Ted, So the 10degreesC etc is when to take the standardised measurements but that wouldn't stop you taking them at other times to illustrate a non-compliance or nuisance. Anyway, they would have to be bit more specific about things, is that at ground level, hub height or what?
The noise conditions for my Gaia are meaningless garbage so if they can't get things right for a simple thing like that.........even when I gave them site specific background noise data they still just put a standard ESTU condition on.
Planning Dept.s are notorious for not enforcing conditions especially when big players are concerned, they might take a different view of enforcement on little people ( like Emma and her PV for eg.). As I've said, some Councils are better than others but it seems they are all dumming down.

If anyone is interested in the 'official' links for the planning appeal and court cases I referred to earlier I have managed to track them down:

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal - APP/R6830/A/08/2074921
http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.1441681&NAME=/Decision%202074921.pdf

2. High Court Judgment - [2010] EWHC 1106 (Admin)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1106.html

3. Court of Appeal Judgment - [2010] EWCA Civ 1635
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1635.html

Latest is that the developers are asking for a standard condition in the consent to ensure that they are protected from prosecution for any statutory nuisance they may commit. Quite how this stands up under EC environmental legislation remains to be seen.

Hardly surprising that many people are turning against wind-farm developers with these sort of attitudes.

Planning Conditions would be unlawful, or at least completely unenforceable, if they gave immunity from Stat. Nuisance and anyway the Planning Authority is not the enforcing authority for stat. nuisance. You'd also need to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to give wind far developer immunity .. it's all complete BS.

Ted, and as for the CCC LDP thing about 1.5km, how idiotic. An ill conceived blanket policy which will penalise local businesses and farmers interested in the micro&small wind sector and will do nothing to address problems from the TAN8 big wind farms.

Interesting video here..

http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/9425

The situation is a little different from normal planning as the project is covered by the Planning Act 2008 which has specific provisions on statutory nuisance. The development will be governed by a Statutory Instrument with embedded conditions (including a condition that ETSU-R-97 methodology be used for noise monitoring) rather than normal planning permission. A legal minefield.

Yes, it's for NSIPs - Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, and applies to wind-farms over 50MW.

I'm not sure, but s152 of the Planning Act 2008 does allow for compensation under certain circumstances. Blood out of a stone I suspect.

CW - yes that video is interesting, seems near neighbours do get some payments/compensation - could this be like s152 planning stuff in the UK or seems more likely a locally negotiated contract with the developers? Either way doesn't sound very encouraging.

CW thanks for the video link well worth watching, even if a little depressing. I do wonder if in the UK such contracts/agreements with gagging clauses stopping near by residents complaining by paying them would be legal (I am thinking whistle blowing). These massive wind farms do seem to need a lot more careful thought regarding siting. In the text below the video is the following:

On June 29, 2011, the Waubra Foundation in Australia issued an explicit cautionary notice to officials worldwide responsible for wind turbine siting decisions. The Foundation’s field research identified symptoms of people not only living, but working or visiting within 10 kilometers or turbines. In addition to symptoms listed above, the list includes depression and post traumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation, heart attacks and more at the Toora and Waubra wind projects in Australia, where over 20 familiies have abandoned their homes due to ill health since turbines began operations.

No idea how independent the Waubra Foundation is but a 10 kilometer exclusion round wind farms seems a bit excessive (and would I guess be pretty much unworkable in the UK)

I've also heard that farmers who agree to having a wind farm on their land are routinely required to sign a contract that says they won't say anything bad about the wind farm.

I'm not convinced that noise and vibration levels are high enough to cause conventional VAD. I suspect the effect is more subtle and to do with the way the ear works...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20561575

Abstract

Infrasonic sounds are generated internally in the body (by respiration, heartbeat, coughing, etc) and by external sources, such as air conditioning systems, inside vehicles, some industrial processes and, now becoming increasingly prevalent, wind turbines. It is widely assumed that infrasound presented at an amplitude below what is audible has no influence on the ear. In this review, we consider possible ways that low frequency sounds, at levels that may or may not be heard, could influence the function of the ear. The inner ear has elaborate mechanisms to attenuate low frequency sound components before they are transmitted to the brain. The auditory portion of the ear, the cochlea, has two types of sensory cells, inner hair cells (IHC) and outer hair cells (OHC), of which the IHC are coupled to the afferent fibers that transmit "hearing" to the brain. The sensory stereocilia ("hairs") on the IHC are "fluid coupled" to mechanical stimuli, so their responses depend on stimulus velocity and their sensitivity decreases as sound frequency is lowered. In contrast, the OHC are directly coupled to mechanical stimuli, so their input remains greater than for IHC at low frequencies. At very low frequencies the OHC are stimulated by sounds at levels below those that are heard. Although the hair cells in other sensory structures such as the saccule may be tuned to infrasonic frequencies, auditory stimulus coupling to these structures is inefficient so that they are unlikely to be influenced by airborne infrasound. Structures that are involved in endolymph volume regulation are also known to be influenced by infrasound, but their sensitivity is also thought to be low. There are, however, abnormal states in which the ear becomes hypersensitive to infrasound. In most cases, the inner ear's responses to infrasound can be considered normal, but they could be associated with unfamiliar sensations or subtle changes in physiology. This raises the possibility that exposure to the infrasound component of wind turbine noise could influence the physiology of the ear.

Jeez. But why the silence (no pun intended)? Why has this stuff not appeared at every planning Inquiry where noise has been raised as a potential issue?

The cost of having the expert attend the appeal hearing?

Better to spend your limited budget on a landscape or heritage expert?

Under the Noise Act 1996 (which was brought in to cover different circumstances to wind turbine noise) it is expressly left up to the EHO to decide. But to bring a prosecution (for failure to comply with an enforcement notice) then the noise has to be measured by an approved device and shown that it exceeds a permitted level as laid down by the SoS.

I suspect, that for pragmatic reasons, EHOs would implement similar conditions in similar circumstances.