Resource Documents: Scotland (26 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Author: Miller, Andrew
SHERIFF COURT OF GRAMPIAN, HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS AT ABERDEEN: 10 May 2018
The sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause, Finds the following facts admitted or proved, namely: …
10) The planning consent was subject to a number of conditions including planning condition 17, which was in the following terms:
At wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second, as measured or calculated at a height of 10 metres above ground level at the site, the noise level generated by the wind turbine cluster at any noise sensitive premises shall not exceed:
a) During night hours, (2300 – 0700), 35 dB LA 90 (10 minutes) or the night hours LA 90 (10 minutes) background noise level plus 5 dBA, whichever is the greater, and;
b) During daytime hours, (0700 – 2300), 38 dB LA 90 (10 minutes) or the daytime hours LA 90 (10 minutes) background noise level plus 5 dBA whichever is the greater.
Reason: In order to ensure that neighbouring residential properties are protected from unacceptably high levels of additional noise arising from the operation of the turbines.
11) The pursuers received no formal notification of the defender’s application for planning permission for the turbines and were unaware of the precise locations chosen for the turbines until construction commenced.
12) On becoming aware of the proposed location of the turbines the pursuers did not complain or attempt to intervene to prevent construction of the turbines.
13) The turbines were constructed during 2011 and commissioned on 7 November 2011.
14) The turbines were manufactured by Enercon. They are each approximately 80 metres in height to blade tip. …
25) The nearest turbine to East Mains of Crichie (‘turbine 1’) is situated approximately 477 yards (436 metres) northeast of the dwellinghouse there, the base of the turbine being no more than 8 metres higher than the ground level of the dwellinghouse. 26) The turbines were operated for the first time on 7 November 2011, when they were tested at high speed (‘the high speed test’). On that occasion Mrs Milne was in the grounds of her property at East Mains of Crichie, exercising one of her horses. Mr Milne was working offshore. No prior notice had been given to Mrs Milne of the high speed test.
27) During the high speed test the blades of turbine 1 were rotated at high speed, which generated a loud noise for approximately a minute, after which a braking system was applied, which generated a different, very loud noise similar in character to the noise of a jet aircraft. The noise emitted by the turbines during this high speed test was frightening to Mrs Milne and to her horse, which bolted.
28) A further high speed test of turbine 1 was carried out later on 7 November 2011, with the same results. The noise emitted during the second test was again frightening to Mrs Milne and to her horse.
29) On 8 November 2011 Mrs Milne approached a member of Enercon staff who was working in the vicinity of turbine 1 and complained about the noise emitted by the turbines during the high speed test the previous day. As a result Mrs Milne has received prior notice from Enercon of all subsequent high speed tests of the turbines, although on some occasions the period of notice has been as short as 30 minutes.
30) Similar high speed testing of the each of the turbines, with similar results in terms of the volume and character of the noise emitted, has been conducted on three or four occasions each year since the first such test on 7 November 2011. Each testing period lasts around half a day.
31) After the first high speed test of the turbines on 7 November 2011 the turbines commenced routine operation under wind power.
32) Under routine operation the turbines emit noise of a volume and character which is disturbing to Mr and Mrs Milne.
33) The volume of the noise emitted by the turbines is frequently loud and intrusive to Mr and Mrs Milne’s domestic routines and activities. The volume of the noise emitted by the turbines can unexpectedly drop and, having dropped, can unexpectedly resume at an intrusive level. The noise emitted by the turbines is often clearly audible within the grounds of the pursuers’ property and is sometimes audible within their house even with the double glazed windows closed.
34) The character of the noise emitted by the turbines varies from high frequency rhythmic ‘blade swish’ corresponding to the rotation of the blades to continuous lower frequency noise. The noise often pulses in time with the rotation of the turbine blades. The frequency of the pulses increases with the strength of the wind and hence the speed of rotation. Gusts of wind can result in sudden, sharp, particularly loud pulses of noise. The noise can be maintained at an intrusive level for long periods of time, extending to days at a time, depending on the wind conditions.
35) The volume and character of the noise emitted by the turbines changes with the strength of the wind.
36) The turbines emit noise of the volume and character described in the preceding findings in fact constantly except when the wind drops to a level at which the turbine blades do not rotate, or only rotate slowly.
37) The noise emitted by the turbines has been disturbing to Mrs Milne. She became more upset and emotional as time went on due to the impact of the noise from the turbines on her peace of mind and quality of life. She experienced difficulty concentrating and became irritable and unable to relax as a result of the volume and character of the noise emitted by the turbines.
38) From approximately 1991 until January 2017 Mr Milne worked offshore in the oil industry on a four week on/ four week off rotation. This limited his exposure to the noise emitted by the turbines during the period after they were commissioned in November 2011, although during his periods onshore Mr Milne has experienced the same general level of intrusion from the noise emitted by the turbines as Mrs Milne.
39) Until February 2017 Mrs Milne spent a significant proportion of her time at East Mains of Crichie outdoors exercising, riding or tending to her horses. The noise emitted by the turbines has been particularly intrusive in relation to her domestic routines and quality of life whilst she has been undertaking these activities.
40) As a result of the noise emitted by the turbines Mrs Milne has been unable to sleep in the master bedroom of the house at East Mains of Crichie since approximately November 2012. Since then she has had to sleep in a bedroom at the opposite side of the house.
41) Mr Milne’s sleeping arrangements have also been affected by the noise emitted by the turbines. He has refused to move to a different bedroom and continues to sleep in the master bedroom when he is at East Mains of Crichie. However he is only able to sleep in that bedroom with the window closed, in contrast to his longstanding practice of sleeping with his bedroom window open.
42) One component of the noise emitted by the turbines is amplitude modulation (‘AM’), a phenomenon whereby the level of noise generated by the passing of the turbine blades through the air fluctuates periodically over time.
43) Different forms of AM are associated with the operation of wind turbines. One form (normal AM (‘NAM’)) is associated with the high-frequency ‘blade swish’ arising from the rotation of the turbine blades. Other forms of AM (‘other AM (‘OAM’)) associated with wind turbines are less well understood but include a form of OAM which results from the turbine blades coming into contact with the surrounding air at too flat an angle, resulting in the generation of low-frequency ‘thumping’ noises at locations distant from the turbine. Scientific knowledge in relation to AM as it pertains to the operation of wind turbines is a developing field.
44) AM is present within the noise emitted by the turbines situated at West Knock Farm.
45) In 2012 Mrs Milne began to keep diary entries describing the noise emitted by the turbines. She maintained that practice each year until the end of 2016.
46) Mrs Milne wrote to Aberdeenshire Council Environmental Health Department on 7 January 2012 expressing her concerns about the noise emitted by the turbines. That letter made reference to 11 almost constant noise pollution” from the turbines and complained about the 11 acoustic character” of the turbine noise as well as its volume. …
50) In response to the concerns expressed by Mrs Milne about the noise emitted by the turbines, Aberdeenshire Council served an Abatement Notice on the defender on 11 December 2013 under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Proceedings at Peterhead Sheriff Court, initiated by the defender, followed. Those proceedings are presently sisted.
51) In November 2016 Mr Milne took up a temporary assignment with his employer based onshore in Surrey. He commenced work in Surrey in January 2017. His assignment there is due to come to an end in November 2018.
52) Mrs Milne chose to relocate with her horses to Surrey in February 2017 in order to get away from the noise emitted by the turbines. She presently lives with Mr Milne in Surrey and her horses are stabled near to the rented property where they currently live.
53) Mr and Mrs Milne expect to return to live at East Mains of Crichie when Mr Milne’s assignment in Surrey comes to an end.
54) Mrs Milne’s state of mind and emotional wellbeing have improved since she moved to Surrey. That improvement is due to the fact that, whilst resident in Surrey, she is not subject to the noise emitted by the turbines.
55) Solicitors acting for the pursuers served a notice on the defender on or about 14 January 2017 under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That notice asserted that the frequency, character, duration and repetition of the noise emitted by the turbines gave rise to a statutory nuisance within the meaning of that Act.
56) As at Sunday 11 February 2018, when Mr and Mrs Milne returned to East Mains of Crichie in order to attend the proof in these proceedings, there was no abatement of the volume or character of the noise emitted by the turbines which was noticeable to them.
57) The volume of the noise emitted by the turbines has always complied with the limits imposed by planning condition 17.
58) Planning condition 17 relates only to the volume and not to the character of the noise emitted by the turbines.
Findings in Fact and Law
1) The combined effect of the volume and character of the noise emitted by the turbines situated on the defender’s land at West Knock Farm would not be tolerated by a reasonable person and amounts to a nuisance at common law.
2) The combined effect of the volume and character of the noise emitted by the turbines situated on the defender’s land at West Knock Farm amounts to a statutory nuisance within the meaning of section 79(1)(g) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
3) The pursuers are persons aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance for the purposes of section 82(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as a result of the combined effect of the volume and character of the noise emitted by the turbines situated on the defender’s land at West Knock Farm. …
Download original document: “SCT-Milnes-v-Stuartfield-Windpower-Judgment”
Author: Gordon, David
1. In the course of public debate on contentious topics, especially when large sums of money and politics are involved, ‘evidence’ is often collateral damage. Statistics are more often than not used, as the old joke has it, as a drunk uses a lamp-post: for support not for illumination.
2. This paper is the product of frustration and dismay at the misuse of evidence, particularly statistical evidence, by a powerful pro-wind lobby to create a confused, unbalanced and complacent picture of the possible impact of the growth of onshore wind electricity generation in Scotland on tourism and recreation, particularly mountainlinked tourism and recreation. Hyperbole by opponents of wind energy in the face of this well-organised and well-connected lobby is understandable, but equally fails to illuminate.
3. Proponents of wind farms would have us believe that tourism impacts are negligible. Opponents would have us believe that the destruction of tourism in Scotland is nigh. Neither position is at all tenable. The real position is much more subtle and complex. That is an uncomfortable message for all sides in a polarised debate.
4. This paper is an independently-written attempt to assess, as objectively as possible, what is really known about the possible impact of wind farms upon mountain-linked tourism and recreation within Scotland. This is set in the context of tourism in general, not least because there is no data specifically on mountaineering other than that produced by Mountaineering Scotland itself. It is foregrounded by a brief setting out of my personal and Mountaineering Scotland’s positions so that readers can judge whether these have biased my interpretation of the available evidence.
The key findings are:
5. There is no simple answer to the question of whether wind farms affect tourism (or recreation). It depends on
- the characteristics of the proposed development, both individually and as part of regional and national patterns;
- the nature of the local tourism offer and market, and that of competitors; and
- the characteristics of local tourists.
6. The hypothesis that best fits the available, far from perfect, data is that wind farms do have an effect on tourism but the effect is experienced predominantly in areas where large built structures are dissonant with expectations of desired attributes such as wildness or panoramic natural vistas, and where a high proportion of visitors come from the 25% of tourists in Scotland who are particularly drawn by the quality of upland and natural landscapes, with mountaineering visitors prominent amongst these. In much of Scotland, and for most tourists, wind farms are no serious threat to tourism: the nature of the local tourism offer, and good siting of wind farms, mean they can co-exist.
7. The main adverse effect of wind farms on tourism, thus far, is displacement within Scotland from areas perceived as ‘spoilt’ to areas seen as still retaining the desired sense of naturalness. The GCU Moffat Centre study, relied upon by developers and the Scottish Government, estimated the likely level of tourism displacement across Scotland by wind farms to be around 1-2%. The estimates in the present paper range up to 5%. This difference is modest given the five-fold increase in onshore wind farm capacity in Scotland between the data points for the two studies (2007 & 2015).
8. Tourism in Scotland is not thriving, with standard indicators of tourism volume in 2016, the latest available consistent data, still below pre-2008 levels. Positive media coverage of a ‘thriving’ tourism sector, typically based on statistically selective press releases, is seldom supported by the full figures. In a competitive world, it is foolish to put at risk any segment of Scotland’s tourism market.
9. Five per cent of Scottish tourism spend would be £250m. This is well within the range of fluctuation seen in national tourist spend from year to year and therefore undetectable, even if it was all lost to Scotland and not simply displaced within Scotland. Since the true figure could well be smaller, attempting to find evidence in national or regional tourism statistics of the effect of any particular change is almost certainly futile. It is statistically illiterate to think the lack of detection of a modest effect in volatile regional and national tourism statistics is evidence of no effect.
10. But any effect of wind farms will be much less visible in routine statistics because the income is not lost to the national tourism economy but displaced and relocated within Scotland. Even the lowest level estimated – 1% or £35m – would have a marked impact if concentrated in a limited number of places. It is still doubtful if such an effect could be detected in routine statistics since much tourism economic activity does not feature in statistics (e.g. many tourism business are below the VAT registration level) and it is such activity that might be most likely to be affected by a local drop in visitors.
11. BiGGAR Economics has attempted to look at impact in the vicinity of a general cohort of wind farms and has found no effect. Setting aside several methodological concerns about this study, the sample included only one wind farm in an area where a tourism effect would be predicted based on the conclusions of the present paper. The postconstruction outcome data for this wind farm was confounded by continuing wind farm construction locally, making it impossible to separate any tourism effect from the effect of construction worker accommodation and expenditure.
12. The evidence on wind farms and tourism in Scotland relates to the present pattern of development consented under a rigorous planning system. Mountaineering Scotland does not agree with all planning decisions, but the process is certainly exacting. This makes it difficult to assess impact on mountaineering or wild land tourism empirically because few wind farms that might be expected to have an adverse effect have been consented and most are not yet built. Insofar as Mountaineering Scotland objections can be used to identify planning applications in areas important for mountaineering and related tourism, there have been only eight wind farm consents in such areas and only two were operational by 2016. When wind farms are refused planning permission in mountain or wild land areas the reasons given are typically landscape and visual, but an unrecognised side-effect has been to limit potential for tourism impacts.
13. Despite the clearly inadequate nature of the present evidence base on wind farms and tourism, the Scottish Government remains content with reviews of old research with almost no primary research later than 2008, despite the substantially changed context. That the government and its agencies have little interest in commissioning research to better define and understand the interaction between specific segments of the tourism market and wind farms is to be regretted and serves the public interest poorly.
14. Strategic and local planning decisions on the extent and pattern of wind farm development in Scotland should take better account of the potential for adverse impact in areas important for landscape-dependent tourism, and safeguard sufficient such areas in each part of Scotland. It is not enough to protect only those landscapes within the small number of National Parks and National Scenic Areas.
Published by Mountaineering Scotland, November 2017
Download original document: “Wind farms and tourism in Scotland: A review with a focus on mountaineering and landscape”
Author: Ward, Lyndsey
The sun always seemed to shine in Giggly Glen and the people were always smiling.
It was a very happy to place to live.
But then something happened that made the people very sad.
This is the tale of Tiny the Turbine who lived in Giggly Glen, on a pretty little farm that was rented by Mr Barley from the rich landowner, Sir Snatchit.
Tiny really was tiny. No-one could see or hear him. He had sat on the roof of the cowshed for many years and was completely hidden by the big trees of Giggly Glen Forest. Hardly anyone knew he was there.
Mr Barley used him in the winter to charge a little battery to light his cowshed where he kept his cows in the cold dark months. Tiny could just about do that but nothing else and spent the summer sunbathing and watching the wildlife all
around him. When the wind didn’t blow Mr Barley had to use a torch to tend his animals.
Mr Barley had a son, Ally. He was Tiny’s friend and would often go and talk to Tiny. Ally didn’t have many friends but Tiny was always there to listen when he had problems at school.
One day a wind developer called Mr McWeasel went to see Sir Snatchit.
He said because Sir Snatchit already had Tiny on his land he could get many more turbines, much much bigger ones. It would be called an extension and the man from the Government would say yes.
Mr McWeasel said if he could have permission to build the other turbines he could make Tiny much bigger and make him work harder and bring in lots more money from the Government. They would both be very rich.
He also said he would give the villagers a very small bit of that money the turbines made. It was the same money that the villagers had to pay to the Government in the first place. So really he was just giving the people their own money back. Mr McWeasel didn’t tell anyone that though.
Mr Barley didn’t want Tiny made bigger. Tiny did all he needed and didn’t bother anyone. The big turbines could be a problem for him and his family as they would be very close to their little house.
But because Sir Snatchit owned all the land and said yes to Mr McWeasel, the building of the turbines began.
Tiny was shocked when he saw Mr McWeasel’s men at work. They ripped up all the ground with big diggers, they cut down the trees in Giggly Glen Forest and poured big lorry loads of concrete all over the land. The wild animals ran away and the river turned a dirty brown colour and then … the birds stopped singing, the sun stopped shining and dark clouds spread across the sky.
Mr Barley went to see what was happening and sadly shook his head when he saw the mess and destruction made by Mr McWeasel’s men.
There were ten huge turbines. Each one taller than ten big trees standing on top of one another.
The biggest turbine was Trasher – Tiny’s very distant cousin – so named because he destroyed everything around him wherever he went.
Trasher was a bully. He was the ringleader of the other turbines. They laughed and jeered at Tiny because he was so tiny and rarely worked even though he did all Mr Barley wanted.
Mr McWeasel went to see Tiny. “You are too small. You don’t earn any money. I will order some parts and make you bigger and you will work harder for me.”
But then something else happened that really upset Tiny. His friends the birds were being hit by the blades of the big turbines. He told Mr McWeasel that he didn’t want to get any bigger and if he made him then he would refuse to work. He would go on strike and his blades would never move. He would not harm the birds.
Mr McWeasel was furious and ordered Tiny off Sir Snatchit’s land. “No-one disobeys me,” he said. Tiny looked to the other turbines for help but they just all stood and laughed at him.
“Go away,” shouted Trasher. “There is no place for someone like you here. You are not even big enough to boil a kettle! We need to earn money for Sir Snatchit and Mr McWeasel and if the birds get in the way then that is their hard luck.”
So Tiny left and was found by Ally, sitting crying on one of the trees cut down by Mr McWeasel’s men.
He listened to Tiny’s sadness about the birds and having to leave his home on the cowshed roof, just like Tiny had listened to him so many times when he had been sad.
Then he told Tiny what was happening to his family because of the turbines. He told him how his mother and father couldn’t sleep because of all the noise from Trasher and his friends. His father had crashed his tractor into the hen house the other day when he was so tired and had fallen asleep at the wheel.
Ally said he couldn’t sleep either and sometimes felt scared when he heard the thumping and swooshing of the turbine blades in the night.
It felt like the whole house was vibrating. The only time they got any peace from the awful noise was when the wind wasn’t blowing and the monster turbines weren’t turning. His mother often complained of headaches and never smiled any more. The chickens had stopped laying their eggs since the turbines came. Ross the sheep dog had starting hiding in the barn and wouldn’t come out and work the sheep.
Tiny jumped up! “This is not right,” he said. “We must stop it. Let’s go to the village and tell the people what is happening here.”
The village hall was crowded. People were shouting and angry.
“I can’t sleep and my visitors can’t sleep and now they won’t come back. How can I earn any money?” said Mrs Bumbly from Giggly Glen’s Guest House.
“My children can’t do their homework with that terrible din going on,” said Mr MacMillan from the bakery.
“The pupils can’t concentrate on their lessons any more with the never-ending noise,” said the Headmaster of the local school, Mr Knowall.
“My wife feels poorly all the time now. She says she has buzzing in her ears that never stops – not even when the turbines do,” said PC Doyle.
“I saw some bits break off one of the turbines – they flew a long way. They nearly hit me,” said Stan the Handyman.
“What if they caught fire?” asked the Fire Chief. “We couldn’t put a fire out so high up in the air.”
“My cat has left home and I have terrible headaches and feel ill every day,” said Mrs Miggins from the Post Office.
“I would sell my home and move away from Giggly Glen and those horrible turbines, but nobody will buy my house,” said Mr Donald.
“I saw the helicopter from the coastguard fly too close to the turbines when it was misty. There could be a nasty accident,” said Mr Foggarty.
“Enough is enough,” shouted Mr Barley. “We cannot live like this!
Mr McWeasel and his monsters cannot be allowed to ruin our lives and make us sick. Let’s send them away from Giggly Glen.”
“But how?” cried the villagers. “They are so big and frightening and dangerous for us to be near.”
Tiny turned to Ally and said, “Take the villagers to the turbines and I will meet you there.”
And so all the villagers, led by the now brave and confident Ally, marched up to Sir Snatchit’s land where they were met by Mr McWeasel standing in front of Trasher and the other turbines.
“We are here to tell you to go. You are making us ill. Living in Giggly Glen has become a nightmare since you arrived,” Ally shouted up to them.
“So what?” snarled Mr McWeasel. “What are you going to do about it, little boy?”
Trasher and the other turbines sneered and laughed at him.
The villagers were scared but then Ally pointed to the lane and yelled, “Look who’s with Tiny.”
There was Tiny sitting on top of his dear old friend Tuska the retired tank, chugging towards the turbines.
That was enough for Mr McWeasel. “Pack up lads we are off; we hated Giggly Glen anyway; not enough wind and not enough money.”
With that, Mr McWeasel, Trasher and his terrible friends were seen running off into the distance and as they did the clouds parted, the sun shone, the birds started singing and the deer and the rabbits came back. The hens started clucking as they looked for somewhere to lay their eggs and Ross the sheep dog came out from the barn wagging his tail.
Tiny looked around, smiled at all the happy villagers, winked at his little friend Ally and went back to the cowshed roof where he settled down for an afternoon snooze in the sunshine.
Peace and happiness had returned to Giggly Glen.
Written by Lyndsey Ward, with Cartoons by Josh
Download original document: “Tiny the Turbine”
Tiny the Turbine is available as a PDF to download and you may print for personal use or email as you wish and, if you like what we have done or wish to use it in your own campaigning, please make a donation on Josh’s website www.cartoonsbyjosh.co.uk/tiny-the-turbine to help fund this and possible future projects. All contributions, large or small, are gratefully accepted and appreciated.
See also: Subsidy Sam the Turbine
Author: Smith, Jo; Nayak, Dali Rani; and Smith, Pete
- Future wind farms located on undegraded peats will not reduce carbon emissions.
- This is due to projected changes in fossil fuels used to generate electricity.
- Future policy should avoid constructing wind farms on undegraded peats.
Onshore wind energy is a key component of the renewable energies used by governments to reduce carbon emissions from electricity production, but will carbon emissions be reduced when wind farms are located on carbon-rich peatands? Wind farms are often located in uplands because most are of low agricultural value, are distant from residential areas, and are windy. Many UK uplands are peatlands, with layers of accumulated peat that represent a large stock of soil carbon. When peatlands are drained for construction there is a higher risk of net carbon loss than for mineral soils. Previous work suggests that wind farms sited on peatlands can reduce net carbon emissions if strictly managed for maximum retention of carbon. Here we show that, whereas in 2010, most sites had potential to provide net carbon savings, by 2040 most sites will not reduce carbon emissions even with careful management. This is due to projected changes in the proportion of fossil fuels used to generate electricity. The results suggest future policy should avoid constructing wind farms on undegraded peatlands unless drainage of peat is minimal and the volume excavated in foundations can be significantly reduced compared to energy output.
Jo Smith, Dali Rani Nayak, Pete Smith
Institute of Biological & Environmental Science, University of Aberdeen
Energy Policy Volume 66, March 2014, Pages 585-591