Second turbine turned down in Shipdham
More turbines have been refused at appeal in Norfolk. Again, it appears deficiencies in official ETSU impact guidance are to blame.
The new Shipdham turbines appeal decision highlights the difficulties of using conditions to try to correct noise problems.
ETSU guidelines have been heavily criticised in the past as being unsuitable for modern turbines which can exceed 150m in height. Wind conditions at those heights bear little relation to wind at the standard 10m height.
Two years ago wind expert Dick Bowdler quit a working party looking at the issue saying that deficiencies in ETSU would cause future problems. At the time he said: “The irony is that if the original ETSU noise working group had been less influenced by developers, then the developers would have had a much easier time now than they do.”
Back to Shipdham, Ecotricity’s wind farm was initially refused by Breckland Council and has been in and out of the courts. Once again Ecotricity was advised by Hayes McKenzie. The judgement highlighted issues such as:
- The turbines were too close to dwellings;
- Stable atmospheric conditions could lead to high wind shear factors, thereby making it difficult to interpret background and predicted noise against the ETSU-R-97 guidance;
- The frequent changes in wind shear, and the uncertainties about the measures that would be put in place to react to such changes;
- The tranquillity of “this very quiet area” of countryside;
- The shortcomings of Ecotricity’s measurements of background noise on which its noise predictions were made (as with the Dover decision highlighted above, criticisms were made of gathering of background noise data);
- Ecotricity’s acknowledgement that the ETSU noise limits would be exceeded for 7% of the daytime (in fact the consultant had to admit that it had got the decimal point in the wrong place having initially claimed it would be 0.7% of the time!);
- The tightness of the margins by which noise limits would be met at other times;
- Protesters’predictions that the noise of the turbines would be at least 5dB over the background noise for between 31% and 34% of the time, and at least 10dBA above background noise for between 14% and 16% of the time;
- Ecotricity’s reliance on conditions to make its scheme acceptable, coupled with the shortcomings of those conditions and the frequency with which they would be triggered.
Noise Bulletin, April 2009
Tags: Wind power, Wind energy, Noise
Some possibly related stories:
The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.
