Wind farm noise goes to court..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011162/Wind-farms-whoom-whoom-whoom-noise-drove-mad-farmers-claiming-3m-tell-High-Court.html

Quote:
Lawyers for the couple say they are now seeking an injunction to bring about modification of the operation of the wind farm, plus some £400,000 damages to compensate them for the noise nuisance that has blighted their lives.

Also in the Telegraph..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/8615569/Noisy-wind-farm-drove-couple-out-of-their-home.html

and The Times but that's subscription only.

What's interesting is the claim that some people are more "sensitive" to noise as if this somehow makes it their fault. The wind industry appears to be using this expression to try and discredit complaints. Indeed the latest report for the government ..

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/06/28/windfarm-noise-statutory-nuisance/

says

<blockquote>Noise measurements can assist in countering claims that the complainant is unduly sensitive or has unrealistic expectations</blockquote>

..but it fails to say whay should happen if it's the former. What should developers do if a local resident is sensitive to noise to the point that they are woken up so much they have to move out?

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying that's the case here. The people complaining have had noise measurements done (they appear in the BBC program Wind Farm Wars) and no doubt these will be presented in court to support their case. There is a lot of evidence that AM noise travels further and can be louder than government guidelines allow.

This is a very thoughtful report on Windpower generally, and particulary on effectiveness, noise, accusations of nimbyism (and how they tend to be counterproductive), health effects, safety record, effect on wildlife, embodied energy etc. It's really very thorough, pretty balanced, and I didn't see anything wrong in the whole thing (although the lack of enthusiasm for nuclear shows through in places).

It did a pretty good summary of the noise situation as one of the chapters.

http://www.cse.org.uk/downloads/file/common_concerns_about_wind_power.pdf

Published May 2011 so nice and up to date. Includes a list of all 4 incidents where members of the public have been killed by wind turbines (one parachutist, one crop-sprayer, one motorist and one child), plus 40-odd assembly workers.

It did a pretty good summary of the noise situation as one of the chapters.

http://www.cse.org.uk/downloads/file/common_concerns_about_wind_power.pdf

That report makes assertions that can't be substantiated. For example in the section on noise the report says..

Studies have found topography and changing wind patterns at night can accentuate this noise in specific locations, but understanding this process means it can be correctly assessed during planning to ensure that properties that might be prone to these effects are not affected.

Doesn't that sound like the problem is understood and can be prevented? In which case why does the wind industry say there is "insuffient knowledge" to be able to draft a planning condition to provide a remedy if properties are affected?

Joiner you said - (First glance at the CSE document says it looks comprehensive enough, but have printed it off and will read through it later today.)

If you could read it on line you would save trees - (for bio mass burning!!)
The paperless office was supposed to have arrived some years ago, even if the bureaucracy haven't heard of it we should at least try
Peter

Joiner - I know what you mean, my arms have been getting shorter and shorter every year to the point that I now have to prop the book up against the wall - and then the print is too small - sigh...
Peter

Wookey, thanks for that doc, I thought it was pretty good, though I think it might infuriate me if I was already disposed to find wind/renewables a BadThing(TM); I really could not step away and take a different point of view in my scanning of it so far...

Rgds

Damon

I can't see them getting anywhere with the case, her credibility is in doubt, which just goes to show you have to be careful of the company you keep, whatever your motives and whatever your views.

Had intended to post on wookey's link but have been distracted by a local wind development which I'm now, ironically, finding myself having to defend against ill-informed opinion because it's actually a well-considered and sympathetically sited project with no 'commercial' taint. They have, however, shot themselves in the foot by admitting that the potential investment return of 7-10% is courtesy the FIT. They state in their leaflet: "By becoming a generator and receiving an income via FITs, investors may wish to consider their dividend as an offset against this hidden tax as well as part, if not all, of the bill charged by their utility provider."

The language used by the project opponents is about as aggressive as any of the worst of the pro-wind blogs and largely self-defeating because easily shot down on matters of fact, but there you go. I feel a bit like a court-appointed lawyer must feel, obligated to represent because everyone deserves a fair trial.

My fear is that the development's acceptance will create a planning precedent which the commercial boys will cite when their turn comes, and I wonder if the proposers of the current scheme (a local renewables cooperative) feel like Judas sheep but keep their concerns hidden for the sake of seeing their well-intentioned baby take its first steps.

So why not let the project proposers defend themselves? Because the lengthy conversation I had with both the renewables cooperative representative and one of the guys who'd planned the project for them didn't fill me with confidence. Thanks to this forum and the further reading prompted by the wind threads I seemed to know more about wind farms and the application of turbines than they did. When I mentioned AM a look of embarrassment passed across both their faces when I pointed out to them that, on the current level of understanding, it would only be known to be a problem with any certainty in very particular situations once the turbines were up and running. What would they do then? Apparently, they'd turn them off!

Oh, and the scheme would only be up and running for 25 years anyway because that's when FITs would end, when the turbines would be decommissioned. Errr.

I do feel sorry for them.

I shall take my wife to look at their next exhibition in town tomorrow because if you can't beat them, for a return of 7-10%, it makes a lot of sense to join them!

I did and there was an uncomfortable silence. I asked them why the decommissioning was a projected event and they said that "better technologies might have come along by then", but when pushed on this there was an even deeper silence. I asked if perhaps they had LENR in mind and they asked what that was. When I explained they said they were "really against" nuclear. I know, very naughty of me, but I had to find out just how they'd benchmarked their renewables and what standard marketing they'd done to evaluate their long-term ambitions for replacing FF.

It sounds daft, but I genuinely felt sorry for them because they were so well-intentioned and had done everything possible to avoid objections. The only property likely to be affected by noise (measuring distances on Google Earth) is the landowner on whose land the turbines are located. The downside is that they'll be located in a high visibility spot on top of a ridge, although at 40-50m to hub (67m to blade tip - don't know why the 10m 'difference' doesn't carry over to the blade tip) they're not particulary high and anyway "shielded" by trees on the downwind, most visible side.

The project will comprise two of these http://www.ewtinternational.com/?id=60, the 900 being the preferred option, subject to "further studies". The size of the project in generating terms makes it more of a gesture than anything else, and is what makes me nervous about its possibly serving as the thin edge of a large wedge that will see the more heavily populated north Shropshire plain invaded by large commercial wind farms. I just have this horrible feeling that eyes are focused on this small development and I wish it's small scale was intended to provide power to a small community, rather than into the grid at large.

They're offering shares in 2012 from £250 to £20,000 (max) to raise the necessary £1.5m capital required, with a projected income of £460,000 a year.

Depending on the level of support they get, they'll submit a planning application next year.

New National Policy EN3..

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/consents-planning/nps2011/1940-nps-renewable-energy-en3.pdf

Apparently biomas plants are all prone to being washed away by rising sea levels.

Offshore wind farms are bad for marine and costal environments.

Policy on noise from onshore wind still to be based on the discredited ETSU-R-97 plus "any guidance on best practice that the Government may from time to time publish". Which scientific peer reviewed journal will they publish it in I wonder :-)

and there is this badly written paragraph..

Policies that were less tolerant than EN-3 of potential adverse noise and shadow flicker impacts would probably be less likely to make a significant impact on consenting of development proposals.

Really? Would increasing set backs really not have any impact on the number of approved wind farms? Lets do it then! Oh but then they claim...

As a result they would be unlikely to make a significant difference even to those potentially adversely affected by such impacts and would have a smaller, but still adverse, impact on security of supply and positive impacts to climate change brought about by renewable energy development.

See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file35240.pdf

The details of any decommissioning bond will be a matter for the lease between the landowner and the windfarm developer. Without it the landowner is at risk of being left to bear the cost themselves. Whether it gets included in the planning conditions varies from one LPA to another.

From what I can tell it's the same for travellers sites. They get temporary planning permission for 4 years with a condition that the site must be put back as it was....but a new permanant planning permission can make that irrelevant.

Most of the approvals I've seen for wind farms have a condition requiring the turbine be removed but not necessarily the foundation. I think these are normally deep enough to grow crops on top anyway. A half decent site is likely to be repowered with bigger turbines before 25 years are up so unlikely full decommissioning will ever be required.

I've seen an appeal officer describe the 25 year impact on a 400 year old listed building as "temporary" inthe life of the building.

I understand that in the international scientific vocabulary semantics is also semasiology which then raises the question ,what is x?
I note current payout level from wind turbine to local community is detailed at £1000/rated MW/yr which I suspect could be the fundamental consideration for some local folk.

If anyone's having a problem with that reference of Cwatters' to this...

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/consents-planning/nps2011/1940-nps-renewable-energy-en3.pdf

...you may need to copy it and paste it into your internet search engine which will then bring up the relevant link to that particular DECC site.

It's worth doing because it covers a multitude of isses discussed on here.

(Although it seems to appear as a direct link in this post!! There you go.)

As energy security is destined to become a national security issue (where planning issues are treated totally differently) is it possible that by constantly saying no to windfarm developments you end up having no choice in the location of them?