds, Lincoln Edge and Southern Kesteven Uplands. Such changes would, if left to continue, reduce the visual attractiveness of the County to residents and visitors alike.
The County Council considers that onshore wind energy developments (not including micro wind energy sites) are only acceptable where they are:- • located outside highly sensitive landscape areas as defined in Landscape Character Assessments. The importance of uninterrupted vistas is a significant aspect of the character of the Lincolnshire landscape and therefore afforded great significance when considering the potential visual impact of developments. • located outside of areas defined in Landscape Character Assessments as having a low landscape capacity to visually accommodate wind turbine development. The County Council would encourage and support the District Councils to prepare rigorous landscape character assessments that include visual capacity assessments and intervisibility assessments and cumulative impact derived from the presence of existing wind farms. • It is considered that wind farms should not be located within the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or within 2km of the boundary of the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or greater where there are specific views present so as not to negatively impact upon views into or out of the designated area. • Sand dunes and coastal conservation area should be afforded protection from discordant developments, such as wind farms, which should be located outside of the coastal strip, formally defined as the coastal conservation area, and those outside of the coastal strip to demonstrate they would not have a detrimental impact upon the open coast. • located sufficient distance from town and villages so as not to be too prominent, for example, outside of 2km from defined settlement boundaries (those in the development plan). It is considered appropriate that landscape wide projects are also provided with protection from inappropriate large scale developments. These would include established project areas. Wind farm developments are therefore considered inappropriate in the following and consequently should not be located within 2km of such:- o Coastal Country Park; o Witham Valley Country Park; o Trent Vale; o Lime Woods o Kirkby on Bain Valley o Baston Fen o Laughton Woods; o South Kesteven Woods; o Cover Sands; o South Kesteven Uplands; o Coastal Grazing Marshes; o Any areas identified as being of Greater Landscape Value as these areas should be seen as being intrinsically important to the landscape character of Lincolnshire;
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 48
o All sites designated as SSSIs and any wildlife sites designated in the county in order to protect ecology and diversity as laid down in the Biodiversity Action Plan.
• In general, there is a presumption against wind turbine developments on the grounds of potential negative cumulative visual impact, unless wind farms should be located such that they would not merge with the existing developments (on and off shore), thereby resulting in a negative cumulative visual impact:
o settlements of more than 10 dwellings should not have wind turbine developments in more than 90° of their field of view, this normally equates to 10km from windows in residential properties; o individual dwellings should not have wind turbines in more than 180° of their field of view. b) Impact on the Historic and Natural Environment
Wind turbine development should not take place in locations where:
- the context of a historic garden, park, battlefield or designated conservation area would be visually compromised (dependent upon a site specific assessment); - the visual dominance of Lincoln Cathedral would be compromised; (see also Regional Plan Policy SR10); - the visual significance of church spires and historic/architecturally important buildings would be compromised. Wind turbine development should be avoided where there is likely to be “conspicuous” impact; - there are defined areas of historic landscape and townscape importance, as defined by the Historic Landscape Characterisation Assessment and local planning authorities, and to protect the integrity of such sites in the immediate vicinity. District Councils are also encouraged to consider the potential of formally designating areas of historic landscape character associated with villages as conservation areas. North Lincolnshire Council is currently considering such a strategy to protect the historic landscape around Epworth; - the development would be in or in proximity to an international site of nature conservation interest and of a Site of Special Scientific Interest;
c) Residential Amenity
Amenity of existing residential occupants must be maintained at an acceptable level, therefore the following criteria shall be applied:-
• no wind turbine developments shall be constructed in close proximity of a residential property (the accepted distance for separation is 700 metres) however, noise and amplitude modulation issues can be present up to 2km away. Therefore, unless through assessment, it can be demonstrated that there would be acceptable noise levels within the 2km radius of a residential property, the minimum distance should be 2km:
• no wind turbines shall be constructed within a distance of a factor of ten times the diameter of the blades of a residential property to mitigate against flicker, unless intervening topography/structures negates the impact.
• wind farm developments must demonstrate that they would have no unacceptable impact due to noise, amplitude modulation, low frequency sound or vibration on residential amenity.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 49
d) Related Infrastructure
The presumption is for connecting cables to be placed underground and use made of existing or replacement pylons (of the same size and scale) along existing routes to carry the additional base load cabling. e) Construction Vehicles
Access for construction and maintenance vehicles is an issue in rural areas, particularly where highway improvements are required. In such circumstances commuted sums would be required for highway improvements and reinstatement. In addition, it may be appropriate for proposals to be subject to routing agreements and bonds for construction traffic, which should be agreed prior to determination of a planning application, in order to mitigate against the impact of construction vehicles on rural communities. e) Local Economy
Whether individually or cumulatively, wind farm developments should not have a negative impact upon the local economy, particularly upon tourism . f) Benefits
Large scale renewable proposals should demonstrate that they deliver economic, social, environmental and community benefits that are directly related to the proposed development and are of a reasonable scale and nature to the local area . g) Decommissioning
The decommissioning of wind farm sites should include the removal of all infrastructure whether above or below ground (including the turbine bases and access roads within the site). This will be achieved via Sc 106 planning obligations or planning conditions attached to the permission. In addition, a bond should be in place with the relevant local authority to ensure the cost of re- instatement does not fall to the taxpayer.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 50
APPENDIX 8 SEPARATION DISTANCES - EXTRACT MILTON KEYNES
Wind Turbines Planning Applications Adopted July 2012 Wind Turbines Supplementary Planning Document and Emerging Policy www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/wind-turbines p.13 Conclusion and emerging Policy Milton Keynes Council considers that it is appropriate to update the 350m minimum separation distance for wind turbines specified in policy D5 of the Local Plan. From the evidence that has been reviewed, it is apparent that there is a range of separation distances, from a range of different sources, recommended to protect residential amenity. These distances range from 600m to 3km. Mapping work undertaken has shown a separation distance of 1km or more would severely restrict large wind turbines. However a more relaxed approach for smaller wind turbines would allow greater areas for the location of these turbines. The feasible range for a separation distance in Milton Keynes would, therefore, be between 600m and 1km. There may, however, be exceptional circumstances where a reduced separation distance would be appropriate. For example if smaller wind turbines are proposed which have a reduced effect in terms of noise and visual impacts, then a more permissive graded approach to the separation distance can offer some flexibility. In the same way that Scottish national policy aims to direct wind farms to the most appropriate locations (in terms of minimising impact on residential amenity), it is deemed that the most appropriate way of introducing an approach to protect residential amenity without overly restricting the development of renewable energy, would be to encourage developers to identify sites in areas furthest away from settlements. An Amplitude Modulation noise condition may be applied if planning permission was granted, adding weight to the need for energy companies to choose sites furthest away from dwellings. Having assessed the evidence gathered for this SPD, it is considered appropriate to add the following emerging policy for wind turbines in the Borough.
EMERGING WIND TURBINE POLICY
1. Planning permission will be granted for proposals to develop wind turbine renewable energy sources, including wind turbines that act as a component of a more extensive development unless there would be : (a) significant harm to the amenity of residential areas, due to noise, traffic, pollution or odour; (b) significant harm to a wildlife species or habitat; (c) unacceptable visual impact on the landscape; (d) unacceptable shadow flicker and electro-magnetic interference; or (e) a failure of the application to meet the minimum distance requirement under Section 2, subject to the exception in Section 3.
2. Requirements for Minimum Distance from Residential Dwellings (a) The “minimum distance requirement” means the necessary minimum distance between the wind turbine generator and residential premises, as set out in subsection (d). (b) “Residential premises” means any premises the main purpose of which his to provide residential accommodation, including farmhouses.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 51
(c) If a number of wind turbine generators are being built as part of the same project the minimum distance requirement applies to each wind turbine generator individually. (d) If the height of the wind turbine generator is: (i) 25m, the minimum distance requirement is 350m; (ii) 100m, the minimum distance requirement is 1000m; (iii) between 25m and 100m, the minimum distance requirement is pro-rata between (i) and (ii) above, according to its height; or (iv) greater than 100m, the minimum distance requirement is projected between (i) and (ii) above, according to its height. (e) The height of the wind turbine generator is measured from the ground to the end of the blade tip at its highest point. (f) There is no minimum distance requirement if the height of the wind turbine generator does not exceed 25m. (g) If planning permission is granted on the condition that the proposed wind turbine generator meets the minimum distance requirement under sub-section 2(d), the actual height of the wind turbine generator must not exceed the maximum height in relation to that minimum distance .
3. Exception (a) The Local Authority may grant planning permission for the construction of a wind turbine generator which does not meet the minimum distance requirement under section 2(d) if the condition under sub-section (b) is met. (b) The condition is that the owners and occupants of all residential premises which fall within the minimum distance requirement for the proposed wind turbine generator must agree in writing to the construction of the wind turbine generator. (c) It is the duty of the authority to ensure that no written agreement is elicited by unlawful means and that all necessary written agreements have been received before planning permission is granted.
4. Requirements for Minimum Distance from Bridleways That, as a starting point when assessing a site and its potential layout, a separation distance of four times the overall height should be the target for National Trails and Ride UK routes, or 200 metres, whichever is the greater. The negotiation process recommended in the Companion Guide to PPS 22 should indicate whether, in the particular circumstances of each site, these guidelines can be relaxed or need strengthening to minimise or eliminate any perceived potential difficulties.
5. Requirements for Minimum Distance from Public Footpaths The minimum distance requirement is the fall-over distance (i.e. height of the wind turbine as defined in 2(e) above, plus 25%.
6. Safety requirements Wind turbines must be shut down: • when they have become iced. They must only restart when ice has been cleared as laid out in the recommendation in the Technical Annex of Planning Policy 22 and/or • upon the request of any of the Emergency services, to allow access to the site(s) in the event of an accident or incident. A separation distance of 1.5 times the height of the turbine from high pressure fuel lines shall apply.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 52
APPENDIX 9 DISTANCE LIMIT: March 2012 AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
19 March 2012 Hansard/Australia
New South Wales, Australia: Mr SCHULTZ (Hume): “It is a shame that I will not have more time to expose the great fraud on the Australian people that is the wind turbine industry . Communities in proximity to wind turbine complexes are experiencing health and noise impacts that interfere with their lives. They did not experience these issues before the turbines came online. I have received complaints from my constituents that confirm similar experiences at other sites. It appears that noise frequencies occur inside houses, which some people hear and others do not hear. Similarly, it appears from testing that there are low frequencies in houses that are below the threshold of hearing that can generate effects on people, giving rise to headaches and nausea. There is no transparency in relation to noise testing. It is all in-house by the wind operators and nothing is released in the public domain.
The wind turbine industry says there are no problems but there are cracks appearing in this position. A number of wind turbine operators are now buying houses when there is proof of a noise issue even when they say there is no problem. There are proposals for hundreds of turbines to be installed and we still do not have the health and noise studies nominated in the Senate inquiry. It is foolish to proceed with more turbines on the problems with the current ones simp1y have not been resolved.
Rural communities believe they are being discriminated against by the provision of wind farms producing excessive noise. They have every reason to believe this when you investigate the conduct of the New South Wales planning department in their lack of due diligence and accountability in the noise compliance assessment process. That the New South Wales Department of Planning is clearly complicit in also hiding the truth from rural communities can be seen from this noise compliance assessment document of the Capital Wind Farm which has had 80 per cent of the data removed prior to the document being released under a freedom of information request.”
The Senate Community Affairs References Committee report The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms has called for adequately resourced studies into the possible impact wind farms have on health as a matter of priority.
Victoria, Australia : The requirement for all land-owners to consent within a 2km zone adopted in its August 2011 planning requirements for wind farm proposals.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 53
APPENDIX 10 HEALTH& SAFETY: DEN BROOK VALLEY AM NOISECONDITION
REF The Renewable Energy Foundation is a registered charity (1107360) promoting sustainable development for the benefit of the public by means of energy conservation and the use of renewable energy. REF is supported by private donation and has no political affiliation or corporate membership. In pursuit of its principal goals REF highlights the need for an overall energy policy that is balanced, ecologically sensitive, and effective. We aim to raise public awareness of the issues and encourage informed debate regarding a structured energy policy that is both ecologically sensitive and practical. The issues of climate change and security of energy supply are complex and closely intertwined. REF contributes to the debate surrounding these issues by commissioning reports to provide an independent and authoritative source of information. • REF was founded in 2004 by a group of individuals and conservation bodies concerned at the lack of balance in the United Kingdom's energy policy, and at the information available regarding the major renewable energy technologies. REF has attempted to supply this deficit by commissioning studies from major academics and professionals. • We are responsible for publishing the most comprehensive and accurate data relating to renewable energy generation in the UK. The Renewable Energy Data files give monthly load factor statistics for all 5,000 plus renewable energy generators in the UK that are registered under the Renewable Obligation. This data set runs from 2002 up to the present, and is updated on a regular basis. http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/242-the-den-brook-amplitude-modulation-noise-condition The Den Brook Amplitude Modulation Noise Condition Tuesday, 01 November 2011 The noise most commonly associated with wind farms, and frequently complained of, is the repetitive swishing beat occurring at turbine blade rotation frequency, which is known as Amplitude Modulation (AM) of the aerodynamic turbine noise. In 2007 the Government commissioned the University of Salford and the Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP) to investigate AM noise by means of a survey of wind farm noise complaints lodged with local authorities. At the time of publication the resulting Salford report 1 did not reveal the names of any of the wind farms with noise problems nor the specifics of the noise complaints. The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) submitted a Freedom of Information request to the University of Salford to obtain this data, and following a ruling by the Information Commissioner, this data was ultimately disclosed. The survey data was published in 2009 2and revealed that a significant number of noise complaints were potentially attributable to AM noise. 3 There has been an increasing debate, including those at Public Inquiries into proposals for specific wind farms, about the need for an AM noise condition to protect wind farm neighbours from excessive AM noise, which has been blamed for sleep disturbance. Of particular interest is the case of the Den Brook wind farm application. This project was consented in December 2009 following a second public inquiry during which noise issues were extensively discussed. The Inspector accepted that a planning condition to prevent excessive AM noise was both necessary and reasonable, and included a new AM condition as part of the consent. Unfortunately, the Inspector’s drafting of the terms surrounding enforcement of this AM condition was ambiguous, resulting in an appeal to the Courts, essentially for clarification. An Appeal Court decision provided that clarity by stating that the AM limits defined in Condition 20 of the Inspector’s decision must be complied with for the 25 year lifetime of the planning permission. 4 The Den Brook AM condition The Den Brook AM condition, Condition 20 of the decision, states: 20. At the request of the local planning authority following the receipt of a complaint the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the local planning authority, to assess whether noise immissions at the complainant’s dwelling are characterised by greater than expected amplitude modulation. Amplitude modulation is the modulation of the level of broadband noise emitted ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 54
by a turbine at blade passing frequency. These will be deemed greater than expected if the following characteristics apply: a) A change in the measured L Aeq, 125 milliseconds turbine noise level of more than 3 dB (represented as a rise and fall in sound energy levels each of more than 3 dB) occurring within a 2 second period. b) The change identified in (a) above shall not occur less than 5 times in any one minute period provided the L Aeq, 1 minute turbine sound energy level for that minute is not below 28 dB. c) The changes identified in (a) and (b) above shall not occur for fewer than 6 minutes in any hour. Noise immissions at the complainant’s dwelling shall be measured not further than 35m from the relevant building and not closer than within 3.5m of any reflective building or surface, or within 1.2m of the ground. At first glance this condition appears complex and it has excited controversy, in part because it has been argued that it is difficult to distinguish wind farm AM noise from other noises in the environment. We believe that it would be a useful contribution to the understanding of the potential application of the Den Brook noise condition if it were used to assess actual, i.e. real and empirical, wind farm noise data. However there is little useful wind farm noise data in the public domain. We are fortunate in that we have recently obtained data collected by the Hayes McKenzie partnership as part of a Government contract in 2005 to investigate low frequency noise at wind farms. 5 That this raw noise data has come into the public domain is testament to the determination of an individual who, with the assistance of the local MP and advice from the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the Information Commissioner, succeeded in obtaining the data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change in spite of a surprising unwillingness on the part of DECC officials to facilitate its release. 6 Applying the Den Brook Noise Condition to Real Wind Farm Data In order to demonstrate the Den Brook noise condition in application to wind farm noise data we have extracted a sample subset from the Hayes McKenzie data. This consists of noise levels (LAeq) measured at 100 millisecond (ms) intervals, where the overall level exceeds 28dB as dictated by condition 20(b). This measurement frequency is a finer level of granularity than required by the condition and a good match for the LAeq, 125 milliseconds measurements defined in 20 (a) of the condition. The following graph shows a one minute period of this data, a time interval chosen because it is that which is specified in condition 20(b).
Figure 1: Period 10: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:09:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB. For this one-minute period, a breach of the AM condition requires, firstly, that the overall level exceeds 28 dB(A): the minimum level is 37.3dB(A) in this period so that requirement is met. Secondly, it requires that AM peak-to-trough changes in LA(eq) exceed 3 dB ‘(represented as a rise and fall in sound energy levels each of more than 3 dB) occurring within a 2 second period’. A dot has been placed above every peak in Figure 1 that exceeds 3 dB. The following chart displays a six-second period extracted from Figure 1 that demonstrates more clearly the levels of rise and fall in each two-second period. It can be seen that in each of the three two-second
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 55
periods there is at least one example of a rise and fall in noise level of more than 3 dB. These changes demonstrate a breach of the condition under the terms of 20 (a). Counting the number of similar amplitude peaks in Figure 1 (marked with a dot above the line of the turbine noise level), it can be seen that there are at least 16 in that one-minute sample. This demonstrates that this particular minute is in breach of the AM condition as described at 20 (b).
Figure 2: Period 10.The six-second period from 8–14 seconds taken from Figure 1, demonstrating the rise and fall in noise levels. The final stage necessary to demonstrate breach of the condition is described at 20(c) and requires that there are at least six minutes in an hour demonstrating the defined level of AM. In Appendix 1 of this report we give a further five charts of one-minute periods within the same hour that also display the features typical of AM in breach of the condition. We therefore conclude that this dataset indicates a breach of the Den Brook AM Condition 20. It is also relevant to this discussion to consider if the amplitude modulation displayed here is attributable to wind farm noise or perhaps arises from some other noise in the environment. There are a number of ways of ensuring that the noise measured is wind farm noise, the obvious one being a simultaneous audio recording. However, we can also inspect the noise levels displayed in the various graphs for any characteristic signature or structure, and in this case we observe that there are periods of clearly regular beats. If the wind farm is the source of the noise then the frequency of the beats will agree with the blade passing frequency of the turbines. The data in Figure 1 indicates beating approximately once per 0.7 second, corresponding to a blade passing frequency of 1.4 per second or 28 revolutions per minute, which is a plausible rate of rotation for this wind turbine. This conclusion could be verified against the SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) data automatically accumulated at each turbine, but unfortunately we do not have access to this information. Conclusion We believe that this exercise demonstrates that the Den Brook condition is straightforward and that it is possible for this condition to be employed in a transparent and objective manner to demonstrate the existence of excess AM in wind turbine noise. The point of the current analysis is simply and solely to demonstrate the technical application of the key elements of the Den Brook noise condition to real wind farm noise data and we have shown that this is possible and can be conducted in a clear and objective manner. It should be noted, however, that we have not set out in this paper to prove that the particular wind farm in question would breach the Den Brook AM noise condition in a legal sense and indeed this AM condition does not apply to that windfarm. To do so would require evidence demonstrating that the noise measurements were compliant with the final part of the condition, namely that the measurements were taken not closer than 3.5m to any reflective building or surface, or within 1.2m of the ground, and we have no information on this matter, but if such evidence were available then legal breach of the condition could, in principle, be demonstrated. These findings should be welcomed by both wind-farm neighbours, developers, and decision makers in
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 56
the planning process. AM noise provokes complaints and heated debates, and an enforceable, objective, condition to cap such noise gives all parties clarity, as well as sparing neighbours and developers the trouble, expense, and uncertainty of private nuisance actions. The Den Brook condition appears to be a readily workable solution to this very real problem. Dr Lee Moroney Dr John Constable
References 1. Moorhouse, Hayes, von Hunerbein, Piper, Adams, “Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise” (NANR233) July 2007. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40570.pdf 2. http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/151-ref-publishes-data-on-wind-farm-noise-obtained-under-the-freedom-of- information-act 3. G. P. van den Berg, ‘Why is wind turbine noise noisier than other noise?’,Euronoise (2009). 4. See Hulme v SoS for Communities & Local Government &Ors 2011 EWCA Civ 638. Available from: http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/node/520 5. ‘The measurement of low frequency noise at three UK wind farms’, DTI 06/1412 Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd, 2006, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/publicati ons/page31267.html 6. The private individual who received the data from DECC has kindly given REF a copy. The released material consists of approximately 70 GB of data on a hard drive in a format only readable using proprietary software. We have extracted some of the 100ms LAeq wind turbine noise data and would be happy to provide that as a text file on request for others to analyse.
Appendix 1
Figure 3: Period 9: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:08:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 57
Figure 4: Period 2: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:01:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
Figure 5: Period 13: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:12:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
Figure 6: Period 3: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:02:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
Figure 7: Period 6: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:05:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 58
APPENDIX 11 DEAN WAUBRA REPORT - EXCERPT
Noise Impact Assessment Report Waubra Wind Farm, Australia For Mr & Mrs N Dean Report No 1537 - Rev 1 - July 2010 Dr Robert Thorne
Concluding Paragraphs (report p.153):
Turbines produce a range of disturbing frequencies out of place in the natural soundscape extending from the audible range down into infra-sound. Residents frequently report that developers have claimed that the gentle sounds of the turbines will be absorbed or masked by the natural sounds of the environment. The wind in the trees, the sound of a stream. Residents report this as entirely untrue and an insult to their intelligence.
Further research has shown that the acoustic energy from wind turbines is capable of resonating houses, effectively turning them into three-dimensional loud speakers in which the affected residents are now expected to live. The phenomenon of natural resonance combines to producea cocktail of annoying sounds which not only disturb the peace and tranquility once- enjoyed by the residents, but also stimulate a number of disturbing physiological effects which manifest in the physical symptoms described above.
In the opinion of the author,backed up by residents’ surveys and scientific measurements and analysis of the noise of turbine farms, these new generating technologies are proving to be a significant detractor for those living within 10 kilometres of them . More research is urgently needed to determine the extent of the nuisance effects and what setbacks are required to minimise the negative effects on resident communities. The long term medical implications are considerable and need to be researched before any further applications for wind farms are onsented. Failure to do this, in the opinion of the author, will significantly effect the utilisation of this technology and will produce long-term consequences that will be to the detriment of the whole of society.
184 source & reference documents
The full report can be found via many websites, for example see http://www.windaction.org/documents/28511
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 59
APPENDIX 12 HEALTH: SHADOW FLICKER
Wind turbines, flicker, and photosensitive epilepsy: characterizing the flashing that may precipitate seizures and optimizing guidelines to prevent them. Harding G , Harding P , Wilkins A . Source Neurosciences Institute, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Abstract Wind turbines are known to produce shadow flicker by interruption of sunlight by the turbine blades. Known parameters of the seizure provoking effect of flicker, i.e., contrast, frequency, mark-space ratio, retinal area stimulated and percentage of visual cortex involved were applied to wind turbine features. The proportion of patients affected by viewing wind turbines expressed as distance in multiples of the hub height of the turbine showed that seizure risk does not decrease significantly until the distance exceeds 100 times the hub height. Since risk does not diminish with viewing distance, flash frequency is therefore the critical factor and should be kept to a maximum of three per second, i.e., sixty revolutions per minute for a three-bladed turbine. On wind farms the shadows cast by one turbine on another should not be viewable by the public if the cumulative flash rate exceeds three per second. Turbine blades should not be reflective.
Wind turbines In the UK, the flicker frequency of wind turbines on wind farms should be limited to 3 Hz. This flicker rate is unlikely to trigger a seizure. Wind turbines that are not on wind farms are not subject to the same planning regulations as wind farms. If a turbine is in the wrong position in relation to the sun, it could create a strobe effect. This could trigger a seizure for some people with photosensitive epilepsy. If you live in the UK and have concerns about a planned or existing wind farm, you may wish to contact the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), who can provide contact details of specific wind farm operators.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 60
APPENDIX 13 NOISE/HEALTH ACOUSTIC ENGINEERS REPORT Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95703787/E-Coustic-Solutions-Richard-R-James-Comments-on-Exhibit-19-Re-Article-10
NOISE CONTROL ●SOUND MEASUREMENT ●CONSULTATION RICHARD R.JAMES COMMUNITY ●INDUSTRIAL ●RESIDENTIAL ●OFFICE ●CLASSROOM ●HIPPA ORAL PRIVACY PRINCIPAL P.O BOX1129, OKEMOS, MI, 48805 TEL:517 ‐507 ‐5067 RICKJAMES@E ‐COUSTIC.COM FAX:(866)461 ‐4103
Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 ‐F‐0036 Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment 16NYCRR, ChapterX, Certification of Major Electric Generating Facilities May 31,2012
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed noise criteria. I am responding to a request by Mr. Gary Abraham to speak to these issues. My comments focus on competing considerations underlying Draft Exhibit 19, which endeavors to regulate the noise impacts of power plants. Specifically, these comments support the following considerations that appear to already inform this section of the Draft Regulations, relevant to wind energy facilities:
1. The need to include low frequency sound in the measurement of pre-existing background sound levels, the prediction of operational sound immissions, monitoring of operating sound immissions and complaint follow-up. These comments also support modifications of the Draft Regulations that address the following considerations: 2. The need to focus sound propagation models on reasonable worst case conditions of operations during nighttime stable atmosphere. 3. The need for performance criteria in the regulations.
QUALIFICATIONS
I am the Owner and Principal Consultant for E-Coustic Solutions, of Okemos, Michigan (P.O. Box1129, Okemos MI 48805). I have been a practicing acoustical engineer for 40 years. Attached is a summary demonstrating my experience in addressing a broad range of problems for my clients. I have been actively involved with the Institute of Noise Control Engineers (INCE) since I started my career in the early 1970s. I have Full Member status in INCE. My clients include many large manufacturing firms, such as, General Motors, Ford, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, and others who have operations involving both community noise and worker noise exposure. In addition, I have worked or many small companies and private individuals. My academic credentials include appointments as Adjunct Professor and Instructor to the Speech and Communication Science Departments at Michigan State University and Central Michigan University. Specific to wind turbine noise, I have worked for clients in over 60 different communities. I have provided written and oral testimony in approximately 30 of those cases. I have authored or co-authored four papers covering topics from how to set criteria to protect public health, demonstrating that wind turbine sound emmissions are predominantly comprised of infra and low frequency sound, and conducted a historical review of other types of noise sources with similar sound emission characteristics that have known adverse health effects on people exposed to their sound. An appendix with my resume provides additional details on my qualifications
INTRODUCTION
It is with some disappointment that I offer my comments because the penultimate pre-draft version of the Article 10 regulations required an assessment of low frequency noise, but the current draft does not. Much was lost when the earlier version's requirements were dropped. Yet, the rationale of the stakeholders representing the wind developers who requested this change is specious.
Please accept the following as support for the concepts included in the pre-draft version and an explanationof why the developer's rationale should be disregarded.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 61
PAGE 2 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 ‐F‐0036 MAY 31, 2012
THE COSTS AND UTILITY OF ASSESSING LOW FREQUENCYSOUND
The preamble to the Draft Regulations on noise states:
“Many stakeholders representing wind developers opposed requiring the incorporation of C- weighted /dBC sound levels as an unnecessary expense because they believe that issues related to low frequency noise or infrasound can be analyzed adequately without such expenditure.” (p.19)
However, there is no scientific basis for asserting that a requirement to assess low frequency noise impacts is either unnecessary or a significant expense.
Commercially available sound propagation models currently utilized by wind industry's acoustical consultants, such as Cadna/A, are fully capable of being programmed with octave band level sound power levels provided by the manufacturer from tests conducted using the standard IEC61400-11test procedure. Any properly programmed model would include the octave band level of detail. No extra cost is involved by adding a requirement for C- weighted analysis since no more than a program change made through the software's user interface is needed to instruct the software to provide a report of over-all dBC or unweighted octave band sound pressure levels. With respect to requirements to measure low frequency sound (whether as dBC or in 1/1 or 1/3 octave bands) conventional measurement devices currently utilized by wind energy project consultants already include these capabilities. Modern professional grade acoustical measurement instruments are more than adequate to measure sound in the lower frequency ranges.
The auditory response to infra and very low frequency sounds is well understood only for single steady pure tones. When sounds are more complex, as is the case with wind turbine emmissions, the auditory thresholds are lower. Bray and James (2011) 1; Swinbanks (2011). How much lower is not known, but it is safe to say that wind turbine infra and low frequency emissions in the range of 60 to80 dB as measured using a standard 1/3 octave band analyzer are likely to be audible to the more sensitive members of the population.
This is consistent with the well-documented fact that people find noise with dominant low frequency content more annoying than mid and high frequency noise at the same decibel level. People who report "hearing" wind turbine rumble or vibration are likely to be in this more sensitive group.
Recent research published in peer reviewed medical journals by Dr. Alec Salt and colleagues has demonstrated that there are non-auditory perceptions of the acoustic energy in the lowest frequency ranges (below 100 Hz) that have a threshold at approximately 60 dB for a 10 Hz sound. These perceptions are mediated by the cochlea's vestibular organs and the nerve impulses associated with detection above that threshold are sent to a part of the brain not related to processing speech or other sounds. A new paper to be presented by Dr. Salt later this summer at the New York InterNoise 2012 Conference will discuss how the perceived strength of the infra and low frequency stimulation is increased if the listening environment does not include much mid or high frequency sound. It is worth noting that this is the situation in most homes at night, especially bedrooms.
In my work I often see noise studies submitted as part of an application for permits that include low frequency in the analysis. I have reviewed noise assessments for wind projects where frequencies from 16 Hz to 4kHz or higher were evaluated and many others where dBC and dBA are both presented. These sound propagation prediction models were developed using standard commercial software, such as Cadna/A, and were programmed using readily available wind turbine manufacturer's sound power level test data spanning the range from the 31.5 Hz octave band to the4k or 8k Hz octave band. Even if the model is only used to report dBA sound levels it is still necessary to program the model using octave band sound power levels across the frequency range of at least the 31.5 Hz to 4k Hz octave bands. Spanning that frequency range includes part of the acoustic energy in the lower frequency bands in the analysis and permits evaluation of frequency dependent factors that influence sound propagation.
Extending that analysis down to the 16 Hz octave band or even the 8 Hz octave band adds in the acoustic energy related to the lowest frequencies and part of the infrasound range. It is these lowest octave bands that include the acoustic energy we associate with "rumble" where the sound pressure levels are the highest. Not including
1 Bray, W., James, R. " Dynamic measurement of WT noise considering time and frequency of human perception," Noise ‐Con 2011, Portland, Oregon.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 62
PAGE 3 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 ‐ F ‐ 0036 MAY 31, 2012
The energy in the lowest frequency ranges will result in predictions that understate over-all dBC sound levels; the characteristic of wind turbine sound immissions most likely to cause indoor noise complaints. This error will be greatest for the newer larger wind turbines that emit the most infra and low frequency sound.
Many communities require consideration of low frequency sound in one way or another. For example, projects in the state of Illinois must meet the Illinois IPCB octave band sound criteria and the models constructed for these projects must report the specific sound pressure level in each octave band. In other cases, the overall dBA and dBC sound levels are required. Even when there are no such requirements dBC models have been quickly produced. I have attended hearings in communities where a dBC model is requested of a wind energy facility developer. The developer often provides that data within a day or so of the request. This shows doing so is not a major expense and that other permitting agencies require information about low frequency sounds from wind turbines. When the need for reporting frequency specific information is known ahead of time, costs will be lower than if the request for such information is made after the fact.
Opposition to measuring and assessing low frequency noise may have less to do with additional costs or the utility of dBA sound levels for anticipating low-frequency problems than it does with the need to divert attention away from a significant negative aspect of wind turbine noise.
Wind turbine sound energy from modern upwind industrial scale wind turbines of the types being installed in New York peaks in the region below 10Hz. Just as is seen for large fans used in the heating and cooling systems of office spaces (HVAC), the frequency of highest acoustic energy is at the blade passage frequency (BPF). For a 20 rpm three bladed wind turbine this will be 1 Hz. Because sound propagation is frequency dependent, to properly assess the distance wind turbine noise will propagate, analysis must include the sound power levels for the lowest frequency bands, 16Hz and preferably even below.
Relying on measurements and models that only consider A-weighted sound levels will underestimate wind project noise and lead to improper siting. The A-weighting filter attenuates any acoustic energy at 16 Hz by 56 dB and the acoustic energy at 8 Hz by 77 dB. At the blade passage frequency of 1Hzthe dBA scale attenuates the energy by 148 dB.
It is absurd to claim that evaluation of a prospective wind turbine project using only dBA information can offer any meaningful insights into the impact of the lower frequency acoustic energy when that energy is suppressed by 56 to 148 dB. The final regulations should therefore restore the requirement to analyze C-weighted sound levels. However, this must be part of a coherent low frequency noise assessment method appropriate for wind energy projects.
FOCUS ON REASONABLE WORST CASE CONDITIONS
The preamble to the Draft Regulations on noise also notes:
"Because of the lack of technical consensus on the issue [of wind shear], the draft regulations do not resolve the issue and require the application to assume wind-induced background noise or stable atmospheric conditions, as appropriate."
The issue, from my point of view, is not that there is a lack of scientific consensus on the effect of wind shear on background sound levels, especially with regards to how it affects wind induced background noise during periods with stable atmospheric conditions. It is more a result of the confusion that has developed because of a belief that wind induced noise will somehow mask the sounds of wind turbines. This is sometimes expressed as: “wind turbines only produce noise when the wind is blowing ." This belief depends on an incorrect assumption that the winds at the surface of the earth are always related or "connected" to the winds at the height of the turbine's blades. This is only true for a limited set of atmospheric conditions. This is not true for what is called a "stable atmosphere."
A stable atmosphere is such a common occurrence that acousticians routinely make use of it when evaluating outdoor noise sources and background sound levels. It is a very common during warm season nights. For many common noise sources that are ground-based, or at least are not located at more than 30 meters above the
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 63
PAGE 4 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 ‐ F‐0036 MAY 31, 2012 ground, a stable atmosphere results in predictable sound propagation and optimum noise measurement conditions. This is primarily because, for ground based noise sources, the noise is emitted from an elevation below the stable atmosphere's temperature inversion boundary layer, in the region of calm air. Sound propagation from such sources is generally well behaved and predictable.
One aspect of stable atmospheric conditions is there is little or no surface wind (ground level) to produce wind induced background noise. This allows the analysis of the noise source to be conducted with less concern that the measurements may be contaminated by wind related noises. That contamination includes pseudo-noise produced by the interaction of air moving over the microphone's diaphragm and/or the audible wind induced noise from leaf rustle and air movement around buildings and structures. What makes nighttime stable atmospheric conditions an issue for wind turbine noise is that the wind turbine blades operate above the temperature inversion boundary. At that elevation, the wind speed, shear and turbulence are high. Near the ground there is little or no surface wind to produce wind noise while at the height of the rotor the wind is sufficient to operate the turbines at nominal to optimum power production levels but, due to the high wind shear and turbulence above the boundary layer, often with higher sound emissions than reported by the manufacturer. The combination of very quiet background sound levels during a period when the noise produced by the wind turbines is at or near the maximum is a recipe for complaints. The background sound level in a rural community may be 25 dBA (LA90) or lower when the wind turbines are not operating; while the noise from operating wind turbines located 1500 feet away may be 40 to 50 dBA depending onthe wind speed, shear, and turbulence at the height of the turbine's blades. The wind turbines raise the pre-existing conditions by 15 to 25 dBA. As stated in Table B from the NYSDEC Guidelines a 15 to 20 dB increase is "Objectionable" and an increase of over 20 dB is "Very objectionable to intolerable."
Figure 1-Table B from NYSDEC,Assessing an Mitigating Noise Impacts (2000)
Some might argue that the sounds emitted by a wind turbine during other types of atmospheric conditions may be higher or that the turbine noise must be compared to the wind induced noise to address annoyance during other weather conditions. However, based on personal experience and review of the reports of others, there is no evidence that wind turbine noise is masked by wind induced noise from surface or ground level winds. The characteristics of the sounds of the wind turbines are too distinct for wind induced noise to provide any useful masking. Further, as low level winds increase in intensity people tend to seek shelter. The sounds of the wind interacting with one's ears causes distortion of other sounds and other types of discomfort. As surface winds increase to speeds of 10 mph or more outdoor activities are affected. What "masking" may be provided is of little value if the people are not outside.
Night-time conditions of a stable atmosphere offer the most potential for interfering with community activities. This is the time when people use the outdoors for amenity and enjoyment. This is the time when people like to sleep with their windows open. Under these conditions there is no wind induced noise to "mask" wind turbine noise.
If one is interested in protecting the periods when outdoor activities are likely , the focus of the review process should be on nighttime periods with a stable atmosphere leading to little or no surface winds with high winds and turbulence above the temperature inversion boundary such that the turbine's noise emissions are at a maximum. Because this situation is generally associated with complaints, it should be considered the reasonable worst case condition. To avoid unnecessary measurements and analysis it is appropriate to assume stable atmospheric conditions as the reasonable worst case condition.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 64
PAGE 5 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 ‐ F‐0036 MAY 31, 2012
THE WIND INDUSTRY'S POSITION
It is important to understand that wind energy project sponsors have taken a consistent approach to assessing the noise effects of their projects that is not based on generally accepted acoustical measurement and prediction procedures. In the opinion of some independent acousticians the methods promoted by the wind industry and its trade associations for siting wind turbines are not just "novel" but constitute junk science. The procedures have their roots in a document prepared by a British wind industry sponsored committee titled: "The Assessment And Rating Of Noise From Wind Farms: The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines" or ETSU-R-97. 2 This document was the genesis of many of the flawed concepts regarding wind turbine noise that have become the talking points of the industry trade associations. It was heavily promoted by the wind industry and its trade associations. As a result it was adopted as, or heavily influenced, regulations many papers and presentations that debunk the premises of this document should there be an interest in the details. However, it is possible to summarize the primary flaws as follows:
1. The procedures elevate the baseline background sound level in the community against which a new noise should be assessed, by theorizing that wind-induced noise will always accompany wind turbine operations. Thus, the allowed sound emissions from wind turbines will change depending on the wind induced noise.
2. The ETSU-R-97 procedures for predicting operational sound levels at sensitive receptors inappropriately apply parts of the ISO 9613-2 sound propagation formulas. Some parts of the procedure are not appropriate for elevated noise sources like turbine blades. One example is attenuation of sound levels by ground absorption. ISO 9613-2 states that its propagation formulas are not accurate for noise sources that are more than 30 meters higher than the receiver. Use of inappropriate formulas results in lower modeled sound levels at receiving properties.
3. The data used to represent the wind turbine's sound emissions are taken from manufacturer's tests conducted according to IEC61400 " Wind turbine generator systems - Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques." 3 The IEC measurement standard is not designed as a stress test for the wind turbines, but instead assumes standardized weather and operating conditions. The weather needed for testing is a neutral atmosphere with low wind shear and no turbulence. This type of weather is often associated with a warm sunny afternoon. Even though the tests report the turbine's sound power levels for a range of wind speeds these results do not reflect the highest sounds that are produced by wind turbines when operating in-situ. The required test conditions call for the air-stream entering the plane of the blade rotation to be steady, predictable, and free of up-drafts, cross-drafts, and gusts. Under these conditions the sound emissions from a wind turbine are at their minimum and there is little if any audible blade swish. However, these conditions are not representative of wind conditions at night above the temperature inversion boundary layer. At night, there is high wind shear, unpredictable wind speed increases between the elevation of the blade's tip at the bottom of the plane of rotation to the top, and consequently, high levels of turbulence. These conditions increase the wind turbine's sound power levels, increase the low frequency content, and introduce modulation or blade swish or thumps. None of this acoustic energy is accounted for in the IEC 61400-11 test results the consultants use for model inputs. The result is that the model predictions reflect the quieter daytime noise immissions, not the nighttime noise emmissions most often associated with complaints.
4. Low frequency noise is ignored and results report only dBA sound levels.
The ETSU and similar procedures produce an inflated appraisal of background sound levels, an unrealistically low estimate of nighttime noise (expressed in dBA), and no consideration for the effects of low frequency noise emissions. The wind industry sometimes refers to these procedures as "Best Practices" and will point to the many governments that have adopted their use without admitting that in each of those countries independent acoustical consultants have found the procedures to be flawed. It is the substitution of these novel and "junk science" procedures for the generally accepted procedures codified in ANSI and ISO standards that explains why projects that appear to be compatible with a community during the review process produce complaints of noise annoyance, sleep disturbance and other adverse health effects once they are operational.
2 regmedia.co.uk/2011/08/02/etsu_r_97.pdf 3 http://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec61400 ‐11%7Bed2.0%7Den.pdf
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 65
PAGE 6 Subject:Comments On Exhibit 9,Case 12 ‐F‐0036 MAY 31,2012
Adverse health effects in people living near or within the footprint of utility scale wind turbines are being reported by researchers and medical professionals from countries around the world. These reports reinforce the self-reported descriptions from people who reside near wind turbine projects with which I am familiar. Based on published reports and my own experience, people living near wind turbines commonly report high levels of annoyance and sleep disturbance. In some cases the reports are of other adverse health effects. In response to these reports, the wind industry uniformly disclaims any responsibility. Instead, the problems are deemed to be a result of sublimated fear and anxiety; disapproval of the "visual" impact; concern about property value loss; or other issues that cause the symptoms. It is never the sound from the wind turbines that might be the cause.
The conflict between the promises of compatibility with host communities and widespread complaints has lead to many independent acoustical and medical experts conducting their own studies. The independent professional research into this subject is not a trendy or opportunistic short term reaction to the complaints. Much of it is built upon the work of other acousticians whose work is now almost 30 years old.
The potential for modern industrial scale wind turbines to cause problems for the communities that host them has been known since the early 1980's. Research conducted during the 1980s by NASA and the U.S Department of Energy found that the type of wind turbines that we now call "upwind horizontal axis wind turbines" (HAWT) produced unacceptable noise that propagated further than other common noise sources and that low frequency noise produced by the turbines would likely give rise to complaints, especially for people indoors. The final report of these NASA/DOE studies was published in 1990 in the report "Wind Turbine Acoustics." Hubbard and Shepherd (1990) .Yet, for the last fifteen or so years (from the time of the ETSU-R-97 document) the wind industry has claimed that industrial scale wind turbines are safe near people’s homes and that they will not even be heard over the other community sounds and wind noise. To some, it appears that the industry and its trade associations have been engaged in a multifaceted disinformation campaign conducted through trade association funded "siting guidelines," white papers on health effects, conference papers and testimony at hearings from its experts. These efforts have been productive. Industrial scale wind turbines are frequently thought of as benign by both the public and the governmental agencies that regulate wind turbine utilities. However, upon closer examination, one can find no peer-reviewed scientific research that would support the industry's premise that wind turbines located near homes will not cause adverse health effects for some of the residents.
Reports of high levels of annoyance, sleep disturbance, and other health effects continue to be received from people around the world living within two or more kilometers (1.25 miles) , and sometimes at greater distances. The veracity of these reports is confirmed by 1) acoustical consultants not affiliated with wind developers; 2) by a growing body of peer-reviewed scientific acoustic, atmospheric and health research; 3) from individuals who are willing to travel to national and international conferences on wind turbine noise to report their personal situations; and, more recently, 4) from public health departments in communities where utility-scale wind projects are operating.
A SPECIFIC CASE EXAMPLE
Brown County, Wisconsin has an eight-turbine wind project called Shirley Wind to the southeast of Green Bay that has attracted considerable national attention. Shirley Wind was purchased by Duke Energy after it started operation in 2011. This project utilizes 2.5 MW Nordex N100 turbines, but in terms of the impact on the community they could have been from any manufacturer that has a 2.5MW turbine with similar characteristics. 4 Studies comparing the sound emissions from wind turbines show a high degree of similarity between the various makes and models within each power output range. Moeller and Pedersen (2011).
This project was subject to only local township noise limits and the local town adopted criteria that had been originally proposed to the state by a committee that was heavily dominated by wind industry supporters or staff. It should be noted that since that time the Wisconsin PSC has promulgated new requirements that are slightly more stringent that the town's regulations. The town's criteria set the upper limit for noise at 50 dBA (24/7) while the revised PSC rules include a provision that the reduces the nighttime limit to 45 dBA.
4 The situation described at the Shirley Wind project is not specific to the manufacturer of any particular wind turbine. It is associated with the larger, multi ‐megawatt wind turbines offered by all wind turbine suppliers. Noise is expected to increase as the turbine's blades are increased in size and the towers on which the nacelles are mounted increase in height pushing the blades into increasingly turbulent winds. As turbine sizes increase the associated low frequency sounds increase and shift downward in the frequency spectrum. Because of this downward shift some larger wind turbines have lower dBA ratings than their smaller siblings. This has led to the incorrect conclusion that larger turbines are quieter. See Moeller and Pedersen (2011)
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 66
PAGE 7 Subject:Comments On Exhibit 9,Case 12 ‐F‐0036 MAY 31, 2012
Shortly after Shirley Wind started operation residents living near or within the footprint of the project began to voice complaints about sleep disturbance because of the noise at night. One family left their farm and home after only a few months of turbine operation. The nearest turbine was 3100 feet from the home. That turbine is part of a cluster of turbines putting the home downwind on a frequent basis. This family left their home in the spring of 2011 and has been living in a recreational vehicle or staying with other family members since that time. By the fall of 2011 there were seven families reporting adverse health effects, two of which had abandoned their homes. A report prepared for the Brown County Board of Public Health as a result of complaints included a list of the symptoms being experienced by these families. They include:
Anxiety AppetiteLoss Blurred Vision Chest Vibration Difficulty Concentrating Depression Disequilibrium Desire to "Get Out" Ear Pressure, Pain, Popping and Infections Fatigue Headaches Heart Palpitations Insomnia Nausea Vertigo
The Brown County Board of Health conducted a review of the situation, including a review of current literature and the history of the noise regulatory process in the state. Based on its review the Board drafted and submitted a resolution to the State titled: "Brown County Board of Health Resolution Requesting Emergency State Aid for Families Suffering Around Industrial Wind Turbines." This resolution states:
"WHEREAS Shirley Wind LLC has created an environment that has resulted in the very same "undue hardships" that the JCRAR suspension of 'PSC128' sought to prevent. These "undue hardships" have forced two families to vacate their homes to regain their health and continue to force at least two other families to suffer adverse health effects significant enough that they seek refuge away from their homes but do not have the financial ability to temporarily relocate.
WHEREAS the Brown County Board of Health has attached recent (2009 and newer) references (many peer ‐reviewed) to this resolution, organized by year of publication, accurately describing the cause, conditions, and adverse health effects being experienced by Brown County families."
And,
"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Brown County Board of Health formally requests temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes and property. The State of Wisconsin emergency financial assistance is requested until the conditions that have caused these undue hardships are studied and resolved, allowing these families to once again return safely to their homes and property."
A copy of the resolution and its list of supporting references is attached to my comments.
OTHER MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS SPEAK OUT
The concern of the Brown County Board of Health is not an isolated situation. A peer-reviewed editorial titled:" Wind Turbine Noise " in the British Medical Journal reported:
"A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children, and it may have important implications for public health. When seeking to generate renewable energy through wind, governments must ensure that the public will not suffer implications for public health. When seeking to generate renewable energy through wind, governments must ensure that the public will not suffer harm from additional ambient noise. Robust independent research into the health effects of existing wind farms is long overdue, as is an independent review of existing evidence and guidance on acceptable noise levels. [Hanning and Evans (2012)]
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 67
PAGE 8 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 ‐F‐0036 MAY 31, 2012
A recent peer-reviewed paper by the epidemiologist, Dr. Carl Phillips, points out that:
"There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate. The bulk of the evidence takes the form of thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of systematically gathered data. The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case crossover data. Proponents of turbines have sought to deny these problems by making a collection of contradictory claims including that the evidence does not “count,” the outcomes are not “real” diseases, the outcomes are the victims’ own fault, and hat acoustical models cannot explain why there are health problems so the problems must not exist. These claims appeared to have swayed many non-expert observers, though they are easily debunked. Moreover, though the failure of models to explain the observed problems does not deny the problems, it does mean that we do not know what, other than kilometers of distance, could sufficiently mitigate the effects. There has been no policy analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias." [Phillips (2011)]
On March 1, 2011 it was announced that forty Canadian physicians had signed a "Petition for Health: Industrial Turbines in Populated Areas" stating:
"The Québec government, in its energy development plan, calls for the building of numerous industrial wind turbines in rural, inhabited Québec.
The fact is, more and more scientific research is showing the negative impacts on health and quality of life among people living near industrial wind turbines.
CONSIDERING that no measures of assessment and control are currently applied on the level of social acceptability and level of psycho social impacts associated with such industrial wind projects;
WHEREAS the unit of measurement currently used in Québec for impact studies (98 01 of instruction note MDDEP) is recognized by the Department of Public Health and MDDEP as inadequate to assess the specific types of noise emitted by industrial wind turbines, and consequently their real nuisance for people;
WHEREAS, increasingly, research confirms the evidence of several other negative impacts on health and quality of life of people living near industrial wind turbines;
WHEREAS much remains unknown an much research remains to be done to better define the extent of these impacts and their real consequences, particularly in view of audible sound and infrasound;
CONSIDERING that more and more researchers recommend a minimum setback of 2 km from residential and industrial turbines, to reduce risks to human health. Moreover, this criterion is being increasingly accepted elsewhere in the world;
We, the following physicians, in light of the risks discussed above and the potential negative effects of industrial wind turbines on the health of people living nearby, ask the Québec government for a moratorium on future or current projects being built close to human habitation, until the research is sufficiently advanced to allow public health authorities to establish, beyond doubt, a safe setback from people’s homes. This follows the spirit of the law regarding sustainable development in Québec (LRQcd_8.1.1), and in particular the Precautionary Principle."
Massachusetts has its own version of the same situation. The state denies there are any risks from either audible or inaudible low frequency sound, while local public health boards are doing the field work and finding that people are at risk. In January 2012, Massachusetts sponsored a report from a review panel that concluded: " There is insufficient evidence that the noise from wind turbines is directly (i.e., independent from an effect on annoyance or sleep) causing health problems or disease. " Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Massachusetts Department of Public Health (2012), p.ES-6.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 68
PAGE 9 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 F‐0036 MAY 31, 2012
The basis of this report is a review of approximately 100 papers on the issues of wind turbine noise and health, although only a few (less than 5) were actually used for its conclusions. Many of the references draw conclusions or present information that are contrary to the panel's findings. The report caused a flurry of negative reactions from outside experts since many of the panel members had ties to the wind industry, or to the government whose pro-wind agenda was well known. For example, one of the panelists, Dr. Dora Mills had issued a similar statement while she was the director of Maine's Center for Disease Control. Her report was a restatement of wind industry trade association talking points reflecting no interaction with any of the families at the Mars Hill or Vinalhaven communities. Complaints about wind turbine noise from those two towns resulted in the Maine Medical Association's request for a moratorium on further wind energy projects until a proper health study could be conducted.
In Massachusetts, this failure to seek out evidence and confirmation bias in weighting the available evidence was repeated by the panelists. In spite of the availability of people who were claiming adverse health effects, not a single person or any of their medical doctors were interviewed by the panel. This is not the place to do a full critique of the paper, but it had major failings both in the constitution of the panel and method of analysis used to make their conclusion.
Many so-called health studies prepared by either the wind industry, such as the 2009 CAN/AWEA " Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review," 5 or by government agencies or panels, like the 2010 report from the Ontario, Canada, Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH)Report: "The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines," 6 have similar methodological flaws and biases. For example, the body and references of the CAN/AWEA whitepaper do not support the paper's conclusion that 45 dBA outside homes at night does not pose health risks to the occupants. Several of its authors have undergone cross examination in siting proceedings since the whitepaper was published. One has admitted that he would not support the conclusions and would limit wind turbines to no more than 35 to 40 dBA at his property line if it was his home and family that was at risk (McCunney, Lowell Mountain Vermont hearing before VPSC); while another has admitted that people who live in homes subjected to sound levels of 40 dBA or higher at night are likely to show adverse health effects (Leventhall, Kent Breeze, Ontario hearing before Ontario Environmental Tribunal). Yet, this whitepaper is still distributed by the wind industry trade associations as though it carried the authority of independent peer reviewed science.
While "independent panels" were concluding that there were no health risks associated with wind turbine noise in Massachusetts, the Board of Health in Falmouth was dealing with the complaints of sleep disturbance and adverse health effects from low frequency sound by people living near two industrial scale wind turbines. In March of 2012, less than a month after the Massachusetts report was issued, the Falmouth Board of Health sent a letter to the state's Department of Environmental Protection. It stated:
• "As a preventative measure, it would be appreciated if the Mass.DEP quickly reformulated current nuisance noise specifications and measurement techniques to specifically address the impact the wind turbines and other sources of impulsive and low-frequency sound on sleep. Implementation of a full study of the effects of wind turbines on annoyance and sleep will take some time, especially if the study is scientifically valid. Interim regulatory criteria would provide some guidance to local Boards of Health that are the actual regulatory enforcement bodies.
• Mass.DEP should give spectral quality sound guidance specific to amplitude modulated and low- frequency sound. We agree with the State Panel's suggestion that the difference between A- weighted and C- weighted sound should be part of the noise specifications. Current noise pollution measurement guidelines do not address this. Additional consideration needs to be applied to amplitude modulated noise that maybe discounted by current measurement guidelines (i.e. averaging L90 over a 10 minute period).
• Although noise guidelines focused on protecting sleep measured as an absolute dB(A/C) are the most scientifically validated, a more useful regulatory measure would address the potential increase in sound levels (dB(A/C)) over ambient conditions. A wide range of ambient noise as possible, in general regulatory guidelines addressing the increase above ambient are also relevant to the regulation of wind turbine sound emmissions." 7
5 • http://www.awea.org/policy/regulatory_policy/documents/AWEA_and_CanWEA_Sound_White_Paper.pdf 6 • http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 69
PAGE 10 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 ‐F‐0036 MAY 31, 2012
SIMILAR PROBLEMS IN NEW YORK
This commenter's experience with wind projects in New York began with a visit in March of 2009 to First Wind's Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind projects in Cohocton, NY. The visit was in response to complaints about excessive noise and vibration in one resident's home.
Subsequent to that field trip there were additional requests for help in documenting complaint conditions related to people living near operating utilities in Bliss and Varysburg, NY. In each case, measurements demonstrated that there were two types of noise problems related to the complaints. First, fluctuating sounds of blade swish were a source of audible sounds that were identified as disturbing sleep. Second, complaints of rumble, vibration, and other low frequency noise effects were reported by many of the same people who had reported the problems with blade swish.
Figure 2-Example of 10-13 dBA Blade Swish inside a home in Bliss/Eagle, NY from turbines 1500 feet or more upwind
Measurements were taken inside and outside the residences and other structures that showed the presence of both the audible blade swish (which was easily observed in the fluctuations of the dBA sound levels) and also the presence of high levels of infra and low frequency sound inside the homes and structures. The difference between the dBC and dBA overall sound levels was always more than15 and often more than 20 dB outside the homes where there were other sources of mid and high frequency sound from community activity. At night, inside the homes the deltas were higher because the building structure blocks much of the outdoor mid and high frequency sound.
The fluctuating sounds of blade swish were documented in one late night measurement taken inside the home of a resident of Bliss, NY. Figure 2 shows a short 12 second excerpt from the measurement that varied by 13 dBA above the valleys between each swish. The turbines were 1.5 MW models located about 1500 t0 2000 feet downwind. The example in Figure 2 was measured using the dBA scale with fast response taken inside the home's entry vestibule with doors and windows closed. Frequency analysis of this noise sample shows the blade swish modulation falls in the frequency range under 200 Hz. Even with the de-emphasis of low frequency sound by the A-weighting filter there is enough energy to produce clearly audible blade swish that is distinct when plotted as dBA sound level (fast response) against time. This shows that the low frequency energy in wind turbine noise is also associated with amplitude modulation. A modulating sound is more annoying than a steady sound. This is one reason that modulation of both frequency and amplitude are commonly used for warning signals and emergency sirens.
7 http://www.falmouthmass.us/energy/boardof health request to DEP.pdf
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 70
PAGE 11 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 ‐F‐0036 MAY 31, 2012
Consideration of low frequency sound energy and the modulation of the sounds is appropriate because the influence of complex sounds on humans is more adverse than that estimated from averaged A-weighted measurements. Swinbanks (2011). Also see Minnesota Department of Public Health (2009). Infra and low frequency sound pressure levels inside a home during periods when nearby turbines are operating not only includes sounds of blade swish but also includes short pulsations (under 100 milliseconds in duration) in the frequency range under 20 Hz. These pulsations exceed 70 to 80 dB with some short bursts of sound exceeding 90 and 100 dB and may or may not be audible to the listener. Fluctuations in the infrasound frequency range were rapid and of short duration with peak to valley differences of 20 to 30 dB. 8 Similar findings would be expected if the measurements taken at the other two properties were subjected to the same analysis.
It is important to note that sound propagation models can only report the average sound pressure level and are not able to predict or report the range of sound pressure levels due to modulations in the sound. Whether the fluctuating sounds are the once per second blade swishes or thumps or the short, rapid pulsations of under 100 milliseconds in the lowest infrasonic frequency ranges , the models cannot be used to assess them. An equivalent sound power level (as Leq) reported with such models provides no information about what the maximum (Lmax), minimum (Lmin) or statistical distribution of sound levels (L10, L50, L90) will be at the receiving property. Further, the reported Leq sound pressure levels, whether in dBA, dBC, or octave band detail, will substantially underestimate the peak sound pressure levels people will actually hear. Bray and James (2011).
SEPARATING FACTS FROM MISINFORMATION , MISDIRECTION, TALKING POINTS, AND DENIAL
Last summer, a crack in the wall of silence surrounding wind turbine low frequency noise emissions occurred as a result of the Danish EPA rule making process to add low frequency criteria to their wind turbine noise regulations. A letter dated June 29, 2011 from CEO of Vestas Wind Systems A/S to the Minister of Environment for Denmark's Department of Environment (DoE) sheds some light on why the wind industry directs permitting authorities away from regulations requiring low frequency or C-weighted analysis. 9 Denmark's DoE had been undergoing the steps of the regulatory process to include a requirement limiting low frequency sound from wind turbines. This requirement is the same one that Denmark uses for general industry and is a well conceived and tested method although it does not utilize the dBC scale. The Danish government had concluded that larger utility scale wind turbines shift sound energy downward and increase the potential effect of low frequency noise on people inside their homes. See Moeller (2011). This is consistent with the Vestas letter, which acknowledges that it will take some time to make the design changes needed to reduce the low frequency sound emissions. It states:
"In fact according to our analyses the most economical turbines, the 3 MW category, are the ones that will be strongly affected by the new rules. This applies to open terrain in particular, where in future low frequency noise will dictate and increase the distance requirements to neighbors for close to half of the projects that we are already aware of over the next 2 to 3 years." And,
"At this point you may have asked yourself why it is that Vestas does not make changes to the wind turbines so that they produce less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is not technically possible to do so, and it requires time and resources because presently we are at the forefront what is technically possible for large wind turbines, and they are the most efficient of all."
In a recent report prepared for the City of Maastricht, Netherlands, Dr. Henrik Moller (2012) shows that utilization of dBC analysis shows large areas of the surrounding community will be immersed insignificant low frequency sound levels from wind turbines, while utilization of only dBA analysis results in a prediction of insignificant low frequency emmissions.
8 This may not seem like a significant sound pressure level, but the data was measured using a Type 1, 1/3 octave band analyzer which understates the true peak of sounds in the lower frequency range because the impulse response time is much longer han the duration of the fluctuating sounds being measured. See Bray and James (2011). Thus, had this data been analyzed using the tools applied in the Bray/James paper the peaks would have been 10 to 15 dB higher, the valleys even lower, and the durations would have been in the under 100 millisecond range.
9 A translation of this letter has been posted on National Wind Watch's website: http://wind ‐ watch.org/doc/?p=2792
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 71
PAGE 12 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 ‐F‐0036 MAY 31, 2012
Concern about indoor environments with strong low frequency noise is not new. In its "Night Noise Guidelines for Europe," the World Health Organization (WHO) states that, to protect the most vulnerable among the public from adverse health effects, regulatory authorities should limit nightnoise to 40 dB outside the home. See WHO (2009). 10
In 1999, WHO applied a conventional rule acoustic engineers apply to determine whether a noise source emits sound dominated by low frequencies. They cautioned that when the difference between the dBC and dBA sound levels is greater than 10 dB low frequency analysis is required because of potential health effects from the low frequency sounds. WHO (2009), pp. xii-xiii. The need for such a rule is WHO's finding that sound dominated by low frequencies may be more disturbing than sound at the same decibel level not dominated by low frequencies. Id. This fact is well documented. See Bradley (1994); Krahè (2008);Minnesota Department of Public Health (2009).
WHO acknowledged that low frequency noise may be obscured by reporting A-weighted equivalent sound level (Laeq ): “A noise measure based only on energy summation and expressed as the conventional equivalent measure, LAeq, is not enough to characterize most noise environments. If the noise includes a large proportion of low-frequency components, still lower values than the guideline values below will be needed. When prominent low-frequency components are present, noise measures based on A- weighting are inappropriate. The difference between dB(C) and dB(A) will give crude information about the presence of low-frequency components in noise, but if the difference is more than 10 dB, it is recommended that a frequency analysis of the noise be performed. It should be noted that a large proportion of low-frequency components in noise may increase considerably the adverse effects on health." WHO (1999), pp. xii -xiii.
As discussed previously, ten years prior to the WHO's cautionary statements about low frequency noise inside homes and other occupied structures, the NASA/DOE studies of wind turbines, including the upwind HAWT designs now being installed, concluded that wind turbines were likely to be more of an indoor problem than an outdoor one because of the interaction between the low frequency sounds and the structures of homes and other buildings. Hubbard and Shepherd (1990).
The need for addressing the increased noise during nighttime stable atmospheric conditions to assess complaint potential has been known since the early 2000's from the early work of Dr. G. P.(Frits) Van den Berg. His numerous conference papers and thesis: "The Sounds of High Winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise" documents the difference between day and night time noise emissions. Van den Berg (2006). In this commenter's opinion, it should have been a red flag to the industry and its experts that there were risks of higher than expected sounds outside and inside the homes of people living near the projects. However, instead of disclosing these risks to permitting agencies and incorporating the new knowledge about the nighttime noise from wind turbines into the noise reports and studies prepared for their client's use in applications, the work of Van den Berg was dismissed by wind industry proponents as only applying to the one project used for his study. The wind industry proponents' reports and studies continued to understate or misdirect permitting authorities about risks by avoiding any discussion of variability in wind turbine noise emissions that can occur within common weather and wind conditions. They continue to present reports and contour maps ignoring low frequency sound and showing predicted sound levels for the adjacent communities based on computer models that use daytime sound power levels (as measured under the IEC61400-11 protocol) to represent wind turbine sound propagation and its dBA level at receiving properties.
The typical wind project sponsor's model reports daytime noise which is lower and often with little or no blade swish. The model is not inaccurate, it just reflects the daytime sound emissions. I have reviewed a number of studies by wind industry acousticians that compared model predictions to operational sound level. Many have shown good correlations, but that is because the operational sound levels were sampled during the same daytime conditions as the model was designed to represent.
Many people who have observed wind turbines in operation during a typical warm weather day conclude the turbines do not seem to be producing enough noise to support the complaints. What is being reported are
10 WHO identifies sleep disturbance as an adverse health impact. See Shepherd (2011), at 390. See also Gohlke et al. (2008) (" Wind energy will undoubtedly create noise, which increases stress, which in turn increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer ."); Hanning and Evans (2012) (" experts contend that the quantity, consistency, and ubiquity of the complaints [about wind turbine noise] constitute epidemiological evidence of a strong link between wind turbine noise, ill health, and disruption of sleep. A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions "). ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 72
PAGE 13 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12 ‐F‐0036 MAY 31, 2012 observations of the conditions used for the permit application; those of daytime operation. The residents who made the complaints would respond that to understand why wind turbine noise can cause the complaints one needs to spend some nights in their homes. There is considerable truth in that statement. That is not to say that other night time weather conditions cannot also lead to high wind turbine noise emissions or that there are no noisy periods during the day. They do. However, during the daytime, community activities lead to higher background sound levels and people are relatively less sensitive to noise in general because of their own activities.
During periods with unstable atmospheric conditions, such as during stormy weather, the turbines can be very noisy, but this is not the time when people are concerned about noise. The winds howl, the lighting and thundercracks and the sounds of wind turbines, while still distinctive and easily separated from these other sounds, are just one more annoyance that people tolerate during bad weather.
All of these other conditions aside, if the project is designed for the condition of a stable nighttime atmosphere the project will be more likely to be acceptable to the community. It is during such periods that people are accustomed to the peace and tranquility of the rural area.
In summary, we know that the primary complaints about wind turbine noise occur as a result of nights when a stable ground-level atmosphere is accompanied by a temperature inversion at an altitude near or above the lowest point of blade rotation, and above that boundary the wind shear is high (0.4 or higher) and turbulence is also high. 11 During the warm season, night-time stable atmospheric conditions occur about a third to just under half of the time. (Schneider 2010; Van denBerg 2006.) This is about half of the time wind turbines operate. The unpredictability of the winds entering the plane of blade rotation results in in-flow, cross-wind and/or up-draft turbulences as blades cross from one wind speed region to another within the rotor-swept area. Van den Berg (2006); Schneider (2009). See also James (2010), at pp. 7ff.
Had project proponents in Bliss, Sheldon, Cohocton, Lowville and other New York towns hosting wind projects been required to meet appropriate dBA and dBC criteria based on models that represent nighttime noise conditions, turbine to home distances would have been increased and the potential for complaints of adverse health effects would be reduced.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The foregoing discussion support the following considerations for changes to the current draft of Exhibit 19:
1. Low frequency sound must be a specific element of the analysis including the measurement of pre- existing background sound levels, the prediction of operational sound emmissions, monitoring of operating sound emmissions, and complaint follow-up. Both measurements and project noise predictions should utilize dBC or spectral/octave band analysis or both. 2. Sound propagation models should focus on representing the reasonable worst case conditions of operations during night-time stable atmosphere and reflect the most current understanding of how low frequency sound propagates under these conditions. 3. Performance criteria are an essential part of the regulations, if only to avoid project to project disparities and to expedite the process. The criteria be the L(90) background + 6dBA/dBC with upper limits of 35 dBA and 50 dBC (Leq 1hr) set as not to exceed limits until more is known about the risks of adverse health effects.
In addition, it must be recognized that the IEC 61400-11 input data for project noise modeling do not reflect real world conditions. Model outputs using such input data must be penalized to reflect the higher sound emissions that occur during the night-time stable atmospheric conditions at near-ground level (e.g. calm), a temperature inversion at or near the blades and the increased wind shear and turbulence that occurs above the temperature inversion boundary. Without such adjustments, project noise will routinely fail to reflect the reasonable worst case condition. Sincerely, E-Coustic Solutions
Richard R. James, INCE
11 IEC 61400 ‐ 11 requires wind turbine test conditions have a wind shear of 0.2 or lower. ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 73
PAGE 14 Subject: Comments On Exhibit 19, Case 12-F-0036 MAY 31, 2012
RRJ/encs: 1. References 2. Brown County Board of Health Resolution Requesting Emergency State Aid for Families Suffering Around Industrial Wind Turbines, January 18, 2012 3. R. R. James, Pre-filed testimony before Ontario Environmental Tribunal, "Review of Noise Studies and Related Material Submitted Regarding Kent Breeze Wind" January, 2010 4. Resume and Qualifications of Richard R. James, INCE
REFERENCES Bradley (1994) . J.S. Bradley, Annoyance caused by constant-amplitude and amplitude-modulated sounds containing rumble, 42 Noise Control Engineering Journal 203, available at < http://www.nrc- cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc38806.pdf >. Bray and James (2011) . W. Bray and R. James, Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception, Proceedings of Noise-Con 2011 (Portland, Oregon), available at
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 74
APPENDIX 14 ACOUSTICS, NOISE MEASUREMENT - EXTRACT
Wind Turbine Noise Impact Assessment Where ETSU is Silent By: Richard Cox, David Unwin and Trevor Sherman 10 July 2012 81 pages http://www.cumbriawindwatch.co.uk/index.php/File:Where_ETSU_is_Silent,_Cox,_Unwin,_Sherman_10_July_2012.pdf
Key Findings Failure to comply with the intent of ETSU by developers facilitated by the lack of detailed guidance in ETSU has occurred in all the wind farm noise assessments we have reviewed.
There has been a failure to use suitable microphone wind screens which include secondary wind screens. Measured background noise values are therefore higher than the true values as they include wind noise contamination at the microphone. The consequence of these artificially high measured levels of noise is that the noise limits that apply for the life of the wind farm are calculated to be higher than they should be. The artificially high noise levels have provided justification for significantly reduced separation distances between turbines and residential areas. The failure to use secondary wind screens has probably resulted in measurement errors of significantly greater than 10dB (corresponding to a doubling or more of allowed noise loudness). There has been a failure adequately to consider the effects of wind shear during wind farm noise assessments. High levels of wind shear at intermediate wind speeds significantly increase noise intrusion particularly during the night. Either very low levels of wind shear have been factored into the developer’s assessments or the effects of wind shear have been totally ignored. However, wind shear was found to be high at the sites in Northamptonshire where wind data was made available to us. There has been a failure correctly to analyse the measured background noise data when plotting the average noise curve through the data points. This has resulted in errors, usually in the developer’s favour allowing higher levels of turbine noise at wind speeds when complaints are most likely. There has been a failure correctly to apply or test the standard turbine noise prediction calculation model resulting in under prediction of turbine noise levels. There has been a failure to allow for measurement tolerances and assessment uncertainties arising at each stage of the noise assessment. Excluding wind screen errors, it is estimated that an accumulation of assessment uncertainties of greater than around +/-10dB can occur (resulting in a doubling or halving of noise loudness). There has been a failure to address adequately excess amplitude modulation, (EAM) the highly intrusive noise occurring when the normal turbine ‘swish’ noise changes to a banging or thumping noise. We found that the Salford report [Ref: 30] into EAM was carried out in a less than rigorous way for identifying EAM and noise complaints. The Salford report is also now outdated as turbine sizes have increased significantly since 2007.
These failures of guidance have continued throughout the period since 1997 when Government policy on wind farms closely followed the advice provided by two acoustic consultancies, Hayes McKenzie Partnership and Hoare Lea Acoustics [Ref: Appendix D].
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 75
APPENDIX 15 HEALTH & SAFETY: ACOUSTICS ETSU-R-97
ETSU R-97 WHY IT IS WRONG By Dick Bowdler July 2005
1 I NTRODUCTION
1.1 ETSU-R-97 is used throughout the UK to assess wind farm noise in planning applications. It has been incorporated into PAN45 in Scotland and PPS22 in England. Nevertheless it is a thoroughly flawed document and does not deserve the prominence it has been given.
1.2 The conclusions of ETSU-R-97 are so badly argued as to be laughable in parts (the daytime standard is based on the principle that it does not matter if people cannot get to sleep on their patio so long as they can get to sleep in their bedrooms). It is the only standard where the permissible night time level is higher than the permissible day time level.
1.3 ETSU-R-97 bears no resemblance to standards used for other industrial developments. Other renewable energy developments have to meet much stricter standards. Each time the Noise Working Group that drew up the document decide that a particular standard is appropriate, they follow it up by saying (without putting forward any evidence whatsoever) that such a standard would restrict development of wind farms and so find reasons to relax it further.
2 A SSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
2.1 It seems common sense that the impact of a new noise on existing residences is related in some way to the background noise. For example if the background noise level at present is 45dBA then a level of 35dB from a new industrial source would probably be inaudible. If the background noise level at present is 20dB then an industrial noise of 35dB will clearly be heard and would be very likely to produce complaints.
2.2 Indeed it is normal to set a noise limit relative to the pre-existing background noise when a new industrial noise is to be introduced into a residential area. Typical planning conditions imposed by rural local authorities (and sometimes urban ones) require that the new noise be no more than 5dB above the pre- existing background. This is based on the procedure set out in British Standard 4142.
2.3 In fact BS4142 does not purport to be a method of assessing nuisance or amenity. It was first published in 1967 and has since been revised twice though the general principles remain the same. It is simply a method of assessing the likelihood of complaints. Its origin is obscure and it has been the subject of endless criticism for a whole variety of reasons. But the fact is that it works. It has been and is still regularly used to assess noise impact and I do not know of one case where it has been suggested that BS4142 gave an anomalous result. Furthermore it was endorsed by DEFRA in September 1998, the department of government concerned with the environment at that time. They submitted their Noise and Nuisance Policy under Health Effect Based Noise Assessment Methods to the EU. This said that BS4142:1997 provides a technical means of assessing whether or not 'complaints are likely'. The result of an assessment carried out to BS4142 would normally be relevant to the deliberations of any court considering whether or not a nuisance exists.
2.4 BS4142 is not normally used to assess wind farms. This is done using the document ETSU-R-97 “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms”.
2.5 ETSU-R-97 was written by a Noise Working Group (NWG) of developers, noise consultants, environmental health officers and others set up in 1995 by the Department of Trade and Industry through ETSU (the Energy Technology Support Unit). The DTI’s mission is prosperity for all by working to create the best environment for business success in the UK . It has no brief for the protection of the environment or for the protection of the citizen from nuisance or loss of amenity. ETSU was the UK Government executive agency for energy technologies.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 76
2.6 The status of ETSU-R-97 is perfectly clear. The preface says The aim of the Working Group was to provide information and advice to developers and planners on the environmental assessment of noise from wind turbines. While the DTI facilitated the establishment of this Noise Working Group this report is not a report of Government and should not be thought of in any way as replacing the advice contained within relevant Government guidance. The report represents the consensus view of the group of experts listed below who between them have a breadth and depth of experience in assessing and controlling the environmental impact of noise from wind farms. This consensus view has been arrived at through negotiation and compromise and in recognition of the value of achieving a common approach to the assessment of noise from wind turbines.
2.7 The first paragraph of the executive summary says This document describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or local authorities.
2.8 It is thus, by its own admission, not a method of assessing impact. What is more the compromise reached by the NWG is so lacking in basis, so full of unfounded assertions and so badly thought out and argued that it comes up with standards for wind farm noise that are quite unlike any other noise standards. I need to explain in some detail why this is the case so that my point can be fully understood.
3 T HE NWG ARGUMENT IN ETSU
3.1 I have explained why the assessment method in ETSU-R-97 is not a measure of impact. I need to describe how the assessment method was developed by the NWG in order to explain how it relates to normal methods of measuring impact. The NWG starts by pointing out that the planning advice relating to noise says that the likelihood of complaints can be assessed, where the Standard is appropriate, using guidance in BS 4142: 1990. In examining whether BS4142 is appropriate for assessing wind turbine noise the NWG suggests that there are three reasons why it might not be. These are:
Wind farms are likely to be developed in largely rural areas and not in the areas to which the standard is principally addressed, namely mixed residential and industrial areas; the scope of BS 4142 specifically precludes situations where background noise levels are below 30dB(A); BS 4142 recommends that noise measurements should not be taken in extreme weather conditions such as high wind speed greater than 5 metres per second average ".
3.2 In answer to the first point they say Although the standard is intended for use in mixed residential and industrial areas as suggested by its title, there are no obvious reasons which prevent its application in more rural areas and indeed Members of the Noise Working Group have used it in such areas. So BS4142 is not rejected for this reason.
3.3 To the second point they say, after some debate, The question that arises is: if one intends to apply the principles of BS 4142 to the protection of external amenity, and the instrumentation is available to accurately measure noise levels below 30dB(A), should a margin above background approach be pursued in low noise environments or can an absolute level be justified in such circumstances? They leave the question to be dealt with later. I should point out that since ETSU-R-97 was published BS4142 has been revised so that low noise levels are only excluded when both the background is less than 30dB and the turbine noise is less than 35dB.
3.4 Whatever the NWGs answer to the third reason, and it is not very clear what that answer is, it is obvious that they accept that there is no reason to reject BS4142 at higher wind speeds because ETSU itself says that background noise should be measured at all wind speeds up to 12m/s .
3.5 In summary, thus far the NWG seem to find no good reason to reject BS4142 except that it leaves open the possibility of whether to adopt a limiting absolute level to be dealt with later.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 77
3.6 At this point it is necessary for me to explain L and L . Noise levels can be stated in different ways. For A90 Aeq example if a noise is fluctuating we could talk about the minimum or the maximum or the average. BS4142, in accordance with international practice, uses the measure L to describe the specific noise – Aeq that is the noise to be assessed. This is effectively an average. It is actually a logarithmic average but that is of no real significance here. Again in accordance with common practice BS4142 uses L to define A90 background noise. This is the level exceeded for 90% of the time, so in a ten minute period the noise level is more than the L for an aggregate of 9 minutes. So the L is usually close to the minimum noise level. A90 A90
3.7 On the question of turbine noise the NWG put forward the suggestion that L should be used to measure A90 turbine noise. This is because the measure will eliminate other extraneous noise. For example, if a site is affected by an occasional passing car, the L may be determined by the car whilst the L may not. I have Aeq A90 no objection to the principle of measuring turbine noise by the use of L This is a method I often use A90. where the difference between the L and the L is known and constant. However, it would be much Aeq A90 better to measure as L and then add back 2dB (the difference between the two) to get the L value so A90 Aeq that the units remain consistent with BS4142 and other normal practice. ETSU-R-97 carries on describing turbine noise as an L which simply leads to confusion. BS7445 (Also ISO1996) Description and A90 Measurement of Environmental Noise makes it clear that environmental noise is to be described as L . Aeq
3.8 On Page 59 ETSU-R-97 says It is proposed that the background noise levels upon which limits are based, and the noise limits themselves, are based upon typical rather than extreme values at any given wind speed. An approach based upon extreme values would be difficult to implement as the difference in measurements between turbine noise and background would depend upon the length of time one is prepared to take data. A more sensible approach is to base limits upon typical or average levels, but to appreciate that both turbine and background noise levels can vary over several dB for the same nominal conditions. What they are saying is that, having measured background noise levels over a period of several weeks we should take the background noise level at each wind speed as the average of all the background noise levels at that wind speed. This is completely inconsistent with normal practice and suggesting it is “sensible” is merely an unfounded assertion. In using BS4142 in the field we are generally required by local authorities to measure at the quietest part of the period in question. It is not acceptable, where traffic noise predominates, to take an average of the L values over, for example, a whole night time period. The local authority will A90 require the background noise in the middle of the night when it is quietest. For example
A letter from Renfrew Council in 2004 in connection with a planning application says that the impact of noise on nearby dwellings should be assessed by BS4142 and that the background noise level for the most sensitive period that the source could operate should be used for this assessment . At the Portree Co-Op development it was agreed that In accordance with BS4142 the background noise should be measured as L and the noise from the development as A90 L . Measurements of L over any specific period should be carried out in wind Aeq A90 speeds less than 5m/s and during a representative part of the period including the quietest part of the period. The measurements should be made in intervals of between 5 and 15 minutes. The average and standard deviation of all the measurements should be calculated and the background noise taken as the average less one standard deviation . So the level required is more or less the quietest part of a quiet night. 3.9 In the case of background noise dominated by wind it has been my practice to take the average and the standard deviation of a group of 10 minute measurements and to define the period L as the average less A90 one standard deviation. Typically this is about 4dB less than the average. Statistically 15% of the time the background noise is below this level. Unless there is a large variation between day and night time background noise I will normally use the whole 24 hour data rather than separate day and night.
3.10 Returning to ETSU-R-97 on page 60, continuing discussion on background noise the NWG say , Noise from the wind farm will be limited to 5dB(A) above background for both day- and night-time. When comparing the proposed margin with the complaints criteria suggested by BS 4142 it is important to bear in mind that
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 78
the LA90 descriptor is also being proposed for the turbine noise. The Leq levels can be expected to be about 1.5-2.5dB greater. An addition of 1.5-2.5dB places the margin at the upper end of the range which can be considered to be of marginal significance ie around 5dB. What they appear to be saying is that, because turbine noise is measured as L , the margin above background noise that is proposed is actually A90 7dB in normal BS4142 terms rather than the 5dB normally adopted by local authorities. There is nothing in BS4142 that suggests that 7dB is at the upper end of the range which can be considered to be of marginal significance. This phrase is simply an invention of the NWG.
3.11 Further down page 60 it says that On balance it is considered that a margin of 5dB(A) (by which it means 7dB in BS4142 terms) will offer a reasonable degree of protection to both the internal and external environment without unduly restricting the development of wind energy which itself has other environmental benefits. There is no foundation whatsoever for this assertion. No evidence is brought forward or referred to.
3.12 So the position in the argument so far is this. The NWG has decided, without any foundation, that the 5dB “marginal significance” in BS4142 could be 7dB. It has decided, against all normal practice, that the background noise level for assessment purposes ought to be the average of background levels in any particular condition rather than the lowest level. In wind controlled background noise the average is likely to be at least 4dB more than a realistic background level. So the NWG consider that 11dB over background is appropriate for wind farms as against normal practice for industrial noise of 5dB over background noise. Of course I have to bear in mind that ETSU-R-97 does not purport to offer a method of assessment of impact. So the NWG is proposing that, for wind farms, a level of noise that is likely to give rise to complaints is appropriate because of the particular public benefits of wind farms. I cannot agree with this. As I exemplify elsewhere other projects of public benefit have to meet the stricter standard of 5dB above background.
3.13 Not content with establishing a margin above background noise far greater than normal, the NWG, at the bottom of page 60, continues Applying the margin above background approach to some of the very quiet areas in the UK would imply setting noise limits down to say 25-30dB(A) based upon background levels perhaps as low as 20-25dB(A). This is true in principle but in practice turbines generate less noise at low wind speeds and, at cut in, turbine noise might have to be limited in some areas to as little as 25dB. By the time wind speed was up to 6m/s the background noise level would be at least 25dB probably more like 30dB and so this would require turbine noise to be restricted to less than 30-35dB rather than 25-30dB. Limits of this level would prove very restrictive on the development of wind energy. This is simply a broad assertion. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced to demonstrate this.
3.14 Some measure of loss of amenity needs to be applied in low background noise levels and it is normal practice in rural Scotland (and sometimes in towns) to use BS4142 even in low background noise levels. For example: Co-Op Retail Store, Portree in 2002. Noise of plant from the development should not exceed the background noise level by more than 5dBA or, if the noise is tonal, should not exceed the background noise at all at any noise sensitive property. The background noise at Home Farm Road was measured at 28dB on a calm night and this was agreed as the background noise. New factory for Vestas at Machrihanish in 2001. At this new factory (ironically the factory that makes wind turbines) Argyll and Bute Council require that: The rated noise level from the development shall not exceed the predetermined ambient noise level (the L90(A)) at the nearest noise sensitive properties at the former RAF housing, by more than 5dB(A). All measurements are to be taken in accordance with BS4142: 1997 with the measurement periods being 1 hour for the period 0800-2200 hours and 5 minutes for the period 2200-0800 hours . The night time background noise was agreed at 27dB which was the lowest hourly level reached during a windless night. Earlier measurements when there was sea noise and the background was 32dB were not accepted by the council. In 2004, SEPA, at Roslin in Midlothian, asked for a BS4142 assessment for a landfill gas generator even though the background noise level was only 27dB. 3.15 On page 61 the NWG say During the night one can reasonably expect most people to be indoors and it will not be necessary to control noise to levels below those required to ensure that the restorative process of sleep is not disturbed. A night-time absolute lower limit is therefore appropriate based upon sleep ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 79
disturbance criteria. What this says is that a turbine noise level inside peoples houses of just less than the World Health Organisation say is necessary to get back to sleep if you wake up in the night is satisfactory. It seems to me this must be the very upper limit of acceptability, not one that is well balanced. Since then, the WHO has revised its guidance 5dB lower. So the ETSU night standard is now higher than WHO say you need to get back to sleep.
3.16 When they come to day time, on Page 62 of ETSU-R-97, it says It is also the opinion of the Noise Working Group that there is no need to restrict noise levels below a lower absolute limit of LA90,10min = 33dB(A); if an environment is quiet enough so as not to disturb the process of falling asleep or sleep itself then it ought to be quiet enough for the peaceful enjoyment of one's patio or garden. This is a bizarre statement. It seems that the 33dBA is the 35dB sleep restoration level set out by the World Health Organisation for inside bedrooms at night. They seem to be saying that there is no need for noise levels during the day to be any lower than is necessary to allow you to go to sleep on your patio on a sunny afternoon.
3.17 Having suggested that 33dB would be satisfactory because people could get to sleep on their patio – they now say that This level would however be a damaging constraint on the development of wind power in the UK as the large separation distances required to achieve such low noise levels would rule out most potential wind farm sites. There is absolutely no evidence brought forward to justify this. A margin of 2km would normally easily achieve this even with the noisier modern turbines. They argue that Wind farms have global environmental benefits which have to be weighed carefully against the local environmental impact. So do many other things. They argue that Wind farms do not operate on still days when the more inactive pastimes (eg sunbathing) are likely to take place. The suggestion seems to be that the protection of people’s amenity does not include protecting them whilst sunbathing in their gardens on a slightly windy day or sleeping on the patio.
3.18 Then, on page 63 there is another leap of credibility: There is no evidence for or against the assertion that wind farm noise with no audible tones is acceptable up to and including LA90,10min levels of 40dB(A) even when background noise levels are 30dB or less. This is just nonsense. There most certainly is evidence against this assertion. The 40dB is actually 42dB in BS4142 units. This is at least 12dB above background noise level of “30dB or less” and BS4142 says there are likely to be complaints at turbine levels of plus 10dB. Furthermore there is no argument that BS4142 is not applicable. Even BS 4142:1990 (which was current when ETSU-R-97 was written) might easily be applicable here. If the wind speed is 5m/s, the background noise 30dB and the turbine noise 42dB(LAeq) then there is no reason not to use BS4142, it does not exclude itself in these circumstances. This noise level is also 12dB more than (twice as loud as) the WHO considers necessary for you to be able to get to sleep.
3.19 They summarise this For periods during the day the Noise Working Group has adopted the approach that external noise limits should lie somewhere between that required to avoid sleep disturbance even if the occupant is outside of the property and the higher level that would still prevent sleep disturbance inside the property. In other words the lowest turbine noise level that they would adopt, during the day, would be high enough to prevent you getting to sleep on your patio. The highest level they adopt during the day would not quite stop you getting back to sleep in your bedroom. Presumably the principle is that, if it is too noisy to sleep outside on your patio you can be assured you will be able to get to sleep indoors.
4 C ONCLUSION
4.1 ETSU-R-97 is so poor technically that its conclusions have to be queried. It is put together through a series of unfounded assertions and there has been no research drawn on to justify them.
4.2 Even if one were minded to accept the suggestion that you should use very low background noise levels and that there ought to be a level below which it would be appropriate to use an absolute noise level, the levels proposed by the NWG are not acceptable. The night time level is 45dB(L ) and the day time level is 37 to Aeq 42dB(L ). Most wind farm sites are in rural areas where background noise levels can easily be 20 to Aeq 25dBA when turbines are operating and so the margin above background could be up to 20dB or more.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 80
APPENDIX 16 HEALTH & SAFETY: TURBINE FAILURE
LLANDINAM TURBINE DAMAGE 2012 http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2012/01/13/engineers-investigate-after-wind-turbine-ripped-apart/#ixzz1jf549YWA January 13, 2012 10:59 Engineers investigate after wind turbine ripped apart A windfarm in Mid Wales has been temporarily closed while engineers investigate damage to one of its wind turbines
Evidence of the damage caused to the huge wind turbine
A windfarm in Mid Wales has been temporarily closed while engineers investigate damage to one of its wind turbines. Operators Scottish Power Renewables said the Llandinam Windfarm, between Llanidloes and Newtown, had been taken offline while engineers looked into how the turbine was damaged in December. The energy firm today said it would not speculate on how the turbine was damaged until the conclusion of its investigation. Members of Stop, a Mid Wales-based anti-windfarm group, said walkers found the damaged turbine last month after residents heard a loud bang during strong winds. Michelle Lloyd, of the group, said: “There have been stories in the press regarding turbines damaged in high winds elsewhere, but I have seen photos from a man called Mike Brennan from Mochdre, near Newtown, who regularly walks near Scottish Power’s Llandinam Windfarm. Scottish Power have now removed all evidence of the incident and seem unwilling to talk to concerned public members about it. “ “Apparently some Dolfor residents reported hearing a big bang over Christmas, which one could wonder – was it the noise of the turbine exploding or hitting the ground? Walking tracks meander through this windfarm. It goes without saying that this distance should be greater and that turbines should be nowhere near public footpaths. “Their ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 81
publicity shots, used in their recent brochures showing how lovely it is to cycle and walk amongst turbines, need to be re-thought, as you could be killed.”
Scottish Power Renewables spokesman: “Work is currently under way at Llandinam Windfarm to investigate damage to a wind turbine that occurred in early December. The site is currently offline while investigations are completed, with turbines expected to return to service shortly.”
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 82
APPENDIX 17 HEALTH & SAFETY : TELEGRAPH ARTICLE
Wind turbine closed after showering homes with blocks of ice
A wind turbine has been switched off and an investigation launched after its frozen blades showered nearby homes with large chunks of ice. The turbine has been switched off after complaints By Murray Wardrop 1:08AM GMT 04 Dec 2008
Residents complained when the 260ft wind generator began hurling shards of ice, some measuring two feet long, after the cold snap over the weekend.
Operators Cornwall Light and Power turned off the machine in Kings Dyke, Whittlesey, Cambs, which is situated next to several homes and an industrial estate. The energy company has also opened an investigation amid fears that the ice could have caused serious injury to people living and working near the turbine.
Tyson Clark, who owns a carpet showroom next to the generator, said he called Cornwall Light and Power demanding that it be turned off when lumps of ice started falling on his premises. He told his local newspaper, the Wisbech Standard: "We have been told the turbine will stay off until the company has some satisfactory answers to why it happened." The turbine was restarted a day later but had to be switched off again after more people complained.
Peter Randall, who runs a nearby welding company, said: "We were assured that ice could only cause a problem in severe weather conditions like those in Scotland, and two days later we got javelins thrown at us. "I am worried about the safety of my family and everyone in the area, we should not have to put up with this."
The £2million turbine was criticised by many local residents when it was erected. Whittlesey county councillor Ronald Speechley said: "It's worrying. Ice froze on the blades and, when it started moving, it started throwing it all over. "It could be very dangerous."
A spokesman for Cornwall Light and Power said: "Following reports of ice shedding on Saturday, we shut down our wind turbine at Whittlesey. "Our people have visited the site and nearby residents, and we have agreed that the turbine will not generate until we are fully satisfied that there is no risk of ice shedding."
Article reference see link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3547074/Wind-turbine-closed-after-showering-homes-with-blocks-of- ice.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8948363/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-UK-wind-farms.html Telegraph article December 2011
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 83
APPENDIX 18 LAW GAZETTE: LOCALISM BILL http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/the-localism-bill-divides-opinion
The Localism Bill divides opinion Thursday 21 July 2011 by Catherine Bowman
At a time when many lawyers are grappling with the implications of the new Bribery Act, the Localism Bill’s passage through parliament has received relatively little attention. This despite the array of legislative changes that are contained within its three slim volumes. Due to come into effect early next year, the bill is a centrepiece of coalition law-making. For some people, it is a coherently envisaged, radical agenda for change that will empower citizens and usher in a renaissance in English local governance. For others, it is a sprawling, ill-conceived, inadequately thought-through bill that will dump extra burdens on to the shoulders of already over-stretched local authorities. Certainly, the Localism Bill has broad ambitions. It proposes key changes to local government, to communities and to the planning system. It explicitly sets out to transfer power away from government and down to community level and, in many ways, it provides the legislative ballast for the conceptual Big Society of which the prime minister is so enduringly fond. Transferring power The Localism Bill sets out to give a series of new rights to local authorities, to parish councils and other community groups. However, it is worth noting that it does not devolve rights directly to individuals. Local councils will receive a new General Power of Competence. They will be allowed to keep the business rates and the residential rents they collect, instead of – as is now the case – handing them over to central government and receiving them back, subject to byzantine treasury calculations and multiple hoop jumping. They will have far greater say in how they manage their own housing stock and elected councillors will be freed from the sometime tyranny of the National Standards Board as that body is abolished. Member conduct will return to being an issue covered by local voluntary agreement and the criminal code. The changes to the planning system should strengthen parish councils in their dealings with district councils, as should the new, more flexible approach to the commissioning and delivery of local services. Community groups are perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of all. Changes to the planning system are targeted directly at them and are intended to lend local groups considerable new muscle in their dealings with local government. Government view Eric Pickles – notoriously unfond of the legal profession – is, to some extent, the public face of the bill. But the man charged with leading the legislation through parliament (and with possessing a safer pair of hands than his irascible departmental boss) is Greg Clark, minister of state for decentralisation. Not surprisingly, he has high hopes for what the new legislation will do. ‘You’ll have different things being done in different places, rather than a uniform system imposed from above,’ Clark tells the Gazette . ‘I think things will be much more local – which is obvious – reflecting the very different character and needs of different areas rather than the uniformity that sometimes papers over different needs in different areas… I think the system will be more personal.’ Clark has spent several years thinking about how to counter what he sees as government’s impersonal, centralising tendencies – in 2003 he wrote a book about this very subject. For him, the Localism Bill offers a necessary and very welcome antidote to government control . ‘It’s completely impossible for central government to be able to respond to the personal needs of people...’ he explains, ‘and so the rights that are in the bill will give much greater power to people who know personally the people in their area and can tailor services and community activities around that. So I think and hope that at the end of it we’ll have a set of public services… that are more diverse, that are more local, but are also more personal.’ Nicholas Dobson, senior consultant at Pannone and Gazette columnist , is familiar with the detail of the bill and believes it heralds a serious attempt by government to change the way local government does business: ‘It’s a culture change... but it lacks coherent and strategic vision.’
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 84
Over at the Local Government Information Unit, director Jonathan Carr-West partly agrees: ‘It is an odd bill. It could be hugely transformative. Equally, it might not be.’ He believes the legislation’s ambition creates this sense of contrariness. ‘It’s not a badly drafted bill. It’s just trying to do some very complicated things.’ This breadth, lack of detail, and the something-for-everyone feel of the bill, mean that, at the moment, Dobson takes a tougher line. To his mind, the bill is ‘whatever anyone thinks it is – like Humpty Dumpty in Alice’. He adds: ‘Local authorities think of localism in terms of delegation of power to themselves. Eric Pickles thinks it’s about empowering local people…The bill sets the direction of travel (but there’s) no hard transfer of function between authorities.’ This lack of ‘hard transfer’ is the opposite of a problem for Clark. He says: ‘The provisions in the bill are back-stop provisions in a sense. If a council voluntarily wants to work with its community council then they don’t need to wait for the bill, they can do that. The point of the bill is to give some rights for communities in areas where the council may not be quite so enthusiastic and may want to thwart [them]… It would be unusual for a parish council to insist legally on its rights. In the vast majority of cases, perhaps knowing the rights exist as a back-stop, districts and parishes will sit down together and work together and [they] already are.’ Newark and Sherwood District Council’s deputy chief executive and monitoring officer Kirsty Cole thinks it makes eminent sense for district authorities to work closely with their parishes. ‘Parish councils,’ she notes, ‘are already beginning a dialogue with us about what powers they can take. Local government needs to start the same process with central government.’ General Power of Competence Once the bill is passed into law, local authorities will enjoy a significant new power: a General Power of Competence. The Local Government Act 2000 conferred on local authorities a ‘wellbeing power’ but the London Authorities Mutual Limited (LAML) case punctured authorities’ confidence in it. In LAML , the court ruled as unlawful the mutual insurance vehicle that had been set up by a group of councils who were trying to save money for the benefit of their residents. The perception was that the ruling dealt the wellbeing power a fatal blow. Mark Hynes, director of governance and democracy, finance and resources at Lambeth, is enthusiastic about the new General Power, not least because Lambeth Council was a party to the LAML case. ‘I think it’s a welcome provision,’ he explains. ‘Too often lawyers have got themselves into a mess with what’s ultra vires and what’s intra vires . We were part of the LAML case, which is a classic example. We were trying to be innovative, looking at saving money – all the things that Eric Pickles would be supporting, and yet we were thwarted by the narrow interpretation of the general Power of Wellbeing …it was a nonsense. So the General Power of Competence will get around that nonsense.’ Clark agrees. ‘The whole point of General Power of Competence is to make it luminously clear that local authorities can do things that previously were questionable as to whether they were ultra vires . The Power of Wellbeing was thought to offer some possibilities for authorities but ended up have…The more you can front load it and the more you involve the community in thinking about its future then you’ve got a plan against which applications can be determined.’ This is an area that causes Newark’s Cole some anxiety. Put simply, won’t beefing up the planning muscle of community groups inevitably make it harder for unpopular applications to get consent? ‘We do have some concerns about the impact of neighbourhood planning and what this will mean for strategic planning decisions… Will we ever see another wind farm?’ Clark, though, remains sanguine. ‘Neighbourhood planning has to operate in a context of responsibility and clearly there are larger than local aspects.’ In Lambeth, Mark Hynes shares the minister’s relaxed take on neighbourhood planning – but for rather different reasons. ‘Local development plans gave communities the opportunity to shape things anyway,’ he says. ‘I struggle to see what’s so specifically different about this.’ Enforcement Steven Durno, of the Law Society’s Planning and Environmental Law Committee, believes that clause 108 of the bill, which details changes to the enforcement procedure available to local authorities for development control, will cause ‘great concerns to planning and property practitioners’. Currently, local authorities may take action against parties who breach the terms of development control ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 85
consents within either four or 10 years – depending on the circumstances. The bill will change this period of limitation to a 12-month term from the point at which an authority has notice of the breach. This will create uncertainty. The potential limitation period that need concern third party property purchasers – the period beyond which they need worry that a local authority can come along and demolish their building – is greatly reduced. Durno thinks the government is seeking change to the enforcement system because of two cases, Fidler and Beezley . He believes this response is entirely disproportionate, given the atypical nature of the two cases. In the first case, Mr Fidler built an unauthorised, castle-like structure, behind a screen of hay bales. In the second, Mr Beesley constructed an unauthorised home within a properly authorised barn. In both cases, building works had to be reversed. Community muscle As well as the right to draw up neighbourhood plans, communities will enjoy new rights to buy assets listed by the local authority. They will be empowered to challenge the sale of assets – private, as well as publicly owned – that they think ought to be held in community ownership. This sounds like heady stuff. But planning specialist Ashworth is unconvinced: ‘There are provisions in the bill for the community to buy, to challenge, to have a referendum. These are good ideas but do not really enable a community. They simply give the power of the pulpit; an ability to ask questions. And like most people in pulpits,’ he continues, ‘communities are poor as church mice and will not be able to secure the assets or carry out the services that the bill implies that they have a right to. They do not have the resources to do so.’ More to come And the government’s not finished yet, Clark says: ‘Shortly we’ll be publishing a revised national planning policy framework and that will set out policies on issues like renewable energy … Within that there is a role for neighbourhoods to think about what is the best place for renewable energy… but that will need to be in the context of national policy.’ The government’s hope that the planning changes it is introducing will deliver a more bottom-up, more cost-effective, less litigious system of development control, is predicated on a view that the current English model is riddled with legal disputes. This view is not shared by Ashworth. To his mind, the planning system ‘is not particularly litigious’. He estimates that fewer than 20 cases a year are successfully challenged in the high court and that, in any event, some disagreements are inevitable given the inherent complexity of planning. Ashworth says: ‘The planning system will always generate tensions. It is almost designed to do so. It constrains the landowner who wishes to use their property as they wish. It seeks to balance competing land uses, which means that not all users will get what they want. It mediates boundary and nuisance concerns, and says that some impacts are acceptable; which will rarely lead to perfect harmony. It is used to tax, for social engineering, to displace and to dispossess. How can anyone think that addressing those issues will not be contentious?’ Footing the bill The costs of delivering many of the new rights and powers enshrined in the Localism Bill will fall squarely on local authorities. At a time when many are trying to tackle budgetary cuts of as much as 40%, is this too much to bear? Certainly, local government lawyers are extremely concerned that, while a slew of extra responsibilities have been landed in their laps by central government, there appears to be no attendant extra funding to help them fulfil their new obligations. The requirement that councils facilitate the range of new powers available to parish councils, neighbourhood forums, and pretty much any other articulate and organised community group that wishes to avail themselves of their new rights, has the potential to be a budgetary black hole. How can councils prepare revenue strategies when they don’t know what the uptake of the new community powers will be? How can they predict the frequency with which community groups may take up the right to call a referendum – the cost of which could be onerous? Does this financial uncertainty make local authorities nervous? Lambeth’s Hynes says: ‘Well yes… [The power to call a referendum] could very well result in us having to run an election process with all the cost that entails.’ Durno thinks that, given their dense concentrations of articulate residents, it will be ‘London boroughs ______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 86
that will really suffer’. This lack of apparent financial support for already hard-pressed councils is an issue about which he feels strongly. ‘The government is deliberately setting out to ensure that local authorities fail.’ This issue of the burden of costs for already cash-strapped councils, is one the Gazette put to the minister. He tries to reassure. ‘We’ve given money to the Planning Advisory Service – run by the Local Government Association, on behalf of local authorities – to make sure that even before the bill comes into effect there is a good capacity to advise authorities with questions on the implementation of this.’ Will funding be made available to authorities where significant numbers of residents take up the new rights available to them under the act? ‘It’s not possible with complete certainty in advance to say what this is going to cost,’ says Clark. ‘But what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a new burdens doctrine, which the government has accepted is required of all government departments, which is that any additional costs of the new policy on local government should and will be reimbursed.’ Clark then clarifies how this will be done: ‘Demands on authorities will be funded through the local government finance settlement.’ This sounds like a distinct shift in the government’s position. If it is confirmed, it will provide welcome reassurance to local authorities that are worried about the new and potentially limitless financial liabilities being thrust upon them from above. Catherine Bowman is a freelance writer
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 87
APPENDIX 19 LEGAL: COMPENSATION CASES
March 2012 Environmental & Planning Law newsletter http://www.39essex.com/docs/newsletters/environmentalplanningnewsletter_no7march12_2.pdf
To set the scene but briefly, Mr and Mrs Davis’s home was just over 1000m from the nearest turbine. From the time the wind farm began to operate in 2006, they complained about various forms of noise, though it was not clear that they could not demonstrate that there was any breach of the planning condition based, as usual, on the industry standard methodology ETSU-R-97. The two features that most concerned them were a kind of ‘hum’ (which might or might not have been produced by the turbines), and a form of aerodynamic sound over and above the ordinary ‘swish’ of the blades through the air – described as a ‘whoomph’ or ‘thump’ and generally known as enhanced amplitude modulation (AM).
The law’s starting point is that a private nuisance claim is concerned with competing interests and activities of adjoining occupiers of land. A can make out a nuisance claim only if, as between them, B has used his property in such a way as unreasonably to damage the interests of A. Where a scheme benefits from development consent under the regime for approving nationally significant infrastructure projects, s.158 of the Planning Act 2008 provides an absolute defence to a nuisance claim. But in cases involving development approved under the ordinary planning regime, the precise relationship between the terms of planning permission and the concept of “unreasonable” interference is still not definitivley established, and raises two issues in particular.
The first is the “threshold” or “baseline” point. The argument is this: even if the standard set by the planning condition is not decisive, it should at least be the starting point in assessing the change that it is reasonable for a resident to tolerate in that which he can hear (and see). The operators of a wind farm can argue that their undertaking is not just a legitimate commercial activity, but one positively encouraged in the public interest by Government energy policy strategy, which is in turn a response to international policy.
In its simplest formulation, the point is that save in exceptional circumstances, it will not lie in the mouth of the hypothetical reasonable wind farm neighbour to complain that he can now hear (or see) something which was not previously there; and since, logically, some standard measure of acceptability is needed, then what the defendants in this case characterised as the objectively established threshold or baseline of compliance with ETSU and planning conditions is as good as a place to start from as any. With the settlement in Davis , this point has yet to be authoritatively decided and it remains to be seen how far the Court of Appeal addresses it in Barr v Biffa .
The second issue concerns an apparent tension between two principles. On the one hand, it is no defence for B to demonstrate that he took reasonable care (see Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264 ): there is either a nuisance or there is not. On the other hand, a nuisance will only be made out if A can demonstrate that B has used his land unreasonably: and that is essentially a factbased analysis based on the concept of fault (see Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655 and Southwark LBC v Mills [2001] 1 AC 1 ). That is why the concepts of ‘give and take’ between neighbours and reasonable foreseeability of harm are important (see also Network Rail v Morris [2004] Env LR 861, Watson v Croft Promo Sport [2009] EWCA Civ 15 ).
In Davis , the Defendants could fairly have said that the noises complained of were not foreseen when the wind farm was designed and built. Nevertheless, suppose Mr and Mrs Davis had established their complaint that the noise they were exposed to was in some respects objectionable by reference to an objective standard: does that mean that it was automatically actionable as a private nuisance? The answer, it is submitted, must be in the negative.
An important part of the Defendants’ case was that they had not modified the turbines in the 6 years between first receiving the Claimants’ complaints and the case coming to trial for several reasons. These included the fact that noise phenomena were little understood, and the study of AM in particular is an ‘emerging science’; further, the wind farm was constructed in accordance with planning policy and guidance; and, they argued, their attempts to investigate the problem (to establish whether adjustments were needed and were feasible) were thwarted by what the they alleged was the Claimants’ own obstructive behaviour.
It will be appreciated that none of those factual (or legal) issues was resolved at trial. In law, as in life, context is everything (see the words of Lord Steyn in ex p Daly). How will the courts approach the infinitely variable factual and policy issues that surround wind farm operations in a private nuisance claim? The answer will have to await a case that proceeds to judgment.
19 March 2012 Barr vs Biffa : Following this Court of Appeal decision, the case will now be remitted for a further hearing to assess liability and quantum for each individual claim. Implications This judgment is important for all operators whose activities require regulatory permits under a statutory scheme. The Court of Appeal confirmed that if an operator's activities lead to complaints, they will be potentially liable in nuisance whether or not they are in compliance with their permits. The case serves as a reminder that the law of nuisance is governed by well-established principles. These principles may only be altered by Parliamentary statute or by higher courts' reinterpretation of the case law.
______ONSHORE LARGE WIND TURBINES : SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM DWELLINGS (WILTS) OCT 2012 Page 88