Yes Joiner I appreciate those comments exist, but if you follow it to it's logical conclusion we should ban all plastic bags, flapping pidgeons, and vehicles.

Actually might not be so bad!

Perhaps the noise issue needs to be clearly delineated between "noise that can be heard" and "vibrations" or "infrasound". Both can be measured scientifically and industry standards established.

This might help avoid the widespread confusion between 2.5MW and 2.5kW

I drive past Carland Cross some days, there are 15 small Vestas 400 kW turbines there, a new Gaia and 3 Endurances close by. Not heard one of them yet. Not conclusive proof, just anecdotal. I do hear my Radio when driving and vehicle noise/sound/vibration though.

Really up to the objectors to up their game then, let them collect data, get it analysied, create models and then apply it to each and every new situation and prove that it is a nuisance, along with every other area they object to surely.
I am quiet happy to sit in a field, or someone's country house and do some work for them. They may not like the results though.
Still, it may help reduce the stamp duty on their property.

I used to take an equally sanguine view, but meeting the people involved soon knocked the smile off my face.

Colin highlighted the incredible obstacle to objection represented by the cost of rebutting the claims of the developers, not just the legal costs but the cost of expert opinion.

The wind farm developers have access to nation-wide resources and many, like RES, are backed by the vast resources of global companies like McAlpine. Even the smaller development companies have RESIDENT experts schooled in the art of obfuscation, whereas most of the objectors have recourse only to their own limited resources; and even when they've managed, by dint of fund-raising events, to get together funds enough to support a challenge, they're faced with the prospect of a Planning Inquiry that refuses to acknowledge any evidence not supported by QUALIFIED expert opinion, even amateur photomontages are rejected as being inadequate proof of visual impact, whilst those of the developer are accepted as reality.

You can be as flip as you like, Nick, but the fact is the dice are not just loaded against the objectors, but loaded in favour of the developers. We're now increasingly seeing objections carried despite the odds against them, itself testament to the power of a majority to overcome all government weighting of the process in favour of that vocal minority which shares the view of the minority-within-government that considers its view the only one worth listening to.

There is, as long as central government is wedded to ETSU-R97, I'm afraid.

It doesn't help ones case if every time a planning application is submitted for a single turbine, whether it be 10kW or 3MW, that there is a flurry of objections re; noise, it'll scare the horses etc but without any justification for those views. The planners will become snow blind and will be less inclined to take real, sensible and well thought through objections with the merit they deserve.
Perhaps thats why the Planning Inquiries won't take amateur opinions anymore - the vexatious have spoilt it for the rest of us.

Except that people who had previously SUPPORTED the development cannot be said to be predetermined to object to the development after the event, which of course would be a nonsense.

The distinction between objection and complaint is clear enough in this context.

In this context, objection is about opposing a development on the basis of the fear raised by the incomplete and, by virtue of their having been proved liars in the past, half-truths and evasions presented by the developers.

In this context, complaint is about voicing dissatisfaction, after the event, over a situation that is seriously affecting the quality of people's lives, a situation they were assured would not happen, indeed GUARANTEED would not happen.

Go back and read the OP.

Many more cases in my files.

Kessingland, south of Lowestoft... (From the Lowestoft Journal, Nov 11th 2011) "It is not surprising that people feel they were not informed about the turbine's potential impact, because the planning process was a travesty. It started with enlisting public support based on […] exaggerated benefits and understated impact."

And separately, a survey of local villages revealed "60% affected by the noise and 73% fear it will have a detrimental effect on the value of their homes." Note that that is 60% affected by the noise, not in fear of it.

On that point about devaluation of homes, which the British Wind Energy Association (recently renamed RenewableUK), the national lobbying body for the wind industry, denies in all their literature (as does the shameful whitewash of the CSE's 'Common concerns about wind power'), the evidence within the real world as represented by estate agents local to our proposed wind farm development is that the mere threat of a wind farm brings down property prices. As one of the biggest estate agents in this area lives in one of the villages affected he's likely to better informed than most, particularly as the two properties for sale within a kilometer of the site have had to be withdrawn from the market because viewers pulled out when they found out what could be happening. As an exercise, one couple whose property is the second closest to the site had a valuation done on their house and were told that it was a pointless exercise because "the influence of the proposed wind farm, both in terms of noise and visual impact, couldn't be assessed until the turbines went up, but that they probably won't help."

Windy, I understand what you’re saying by… “It doesn't help ones case if every time a planning application is submitted for a single turbine, whether it be 10kW or 3MW, that there is a flurry of objections re; noise, it'll scare the horses etc but without any justification for those views.”… but you’ve missed the point, which is that whether or not the objection is “justified” CANNOT be known until AFTER the event, when it’s too late to rectify IF FEARS PROVE TO HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED.

As given above, 60% isn’t 100%, but it’s a bloody big percentage in nuisance terms, regardless of the actual numbers the percentage represents; it is certainly statistically significant!

As to the “amateur” thing?

Well, it’s a matter of fact that, before the event, all ANYONE has to go on is prediction, in the developer’s case based either on direct measurement of actual conditions and extrapolation from that data, or extension of effect(s) based on previous similar (although by their nature not identical) situations regarding local topography within the immediate and surrounding environs of the turbines.

For the objectors, it can only ever mean always playing catch-up whilst trying to second-guess the developers, who will tactically keep close possession of all data in order to rebut a challenge, with claims that the data upon which that challenge is based (if the objectors can muster financial and technical resources equal to the professionals) cannot be used for comparison because it isn’t site-based, and they’ll do that despite their own anemometry data representing only a measurement at the most favourable location WITHIN the site AREA, which can be considerable.

And Dominic, the tortuous logic used to apply a central government dictum is exemplified here…

“94. However, it is acknowledged that there is no evidence to suggest that excess amplitude modulation will occur as a result of the proposal and there is no established method of accurately forecasting whether the phenomenon will occur or not. Against that background, SKWF points to Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23) and the advice in paragraph 6 that the precautionary principle should be invoked when: there is good reason to believe that harmful effects may occur; and the level of scientific uncertainty is such that the risk cannot be assessed with sufficient confidence to inform decision-making. That may be correct in terms of the areas that PPS23 is intended to address but PPS23 paragraph 1 is very clear that noise is covered by Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Noise (PPG24). Moreover, PPS22 makes it clear in paragraph 22 that ETSU-R-97 is to be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development. Neither of these documents suggests that conditions to address excess amplitude modulation are necessary. I recognise that PPS22 and ETSU-R-97 (and for that matter PPS23) predate more recent thinking on the issue of amplitude modulation but the Government has not seen fit to alter their advice in PPS22. Against that overall background, I see no good reason to apply the precautionary principle and attach conditions to address the possibility of excess amplitude modulation. In the light of Government guidance, such conditions would not meet the test of necessity set out in Circular 11/95.” (Appeal Ref: APP/Y2810/A/11/2154375 Land to the South of the A14 and North of Haselbech, Kelmarsh)

You’ll have noted: “However, it is acknowledged that there is no evidence to suggest that excess amplitude modulation will occur as a result of the proposal and there is no established method of accurately forecasting whether the phenomenon will occur or not.”

However, the keynote decision that highlights the shortcomings in noise evaluation is this one: Appeal Ref: APP/F2605/A/08/2089810 (ex 1174295) Near Wood Farm, Shipdham, Norfolk.

It’s worth a read.

(Apologies for the length of this post, but I felt it was only courteous to answer each of the previous posters in some detail.)

Posted By: SteamyTeaReally up to the objectors to up their game then, let them collect data, get it analysied, create models and then apply it to each and every new situation and prove that it is a nuisance, along with every other area they object to surely.

a) Have you any idea how expensive that is! Circa £30K per station to buy the kit alone.

b) There is no legal definion of statutory nusiance. So it would require a court case. The legal cost for the one in this thread ran to £millions and they still didn't establish a legal definition.

c) It's even difficult to prove a breach of the planning conditions. These are normally based on ETSU-R-97 which requires you to fiddle the results (aka use "LA90,10 min"). In effect that means you have to discard the noise peaks. It's like measuring the thump thump tump of your annoying neighbours hifi and then being told that the thumps don't count, only the noise levels in the gaps between them.

Actually your first problem with proving your case is persuading the wind farm owner to turn off the turbines so you can measure background noise levels at your house. Then you also need them to provide wind speed data (measured at 10m height on the wind farm) to correlate with your noise data. How hard do you think it is to get them to do that if they can avoid it?

Incidentally, I'm not proud of that caution because it demonstrates that even tolerance-personified me can lose control.

Apparently, so I later learnt from policemen friends, had I not admitted to giving him a thumping and pleaded not guilty, it would have gone to court and, on the balance of our respective characters and the fact that I could have claimed to have been in "fear for my safety", the defence of self-defence could have been used to good effect, probably resulting in our both being bound-over for 12 months.

The scrote concerned was a convicted burglar and known drug-user/small-time dealer with a history of violence, whose mother wouldn't hear a word said against him. I am in no way inferring that wind farm developers fit the same profile, except for being loved by their mothers.

Well, you might very well say that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Joiner - Sorry to hear about your past troubles and ,yes, Noise Nuisance can be intolerable but a case is not based on whether the noise is intolerable, it is based on whether the noise interferes with the "quiet enjoyment of ones property" (and it would take forever to describe what that is) But, If your neighbour's TV is on so loud that you cannot sit in your own house and read a book or have a conversation then that is a nuisance. If your neighbour has his TV on loud enough for you to hear but you can still watch your own TV or hold a conversation then you may still find it intolerable but it will/may not be a nuisance.

Unfortunately, some people (and Companies) are ignorant morons with no regard for others or their well-being and only think of themselves. Unfortunately, this means that the rest of us have to present evidence of transgressions, evidence that is robust because there are many liars who think nothing of committing contempt. It's called a justice system - if we didn't have it, the man with the gun wins!

And ,Yes, CW it is almost impossible for ordinary people to take noise measurements let alone noise measurements at 10m above ground level in different wind speeds. There is no commercially available microphone wind-shield that can allow meaningful noise measurements above 5m/s. All the standards for noise measurements (except for wind turbines) have a maximum wind speed of 5m/s (usually 3.5m/s) for those measurements to be considered meaningful. Local Authority Environmental Health Departments don't have the equipment for measuring noise from wind turbines -that's why they put the onus on turbine owners to prove compliance with noise conditions (if requested). Could you imagine the expense of doing that for a 2kW turbine - cost more than the turbine.
Surely, the onus should be on WIND FARM applicants to justify their assertions and planners to impose meaningful Conditions which can be measured by the same local authority. At present the planners seem more likely to ask a farmer who wants a Gaia to get an acoustic survey. The world has gone mad.

windy - you'll find that to succeed in a court of law for normal noise nuisance, the test is indeed whether the noise nuisance is intolerable. That actual word is used in the definition. It is the subjective nature of the word that makes the whole process of prosecuting a case to successful conclusion very hard indeed. It's why it takes councils so long to get a case to court and why they are often reluctant (as in our case) to take one on, because they are limited to office hours and reluctant to leave expensive monitoring equipment in people's property if they're the only ones complaining.

The legal expression "quiet enjoyment" actually has little to do with noise, more to do with your general right to enjoy your property without interference. In other words, you will be told that the presence of a noise that falls within the standard set down by ETSU-R97 isn't going to stop your quiet enjoyment of your property, you just have to learn to live with the noise!!

The problem is ETSU-R97 and the ridiculous amounts of money to be made from sites that are becoming increasingly marginal in terms of siting criteria AND the slewing of planning policy in favour of "renewables", which is presented as meaning primarily wind, as if alternatives don't exist, and as if all the arguments forwarded by the AECB are based on questionable research to be dismissed without being looked at, let alone considered as part of long-term policy objectives.

As for planning conditions, we're back to the argument about the potential for noise nuisance. You can put a condition on planning permission but with wind farms the onus is then on the complainant to convince the council, or court, that a breach has been committed and provide evidence to substantiate the claim. Just try and get a wind farm to shut down.

In the case of the Den Brook development, the 'Den Brook ruling' placed conditions on the development that challenged the developer's assertion that AM would not be an issue. It's simple enough, said the judge, you're claiming that there won't be any noise nuisance so how can you object to a condition that will only be called up if a noise nuisance happens? According to you that will never happen. Significantly, RES fumed over it, their project manager Rachel Ruffle brought to tears of frustration. Why? What was their problem?

RES's reaction was to commission an independent research study (I've mentioned this earlier) that found that the measurement of AM was flawed, that the research study showed that AM could be measured at sites where no turbines were in place, so yah boo sucks. Hmmm. The research was done by RES's own in-house acoustician.

Can I respectfully steer people towards Mike Stigwood's excellent study: 'MAS Study of article method versus ETSU-R-97', available for download from here...

http://www.masenv.co.uk/publications

Wish I could have avoided the 'intolerable' condition because it came up constantly when I was reminded that not even shift workers had protection. Also came upon the condition during my months of research into noise, eventually being given sight of the actual Act, together with case law, comments, and judgements, by the guy in the local council office who'd been "after" the bloke I was prosecuting for years. In fact I was getting tired of hearing the bloody word!

Ironically, the copper who took my statement over the assault had been having trouble with his neighbour's dog making a noise throughout the day when she was at work and he was trying to sleep after a night shift. He couldn't get anything done and was asking me about Section 82 when I talked him through our situation. The job of his neighbour? Policewoman! Different force though.

University of Adelaide was supposed to be running a research project on AM, but when I tried to find reference to it the other day all I got was the details of one of their profs who ran a course on the subject.

Jeremy earlier covered the basics of what's thought to be happening, hence the alternative to Amplitude Modulation, Aerodynamic Modulation. I've got a study somewhere in my files which uses the two terms interchangeably.

If a dog barks all day then it doesn't matter if you're a night worker as it would be a Stat. Nuisance anyway - as I said some councils are better than others.
I once served a notice for noise nuisance for sheep barring!! Only those sheep were in a suburban garden and they started barring at dawn (in response to human activity) and kept going all day (they had no grazing). Now, I like sheep - I farm them, but you have to determine what is reasonable. Sheep barring in the countryside is expected and may well enhance your enjoyment of that space. Keeping some sheep in the middle of a housing estate and allowing them to baaaaarr all day will be as unreasonable as allowing a dog to bark all day. Similarly erecting a sheep shed adjacent to your neighbour's house would be unreasonable especially if you had 200 acres of alternative sites.

Came across some interesting stuff here: http://betterplan.squarespace.com/2012-wind-turbine-noise-health/
and also http://www.acousticecology.org/wind/winddocs/health/Hanning%202010_Wind%20turbine%20noise%20sleep%20and%20health%20November%202010.pdf which is an earlier report by the same author of the BMJ paper.

The problem is that they raise the height of the tower but then use that extra height to extract more power from the wind, increasing the blade loading and hence the energy in the tip vortices. If they made the towers taller but kept the power levels at the same as those for a lower tower then the tip vortices would tend to dissipate. Being a business they want to maximise income, though, so they are always going to run at the highest blade loading they can get away with.

Blade loading is key to this, as it determines the pressure difference between the two faces of the blade. It is this pressure difference that energises the tip vortices as they spin off the end of the blades.

The snag is that reducing blade loading means reducing the output for a given size of turbine, so isn't a popular option.