Transcript Noise and other EH issues for wind turbines

Noise and other EH issues for wind turbines
• The presentation will look at the following:-
• The planning policy background to assessing wind
turbines currently- quick overview, then focusing on
issues relating directly to EH, noise, shadow flicker etc.
• The role of the EHO @ i) pre application stage, ii) during
the course of the application, iii) appeal stage.
• Finally questions, and comments from people in the
room with regard to their experiences and sharing advice
with each other.
The dry stuff
• Current guidance with regard to assessing planning
applications will be as follows:• Any saved local plan policies, or LDF policies, either
draft or completed. Policy 40 of the East Midlands
Regional Plan 2009. These two elements comprise ‘the
development plan’. ‘Decisions must be made in line with
the development plan unless other material
considerations indicate otherwise’. Policies in here could
be used to refuse a wind turbine proposal, ie,
countryside, residential amenity, listed buildings,
conservation areas etc.
• BUT may also have policies to support renewable
proposals. Policy 40 above is generally supportive of
renewable energy proposals, but is a bit vague about
what reasons you can refuse them on.
• Local Planning Authorities should give particular
• consideration to:
• landscape and visual impact, informed by local
Landscape Character Assessments;
• the effect on the natural and cultural environment
(including biodiversity, the integrity of designated nature
conservation sites of international importance, and
historic assets and their settings);
• the effect on the built environment (including noise
intrusion);
• the cumulative impact of wind generation projects,
including ‘intervisibility’;
• the contribution of wind generation projects to the
regional renewables target; and
• the contribution of wind generation projects to national
and international environmental objectives on climate
change.
• Material Considerations include national policy guidance,
which in the case of renewable energy is PPS22. This
states that:• Key targets of meeting 20% electricity from RE by
2020,set by law and binding.
• ‘Renewable energy developments should be capable of
being accommodated throughout England in locations
where the technology is viable and environmental,
economic, and social impacts can be addressed
satisfactorily’.
• The wider environmental and economic benefits of all
proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their
scale, are material considerations that should be given
significant weight in determining whether proposals
should be granted planning permission.
• Local planning authorities should ensure that renewable
energy developments have been located and designed
in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise
levels. Plans may include criteria that set out the
minimum separation distances between different types of
renewable energy projects and existing developments.
• The 1997 report by ETSU for the Department of Trade
and Industry should be used to assess and rate noise
from wind energy development(ETSU-R-97).
• There is a whole raft of other guidance- Energy White
Paper, Renewable Energy Strategy, Climate Change Act,
Planning and Energy Act, UK Low Carbon Transition
Plan- to assist in setting the wider scene to help decision
makers.
• In conclusion, noise and EH issues are just 1 of the
issues to be considered. However the good news for
planners is that these issues are easy to deal with and
resolve!
• Why is that?
• i) You are the Experts!
• ii) The guidance is very clear. ETSU-R-97 is THE
document to use and applicants should be using this as
their main focus to make sure that their turbine proposal
does not breach this guideline in relation to noise.
• Who has dealt with a turbine proposal in their area?
• For those who haven’t, or maybe for those who have,
how did we get to ETSU-R-97?
• What other document or guidance was used for wind
turbines before 1997?
• Previously it was the British Standard BS 4142- 1990.
• At the time of writing there was insufficient relevant experience of
noise from wind farms in the UK. Difficult to relate this and interpret
it for turbines issues.
• How many have read the Noise Working Group Report on turbine
noise?
• If not worth a read on the national archives -berr.gov.uk site.
Conclusions were a consensus view of those on the working group.
• Applicants should be aware that they need to meet guidance in
ETSU-R-97 and demonstrate to the LA that they have met this
criteria through their noise assessment studies.
• So pre-application advice is crucial. All of the main turbine proposers
should go through this process. Early discussions are vital to assess
where you want the background readings to be taken, and to assess
any other local circumstances or point out any sensitive sites. It will
also be crucial to set how sites are used to assess background
levels. Clearly the nearest residential properties are the main ones
to go for.
• Conclusions on noise- in this instance it was concluded that this was
a noisy environment, and the turbine met the standards. However in
another case at Queniborough which was considered to be a quiet
environment there was an issue in relation to the turbine noise within
the garden of a nearby property being over the 35dBA limit, and
ETSU-R-97 would be breached. In this instance the applicants
agreed that there would be a 2dBA reduction in sound power output
of the offending turbine and this could be controlled through
condition.
• You as an EHO should liaise closely with your planners to ensure
that they understand your concerns if any with the submitted
information in the ES or EIA and whether the methodology is correct
and complies with ETSU-R-97. If it does, then your recommendation
is likely to be that there is no reason to refuse the proposal based on
the submitted noise report.
• So in most respects if you get i) and ii) right, you will not end up in
an appeal scenario!
• Before dealing with conditions and appeals we will have a quick look
at shadow flicker.
• What is it? Considered to be the effect of a blade passing in front of
a window causing light to decrease inside the house. This would
happen either 2 or 3 times every blade rotation. a) can only happen
inside a building, b) is only measured for 10x the blade length, ie
blade width of 104m shadow flicker measured for 1040m from the
turbine in an arc south west to south east, see next slide.
• Although shadow flicker is a legitimate concern and one for which
planning permission could be refused, this is a matter which should
be easily sorted out before any refusal or appeal situation. The
applicants analysis will identify which properties are affected by it,
and should agree to put software into the turbine which prevents the
turbines operating when the phenomenon occurs. i.e. it will only
occur when a) it is sunny, and b) when it is windy. It is normally
worse in winter because the sun is lower.
• Often this can be controlled through condition and post operation
monitoring. Generally it something that your planner will need to
worry about rather than you! The only likely problems are when the
applicants may consider that a certain degree of SF is acceptable
per year, and then you will need to make a judgement asto how
much is bearable for an occupant, 20 hours a year, 50 hours a
years. Case study from Germany suggest that a certain amount can
be tolerated. No definitive levels however. What is an acceptable
limit?
• Conditions and appeal situations
• Noise conditions will be based on the studies done on
background noise levels at the different sites and can be
very lengthy and detailed. Often a candidate turbine is
chosen so further noise details are required in any event!
Find some appeal examples. APP/X2410/A/10/2134009,
APP/R1038/A/09/2107667, APP/F2415/A/09/2096369.
• Often noise will be an issue raised by interested parties but
agreed between the two main parties. These are legitimate
concerns but the Inspector is likely not to consider them
crucial to the decision.
• Is ETSU-R-97 perfect? No! but we have nothing else- yet.
• Turbine planning was in its infancy in the early 90’s, and
was only recommended as a consensus document. Most
turbines were only 25-50m high at the time. The current
ones are upto 140m!
• More research is likely regarding Amplitude Modulation, the
effects of Low Frequency noise, the effects on Epilepsy,
and whether or not the A weight banding should be used or
another type of banding.
• In a recent appeal decision in Harborough,
(APP/F2415/A/10/2134781); an Inspector refused an application
because she wasn’t satisfied about the technical data supplied
There were no details of sites used to validate the suppliers figures,
modelling calculations or acoustic data to back up predictions. In
absence of these it was not adequately demonstrated there would
not be harm to neighbours even though predicated levels would be
below ETSU guidelines!
• If an appeal is written reps you can give the advice to the Planner to
do the statement, but normally the appeal is likely to be either an
Informal Hearing, or a Public Inquiry. The former- a round table
discussion where the Inspector leads through the issues. You will be
asked for your opinions, back up/clarify what was said in the
application. The latter- cross examined by applicant normally
lawyer/barrister following your written ‘Proof of Evidence’ as a
expert. Inspector can chip in and seek clarification also.