... ...... ......... BURGES SALMON Mr Chris Banks Banks Solutions 21 Glendale Close Horsham West Sussex RH124GR One Glass Wharf Bristol BS2 OZX Tel: +44 (0)117 939 2000 Fax: +44 (0)117 902 4400 [email protected]www.burges-salmon.com DX 7829 Bristol Also via email Our ret: SS19/ED04/31495.110/SUTHE Direct Line: +44 (0)117 307 6964 [email protected]Your ret: 1 August 2013 Dear Chris Mid-Wales Conjoined Inquiry Our Client: Vattenfall Please see attached 4 hard copies of Vattenfall's proof on noise for Session 1 of the Inquiry. Vattenfall's appointed consultants Amec will separately be sending you hard and electronic copies of Vattenfall's landscape proof, cultural heritage proof and hydrology written statement. Please let me know if you have any queries. Yours sincerely "f'. 't. .). A",'c~vr Sarah Sutherland Associate WORK\19157445\v.1 Also at: 6 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF Tel: +44(0)2076851200 Fax: +44(0)20 7980 4966 8urges Salmon LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (LLP number OC307212) and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authonty. A list of the members. all of whom are solicitors, may be inspected at our registered office: One Glass Whart, Bristol, BS2 OZX. r"', INVESTORS \.J IN PEOPLE
Transcript
.........
......... BURGESSALMON
Mr Chris BanksBanks Solutions21 Glendale CloseHorshamWest SussexRH124GR
Please see attached 4 hard copies of Vattenfall's proof on noise for Session 1 of the Inquiry. Vattenfall'sappointed consultants Amec will separately be sending you hard and electronic copies of Vattenfall'slandscape proof, cultural heritage proof and hydrology written statement.
Please let me know if you have any queries.
Yours sincerely
"f'. 't. .). A",'c~vr
Sarah SutherlandAssociate
WORK\19157445\v.1
Also at: 6 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BFTel: +44(0)2076851200 Fax: +44(0)20 7980 4966
8urges Salmon LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (LLP number OC307212) and is authorised and regulated by the SolicitorsRegulation Authonty. A list of the members. all of whom are solicitors, may be inspected at our registered office: One Glass Whart, Bristol, BS2 OZX.
r"', INVESTORS\.J IN PEOPLE
Electricity Act 1989 (Sections 36,37,62(3) & Schedule 8)Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Section 90)
and The Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure)
(England and Wales) Rules 2007
Application by Vattenfall, dated 30 November 2007 for consent
under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct and
operate a 59.5MW wind turbine generating station in Powys, Mid
Wales ('L1anbadarn Fynydd')
Proof of Evidence
Darran Humpheson, BSc(Hons) MSc, MIOA
In relation to:
Noise and Health
On behalf of Vattenfall
August 2013
Llanbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm - Humpheson (Noise)
Table of Contents
1 Qualifications and Experience .........................................................................1
2 Purpose and Scope of Evidence......................................................................1
3 2007 ES and 2013 SEI .......................................................................................2
4 L1anbadarn Fynydd - Assessment of Wind Farm Noise ................................2
1.1 My name is Darran Humpheson. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree with Honours in AppliedPhysics, a Master of Science degree in Environmental Acoustics and am a corporate memberof the Institute of Acoustics.
1.2 I have over 20 years research and project experience in acoustics, covering transport,industrial, commercial and residential developments, recreation, and building acoustics. Prior toentering consultancy in 2002, I was head of the Royal Air Force's Noise and Vibration Division.
1.3 I have been involved with the preparation of noise and vibration aspects of over 45 onshorewind farm Environmental Assessments across England, Scotland and Wales. I have presentedevidence before at Inquiry on matters of wind farm noise.
1.4 My involvement with the L1anbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm development started in October 2012
when I was instructed by Vattenfall to act as their expert witness on noise related matters. I wasresponsible for the preparation of the February 2013 noise chapter of the SupplementaryEnvironmental Information (SEI) (ADIVATT/018) and the drafting of noise conditions which havebeen submitted to Powys County Council (Powys CC).
1 .5 My evidence is given on behalf of Vattenfall and considers the noise aspects of the proposedwind farm scheme and the cumulative impact of other schemes.
2 Purpose and Scope of Evidence
2.1 The L1anbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm Application was considered at a cabinet meeting wherePowys CC resolved to object to the planning permission. Noise was not one of the reasons forrefusaL. Both construction noise and operational noise were considered acceptable by PowysCC subject to appropriate planning conditions.
2.2 A noise Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) (VATT/NOISE/SOCG/SSA-C) has been agreed
between Vattenfall and Powys CC. The Statement includes agreement on the following matters:
a) construction noise;
b) baseline noise and wind data;
c) turbine noise predictions;
d) noise limits;e) cumulative noise from six neighbouring wind farms 1; and
f) draft noise conditions 2.
2.3 The purpose of my evidence is to address specific noise issues raised by objectors to theL1anbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm, who are:
a) Anti-wind Alliance (ALUSOC/SSA-C) - cumulative noise of the various wind farm schemesand whether worst mode turbine operations have been taken into account;
b) Councillor Edwards (OBJ/197/S0C/SSA-C) - concerns about health effects;c) Mr Halsey of Lower Foel Farmhouse (OBJ/288/S0C/SSA-C) - noise impacts at his property;d) Miss Flanders (OBJ/225/S0C/SSA-C) - construction impacts and operational noise; ande) Mr Brennan (OBJ/197/S0C/SSA-C) - cumulative noise impacts, specifically with the
L1andinam windfarm.
1 Uaithddu, Uandinam Repowering, Bryngydfa, Garreg Uwyd, Hirddywel and Neuadd Goch Bank.2 Including agreement not to assign a planning condition to deal with excess Amplitude Modulation.
Llanbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm - Humpheson (Noise)
2.4 My evidence is structured as follows:
a) Section 3 briefly reviews the 2007 ES (ADIVATT/003 to ADIVATT/005) and the 2013 SEI
(ADIVATT/018);b) Section 4 addresses current good practice for wind farm noise assessment; andc) Section 5 assesses the objectors' issues.
2.5 Conclusions are included at the end of my evidence.
3 2007 ES and 2013 SEI
3.1 As noted in Vattenfall's Statement of Case (VATT -SOC-SSA-C) and the joint Vattenfall andPowys CC SoCG (VATT/NOISE/SOCG/SSA-C), the operational noise assessment of the 2013SEI (ADIVATT/018) supersedes the assessment presented in the 2007 ES (ADIVATT/003-005).The 2013 SEI presented new baseline noise and wind speed data, new wind turbine noisecalculations and a comprehensive assessment of cumulative noise from six neighbouring windfarm proposals.
3.2 The construction noise assessment of the 2007 ES remains valid.
4 Uanbadarn Fynydd - Assessment of Wind Farm Noise
4.1 Since the preparation of the 2007 ES (ADIV ATT /003), there has been no change to national
policy (Wales, Scotland and England) regarding onshore wind turbines. ETSU-R-97 (CPL-NOI-001), which is referred to in TAN 8 (CD/COM/016), remains the principal guidance document onthe assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines. It is the accepted standard for windfarm developments in the UK.
4.2 A "Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating ofWind Turbine Noise" (CPL-NOI-005) was published by the UK Institute of Acoustics (loA) inMay 2013.
4.3 The Guide was endorsed by the Welsh Assembly (WA) on 22 May 2013. The WA's Minister for
Housing and Regeneration stated that:
"I note that the guidance represents current industry practice, will positively supplementETSU-R-97 and help to improve consistency of its application in the assessment of windfarm planning applications. I endorse the use of the Good Practice Guide in Wales as asupplement to ETSU-R-97. "
4.4 The UK Minister for Energy and Climate Change also endorsed the good practice guide in aletter to the loA, dated 20 May 2013, which stated that:
"(the Minister) is happy to accept that it (the Guide) represents current industry good practice,and to endorse it as a supplement to ETSU-R-97".
4.5 Although the Guide (CPL-NOI-005) was published in May 2013, the February 2013 SEI
(ADIVATT/018) considered the draft recommendations of the loA's 2012 consultation document(VATT-NOI-001). These recommendations included the adoption of best practice with regardsto:
a) monitoring of concurrent baseline noise and wind speed data;
2
Llanbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm - Humpheson (Noise)
b) screening of baseline data to remove erroneous measurements;c) use of manufacturer's wind turbine data measured in accordance with I EC-61400-113 (CPL-
NOI-004);
d) calculation of realistic estimates of wind turbine noise using iSO 9613-2 (VATT-NOI-002);e) assessment of cumulative noise impacts; andf) drafting of noise conditions.
4.6 i was responsible for the preparation of the 2013 SEI (ADIVATT/018) including:
a) Agreement of noise monitoring locations with Mr Paul Bufton of Powys CC.b) Setting up and collection of the noise monitoring instrumentation.c) Wind shear calculations using wind speed data from the temporary met mast's 30 m and
60 m wind sensors.d) Screening of data to remove periods of heavy rainfall and subsequent periods of elevated
noise levels for locations close to streams. Periods of unusual/extraneous noise were alsoremoved.
e) Quality assurance of wind turbine noise calculations using SoundPLAN modelling software.f) Derivation of ETSU-R-97 noise limits for day time and night time periods.
g) Calculation of cumulative noise levels from the proposed wind farms of L1aithddu, L1andinam
Repowering, Bryngydfa, Garreg L1wyd, Hirddywel and Neuadd Goch Bank.h) Consideration of other issues, including low frequency noise and excess Amplitude
Modulation (AM).
4.7 Following submission of the SEI (ADIVATT/018), discussions were held between Mr Bufton and
myself to agree a set of draft noise conditions and to agree a common set of single noise limitswhich would apply during both day and night.
Noise limits4.8 The noise limits proposed by ETSU-R-97 (CPL-NOI-005) are based on the LA90(10min). Separate
noise limits apply for quiet day-time and night time. Quiet daytime is defined as:
a) 18:00 - 23:00 weekdays;
b) 13:00 - 23:00 on Saturday; and
c) 07:00 - 23:00 on Sundays.
4.9 Night time applies to the period 23:00 - 07:00.
4.10 The 2007 ES (ADIVATT/003-005) and 2013 SEI (ADIVATT/018) proposed a common set of
ETSU-R-97 (CPL-NOI-005) fixed limits:
a) Quiet daytime - fixed limit of 40 dB LA90(10min) or 5dB above the prevailing wind varying
background noise level whichever is the greater;b) Night time - fixed limit of 43 dB LA90(10min) or +5 dB above the prevailing wind varying
background noise level whichever is the greater; andc) Stakeholders having a financial involvement - 45 dB LA90(10min) or +5 dB above the prevailing
wind varying background noise level whichever is the greater.
4.11 Following agreement with Powys CC, a single set of noise limits were agreed for non-stake holder dwellings (the financial involvement limits remain unchanged). These amendedlimits were applicable regardless of time of day. Different fixed limits were used, either 38 dB or40 dB LA90(10min) depending upon the measured or assumed prevailing noise environment at
3 IEC-61400-11 2nd Edition (2002) was replaced by the Srd Edition in November 2012. At the time of writing, the candidate
turbine manufacturer (Vestas) had not updated its wind turbine noise data reduction techniques and reporting according to thenew Standard. The core document therefore refers to the 2nd Edition.
s
Llanbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm - Humpheson (Noise)
each dwelling. The noise limits for those dwellings near the A483 remain unchanged comparedto those presented in the 2013 SEI (ADIV ATT/018).
4.12 The lowest measured background data (either quiet day time or night time) was used to derivethe lowest set of noise limits at each relevant location.
4.13 The single table of limits was agreed (VATT/NOISE/SOCG/SSA-C) to preserve future
cumulative noise headroom capacity within SSA C and to offer enhanced amenity for thosedwellings in lower background noise level areas.
Summary4.14 In conclusion, the operational noise assessment of the 2013 SEI (ADIVATT/018) has been
undertaken in accordance with current industry good practice.
4.15 Furthermore, a single table of noise limits has been agreed (VATT/NOISE/SOCG/SSA-C),which now apply regardless of time of day. The majority of locations now have lower noise limitscompared to those presented in the 2013 SEI.
5 Objections to the Scheme
5.1 Within this section i consider the issues raised by the five objectors listed in paragraph 2.3.
Where appropriate i have cross referenced to either the 2007 ES (ADIVATT/003-005) or 2013SEI (ADIVATT/018). For some issues i have expanded upon the information previouslyprovided.
Anti-wind Alliance (ALLlSOC/SSA-C)5.2 The Alliance's Statement of Case dated 9 July 2013 considers noise issues at paragraph 20.
The issues raised are:
a) Noise will have an effect on those who are enjoying the countryside.b) Seeking confirmation that noise assessments have adopted the correct operating modes for
the candidate turbines.c) Concern that a scheme's ETSU noise limits will be exceeded when cumulative noise is
considered.
Issue (a)
5.3 In response to issue (a), i acknowledge that wind turbines will generate audible noise. But thelevel of noise experienced will depend upon the proximity of the observer to the turbine(s) andthe prevailing meteorological conditions, i.e. wind speed and direction. I have examined localmapping data and there are a number of public rights of way within the study area, whereturbine noise will be audible to varying degrees and certainly no greater than 50 dB LA90(10min) 4.
5.4 ETSU-R-97 (CPL-NOI-005) is used to assess and rate wind turbine noise impacts in order topreserve residential outdoor amenity and night time sleep disturbance. There is no guidancewhich considers general noise impacts associated with transient users of the countryside, for
example walkers, cyclists, etc. The World Health Organisation (WHO) does consider noise inthe countryside (parkland and conservation areas) but only as far that the signal-to-noise ratioshould be kept low, i.e. the level of noise compared to existing background noise levels.
4 Estimated from noise contour figures contained in 2007 ES.
4
Uanbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm - Humpheson (Noise)
5.5 Having examined the proximity of public rights and the likely level and duration of turbine noise,noise impacts in my opinion would be acceptable.
Issue (b)5.6 The 2013 SEI considered cumulative noise of the various wind farm schemes at Section 4.6
and the following candidate turbines were modelled:
d) Garreg L1wyd - Siemens SWT-2.3-93;e) Hirddywel- Siemens SWT-82-2.3; and
f) Neuadd Goch Bank - REpower MM92 2MW.
5.7 Where appropriate, manufacturer's safety margins were applied to the highest apparent soundpower level of each turbine as it was assumed that wind speeds may vary across the study areaand hence use of the highest sound power level will result in an absolute worst case noiseassessment.
5.8 Only the schemes using the Vestas V90 as a candidate turbine have used non-standardoperating modes, namely L1anbadarn Fynydd and Bryngydfa. The Vestas turbine has one of thenoisiest standard operating noise profiles. It can, however, be operated in a number of non-standard operating modes in order to reduce noise. i consider the effect of a non-standardoperating mode (Mode 3) for L1anbadarn Fynydd later in this section.
5.9 The pitch of the Vestas V90-3.0 MW turbine's rotor can be regulated to maximise the poweroutput of the turbine according to the prevailing wind speed conditions and it can also beoperated in a number of non-standard reduced sound power modes. Each operating mode isset in the Vestas Multi Processor (VMP) control software and can be changed as required. Thepower CUNes of the first three non-standard modes (Modes 1-3) are shown in Chart 5-1.Standard mode (Mode 0) is also shown. All noise modes achieve the rated power of 3000 KW,i.e. 3.0 MW at different wind speeds ranging from 16 m/s to 20 m/so
Chart 5-1 Vestas V90 3.0 MW - Power Curves
1000
3500
:1000
2500
2000
1500
-MuLl~O....... Mode 1
- - Mod~2
- -Mode 3
'''''
o j10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Standiirdbed Wind Speed mfs
Source - Vestas literature 2012 and 2010
5
Llanbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm - Humpheson (Noise)
5.10 It is in the interest of each developer to maximise the energy yield of their wind farm but at thesame time ensuring that operating noise levels are within acceptable limits. When assessing thenoise impacts of a scheme a candidate turbine is used to 'test' the scheme design and layout.
The developer is not obliged to use the candidate turbine and from my experience a number ofturbine options will be considered at the procurement stage, where noise is only oneconsideration. Candidate turbines are therefore used to demonstrate the ability to operate ascheme within acceptable noise limits.
5.11 I have been involved in a number of schemes which have used the Vestas turbine todemonstrate the extent of the predicted noise impacts. These schemes have often selected aquieter turbine at the procurement stage - hence increasing the headroom between the noiseemissions and noise limits.
5.12 At the procurement stage developers will undertake a detailed energy yield analysis and forsome projects a noise mitigation strategy may be undertaken to assist with power calculations.A mitigation strategy will only be undertaken if a scheme's turbines are required to operate in anon-standard mode, for example if under certain wind conditions (speed and direction) selectedturbines need to be constrained in a similar manner as controlling adverse shadow flickereffects. Constrained operation may require, in extreme cases, shutdown of the turbines, or morecommonly, switching to a reduced noise mode.
5.13 A noise mitigation assessment will typically involve applying a correction to the worst case ISO9613-2 (VATT-NOI-002) downwind noise level by assigning a noise level reduction based onthe upwind/crosswind component using appropriate wind propagation directivity information
(similar to Figure 6 of the loA Good Practice Guide - CPL-NOI-005). This post-consent noiseassessment will typically result in far less curtailment than applying a 'blanket' non-standardoperating mode across all turbines, as non-standard modes may only be necessary undercertain wind speeds and directions, which may not necessarily coincide with the prevailing windconditions.
5.14 The L1anbadarn Fynydd noise assessment was based on the Vestas V90-3.0 MW turbineoperating in noise Mode 3. The original noise assessment helped to inform the current schemelayout (number and location of turbines). Mode 3 operation was used to demonstrate the abilityof the scheme to operate within the noise limits of the 2007 ES (ADIVATT/003-005) at the mostnoise sensitive dwellings of Garn, Cwm-mawr and Lower Cochran.
5.15 Latest manufacturer's apparent sound power level data for the V90-3.0 MW turbine is listed inTable 5-1. The highlighted cells indicate the wind speed range where sound power levels differto those of standard Mode O. Mode 3 only affects sound power levels in the range 6 to 11 m/soOutside this range, other operating modes can be used, including standard Mode 0, without anyimpact on the calculated turbine noise levels at residential dwellings.
5.16 However, as indicated previously in paragraph 5.13, wind direction will influence the level ofactual turbine noise, i.e. is the receiver location subject to an upwind, downwind or cross windcomponent.
6
Llanbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm - Humpheson (Noise)
5.17 Based upon the data in the above table, a noise mitigation strategy has been undertaken forL1anbadarn Fynydd to determine the likely extent of non-standard mode operation. Twelve 300wind vector segments have been used and the noise level contribution from each turbine hasdetermined which turbines are the most noise dominant under specific wind speeds anddirections. Appendix A provides an indication of the curtailment required compared to standardoperating mode. Only certain combinations of wind speed and direction require a non-standardmode of operation.
5.18 Vattenfall has used this information and the historic wind profile data of the site to assess thelikely power loss impact of the mitigation strategy. For comparative purposes, a blanketadoption of Mode 3 across all turbines has also been assessed.
5.19 Compared to all turbines operating in Mode 0 (standard mode), the yield calculation of themitigation strategy is 0.2% lower compared to an 11.7% reduction for blanket Mode 3 across all
turbines. One of the reasons for the negligible impact of 0.2% is that the affected properties ofCwm-mawr and Lower Cochran are not within the prevailing wind direction which is from thesouth west.
5.20 Regardless of the final turbine type and operating mode, Vattenfall will need to ensure thatturbine noise levels meet the agreed noise limits. A condition has been drafted which will
require Vattenfall to demonstrate compliance with the noise condition for a range of windconditions.
5.21 Since the L1anbadarn Fynydd 2013 SEI (ADIV ATT/018) was prepared, a number of furtherassessments have been undertaken by other developers. None of these supplementaryassessments have changed their choice of candidate turbine. Therefore the 2013 SEl'sconclusions remain unchanged with regards to cumulative noise.
5.22 As i have previously stated the agreed noise limits apply to the scheme in isolation andcumulatively with the other schemes listed in paragraph 4.6g).
Issue (c)5.23 A single table of noise limits (VATT/NOISE/SOCG/SSA-C) have been agreed for the
L1anbadarn Fynydd wind farm which not only apply in isolation but also cumulatively. Theselimits have been agreed with Powys CC. For the majority of non-stakeholder locations, the limits
are lower than those originally proposed in the 2013 SEI (ADIVATT/018).
5.24 i am therefore satisfied that these limits will ensure that residential outdoor amenity is preservedand night time sleep disturbance is protected, regardless of which of the other six neighbouringschemes are consented.
Councillor Edwards (OBJ/197/S0C/SSA-C)5.25 Powys CC is not calling evidence on any matters related to health effects.
5.26 Objectors to wind farms usually cite the following health concerns:
a) sleep disturbance; and
b) low frequency noise / vibration.
5.27 With regards to sleep disturbance, the WHO has published a number of guidance documentswhich are reliable sources of information regarding noise associated effects such as health andsleep. The night time noise limits of ETSU (CPL-NOI-005) reflect WHO guideline levels andprovided these are met, then there should be no health concerns.
7
L1anbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm - Humpheson (Noise)
5.28 For non-stakeholder locations, ETSU-R-97 sets a night time fixed limit of 43 dB LA90(10min) or +5dB above background to ensure that sleep quality is preserved. The SoCG noise limits(VATT/NOISE/SOCG/SSA-C) have reduced the fixed limit to either 38 dB or 40 dB dependingupon the location of the turbine. These reductions provide additional protection against the likelyoccurrence of sleep disturbance.
5.29 The 2013 SEI (ADIVATT/018B) restated in the Appendices to Chapter 4 the opinion of the UKgovernment 5:
, ... there is no compelling evidence to suggest that there are any adverse health effectsassociated with wind farms. '
5.30 Furthermore there have been numerous recent appeal decisions which support this statement.
For example, at the Spaldington Airfield Appeal (CPL-INS-011 - APPlE2001 /N1 0/2137617) theInspector noted:
'187. The effect of turbines on general health through shadow flicker, low frequency noiseand vibration was raised. These issues are generally referred to as Wind Turbine Syndromeor Vibro-Acoustic Disease (VAD). I am conscious that papers have been published assertingthe adverse effects of living near to turbines. However, I am not aware that these mattersand the particular studies referred to have been subject to scientific review and any linkbetween the operation of wind turbines and serious health problems is unproven. Here, thereis nothing of substance to justify departing from Government advice set out in the PPS 22Companion Guide. '
5.31 At the Cotton Farm Appeal (CPL-INS-008 - APP/H0520/A/09/2119385), the Inspector noted inhis report that:
'93. .. .In my view the evidence on noise and the potential risk to health in this case is not socompelling as to outweigh a scheme which would operate within Government guidelines. '
5.32 I therefore conclude that there is no established link between turbines and health impacts.
Mr Halsey (OBJ/288/S0C/SSA-C)5.33 Mr Halsey lives at Lower Foel Farmhouse and he has objected to the L1anbadarn Fynydd (and
Neuadd Goch Bank) wind farm on the grounds of construction and operational noise impacts.
5.34 Construction noise is a temporary impact and the degree of noise will depend upon the methodsof construction and the plant that will be used. Indicative assessments were presented in the2007 ES and Mr Halsey will experience some audible noise from construction activities,although the closest turbines are nearly 900 m from his property, and the proposed NeuaddGoch Bank turbines are at a similar distance. Worst case construction noise levels are highlyunlikely to be audible all of the time. The Neuadd Goch Bank assessment predicted turbinenoise levels of 54 dB(A) during stone import and 45 dB(A) during erection of the turbines. Incomparison with other construction projects, i consider these construction noise levels to below.
5.35 A condition has been drafted in the noise SoCG (VATT/NOISE/SOCG/SSA-C) which specifiespermitted construction hours and the implementation of a construction method statement whichwill agree the proposed methods of noise and vibration control. This condition will be applied toall other schemes which are being considered by Powys CC. i am therefore satisfied that
5 Statement by BERR on The Measurement 01 Low Frequency Noise at Three UK Windlarms. Department 01 Trade and
Industry 2006
8
Llanbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm - Humpheson (Noise)
construction noise impacts will be controlled to a level which will not result in any adverseimpact.
5.36 The 2013 SEI (ADIV ATT/018) measured representative background noise levels at Mr Halsey'sproperty during the period December 2012 through to January 2013. Background noise levelswere also undertaken on a separate occasion by the developer of the proposed Neuadd GochBank wind farm. Derived noise limits were established and presented in the 2013 SEI (errata tochapter 4 - ADIV ATT/018E). These noise limits were subsequently reduced by agreement withPowys CC and a lower fixed limit of 38 dB now applies which would be achieved by cumulativenoise from both L1anbadarn Fynydd and Neuadd Goch Bank.
5.37 Operational noise at Lower Foel Farmhouse is therefore not significant, even when consideredcumulatively with Neuadd Goch Bank wind farm.
Miss Flanders (OBJ/225/S0C/SSA-C)5.38 Miss Flanders is concerned about potential adverse construction impacts. My response is
similar to that provided for Mr Halsey's objection. A suitably worded condition would safeguardresidential amenity during the temporary construction phase even when consideredcumulatively with other schemes.
5.39 Miss Flanders is also concerned about the cumulative impact of noise and again my response
to the Alliance and Mr Halsey is of relevance.
5.40 Miss Flanders does raise the issue about a noise 'echo' effect around the hills. The L1anbadarn
Fynydd noise modelling was undertaken using a flat earth approach, i.e. no account of anytopographical screening effects. The loA Good Practice Guide (CPL-NOI-005) at paragraph4.3.9 considers sound propagation across a significant valley and recommends a correction of+3 dB to be applied to any receivers which could be affected by multiple reflection paths. TheGood Practice Guide also notes that topographical screening effects of terrain should be limitedto a reduction of no more than 2 dB.
5.41 i have examined the topographical data for the L1anbadarn Fynydd site and i am of the opinionthat the wind turbines do not traverse a significant valley even when considered cumulativelywith Garreg Lwyd Hill wind farm such that there would be multiple reflections at the nearestdwellings of Lower Gwenlas and Gwenlas. Multiple noise echoes are therefore unlikely andthere would be no significant reinforcement of turbine noise levels.
Mr Brennan (OBJ/197/S0C/SSA-C)
5.42 Mr Brennan also considers cumulative noise impacts, specifically with the L1andinam windfarm.My previous responses have addressed cumulative noise and the noise limits agreed withPowys CC are also applicable to noise from the L1andinam scheme.
9
Llanbadarn Fynydd Wind Farm - Humpheson (Noise)
6 Conclusions
6.1 The 2013 SEI (ADIVATT/018) has demonstrated that the L1anbadarn Fynydd wind farm can
meet the agreed noise limits (VATT/NOISE/SOCG/SSA-C) at all residential receivers regardlessof time of day both in isolation and cumulatively with the following schemes:
a) L1aithddu;
b) L1andinam Repowering;
c) Bryngydfa;
d) Garreg L1wyd;
e) Hirddywel; and
f) Neuadd Goch Bank
6.2 Powys CC has no objection to the proposed wind farm on noise grounds subject to conditionsfor construction noise and operational noise. Draft conditions have already been proposed.
6.3 A number of objectors have raised concerns about construction noise, operational noise andhealth effects.
6.4 i have addressed these concerns in my evidence and again conclude that appropriate planning
conditions can be imposed to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.
6.5 i therefore see no reason why this application be refused on matters of noise.
