Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables
Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables
Camilty Wind Farm Chart 8.24: Whistle Lodge - Operational noise assessment 55 50 45 LA90,10min (dB) 40 35 30 25 20 Cumulative operational noise Prevailing background (Quiet Daytime) Prevailing background (Night time) Operational limits (Quiet Daytime) Operational limits (Night time) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wind speed (m/s) 8.8.4 The results of the assessment show that, at most locations, the cumulative noise levels will not exceed the derived operational day and night time limits. The only exception to this is at the NSR Harburnhead during the daytime. 8.8.5 The closest turbines of the Harburnhead wind farm are in close proximity to this NSR and therefore the daytime limits at wind speeds around 7-8m/s are predicted to be almost exclusively taken up by the Harburnhead scheme. Therefore, the daytime limit is exceeded by the cumulative prediction at these wind speeds. This is the case regardless of whether the fixed part of the quiet daytime limit is taken to be 40dB(A), as selected by the author of the Harburnhead ES chapter, or 35dB(A) as selected for the assessment of the Camilty proposals. 8.8.6 The Harburnhead Wind Farm assessor has set a quiet daytime limit of 40dB(A) at 7m/s. The predicted Harburnhead wind farm scheme operational level at this location is 39.9dB(A). In order not to exceed this limit cumulatively, the proposed Camilty wind farm could add only 23.6dB(A), as opposed to the 35.8dB at 7m/s predicted. As Harburnhead is one of the closest properties to the proposed wind farm at Camilty, this limited contribution is not achievable. 8.8.7 The following Chart 8.25 explores the difference in cumulative noise levels at Harburnhead should either a combination of Harburnhead wind farm and Camilty wind farm or Fauch Hill wind farm and Camilty wind farm be consented as opposed to all 3 schemes operating simultaneously. March 2013 8-33 ES Chapter 8 Noise Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm Chart 8.25: Harburnhead - Cumulative scenario analysis 60 55 50 LA90,10min (dB) 45 40 35 30 25 20 Camilty plus Fauch Hill Camilty plus Harburnhead Operational limits (Quiet Daytime) Operational limits (Night time) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wind speed (m/s) 8.8.8 It can clearly be seen that the combination of Camilty wind farm with Fauch Hill wind farm does not exceed the derived daytime limits at Harburnhead, however the combination of Camilty wind farm with Harburnhead wind farm results in an exceedence. 8.8.9 It should be noted, however, that that the cumulative calculations assume that each NSR is simultaneously downwind of all wind energy schemes considered. No correction has been made for prevailing wind direction. This means that the model is likely to over predict and, as such, should be regarded as a ‘worst case’ assessment. 8.8.10 It has become increasingly common for assessors to attempt to take account of the prevailing wind direction in cumulative ES calculations, in order to limit overestimation of noise immission levels. 8.8.11 In the Harburnhead ES, the cumulative assessment applies an adjustment derived from a noise impact assessment undertaken by Dick Bowdler of New Acoustics in September 2007 (Clocaenog Forest, SSA wind farms). 8.8.12 In July 2012, the consultation paper “A good practice guide to the application of ETSU-R-97 for wind turbine noise assessment” was circulated for comment to the acoustics community. Although this document has not yet been published formally and retains its consultation status, it contains useful information in respect of assessing directivity, particularly with regard to cumulative assessments. 8.8.13 The consultation paper suggests a method for undertaking an assessment, although it warns that the methodology is not established and as such should be applied with care. 8.8.14 It suggests: “Based on evidence from the Joule project in conjunction with advice in BS8233 and ISO 9613-2, it seems reasonably conservative to assume that for a range of headings from directly downwind (0°) up to 10 degrees from crosswind (80°), there may be little or no reduction in noise levels; once in cross wind directions (90°) then the reduction may be around 2dB(A) and when upwind the reduction would be around 10dB(A)” March 2013 8-34 ES Chapter 8 Noise Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
- Page 112 and 113: Camilty Wind Farm distraction of wi
- Page 114 and 115: Camilty Wind Farm Table 7.2 Establi
- Page 116 and 117: Camilty Wind Farm 7.3.7 The WLLP al
- Page 118 and 119: Camilty Wind Farm TEMPRO for predic
- Page 120 and 121: Camilty Wind Farm • A length of m
- Page 122 and 123: Camilty Wind Farm construction brea
- Page 124 and 125: Camilty Wind Farm Table 7.8 Constru
- Page 126 and 127: Camilty Wind Farm vehicle speeds, i
- Page 128 and 129: Camilty Wind Farm Table 7.9 Summary
- Page 130 and 131: Camilty Wind Farm 8 Noise 8.1 Intro
- Page 132 and 133: Camilty Wind Farm • The duration
- Page 134 and 135: Camilty Wind Farm 8.3.4 The benefit
- Page 136 and 137: Camilty Wind Farm Baseline Noise Mo
- Page 138 and 139: Camilty Wind Farm Chart 8.1: Parkvi
- Page 140 and 141: Camilty Wind Farm Prevailing Backgr
- Page 142 and 143: Camilty Wind Farm Construction on S
- Page 144 and 145: Camilty Wind Farm 8.5.23 These cons
- Page 146 and 147: Camilty Wind Farm 8.5.28 The follow
- Page 148 and 149: Camilty Wind Farm Chart 8.7: Halfwa
- Page 150 and 151: Camilty Wind Farm Chart 8.11: Over
- Page 152 and 153: Camilty Wind Farm Table 8.10 Differ
- Page 154 and 155: Camilty Wind Farm • Deliveries sh
- Page 156 and 157: Camilty Wind Farm 8.8 Cumulative Ef
- Page 158 and 159: Camilty Wind Farm Chart 8.16: Colzi
- Page 160 and 161: Camilty Wind Farm Chart 8.20: Harbu
- Page 164 and 165: Camilty Wind Farm 8.8.15 Chart 8.26
- Page 166 and 167: Camilty Wind Farm 9 Landscape and V
- Page 168 and 169: Camilty Wind Farm • The Scottish
- Page 170 and 171: Camilty Wind Farm • Select an app
- Page 172 and 173: Camilty Wind Farm 9.2.34 The potent
- Page 174 and 175: Camilty Wind Farm viewpoint locatio
- Page 176 and 177: Camilty Wind Farm landscape’ (par
- Page 178 and 179: Camilty Wind Farm Table 9.5 Recepto
- Page 180 and 181: Camilty Wind Farm Significance of E
- Page 182 and 183: Camilty Wind Farm character. Where
- Page 184 and 185: Camilty Wind Farm 9.3.10 Although t
- Page 186 and 187: Camilty Wind Farm • Harburn House
- Page 188 and 189: Camilty Wind Farm Local plans shoul
- Page 190 and 191: Camilty Wind Farm • Pateshill •
- Page 192 and 193: Camilty Wind Farm settings; however
- Page 194 and 195: Camilty Wind Farm • Urban 9.3.54
- Page 196 and 197: Camilty Wind Farm LCT/LCA Broughton
- Page 198 and 199: Camilty Wind Farm LCT/LCA Landscape
- Page 200 and 201: Camilty Wind Farm Hills lies to the
- Page 202 and 203: Camilty Wind Farm these routes are
- Page 204 and 205: Camilty Wind Farm centre and left h
- Page 206 and 207: Camilty Wind Farm towards the Firth
- Page 208 and 209: Camilty Wind Farm Viewpoint 20. For
- Page 210 and 211: Camilty Wind Farm 9.3.118 Lights at
<strong>Camilty</strong> <strong>Wind</strong> <strong>Farm</strong><br />
Chart 8.24: Whistle Lodge - Operational noise assessment<br />
55<br />
50<br />
45<br />
LA90,10min (dB)<br />
40<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
Cumulative operational noise<br />
Prevailing background (Quiet Daytime)<br />
Prevailing background (Night time)<br />
Operational limits (Quiet Daytime)<br />
Operational limits (Night time)<br />
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
<strong>Wind</strong> speed (m/s)<br />
8.8.4 The results of the assessment show that, at most locations, the cumulative noise levels will<br />
not exceed the derived operational day and night time limits. The only exception to this is at<br />
the NSR Harburnhead during the daytime.<br />
8.8.5 The closest turbines of the Harburnhead wind farm are in close proximity to this NSR and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e the daytime limits at wind speeds around 7-8m/s are predicted to be almost<br />
exclusively taken up by the Harburnhead scheme. There<strong>for</strong>e, the daytime limit is exceeded<br />
by the cumulative prediction at these wind speeds. This is the case regardless of whether the<br />
fixed part of the quiet daytime limit is taken to be 40dB(A), as selected by the author of the<br />
Harburnhead ES chapter, or 35dB(A) as selected <strong>for</strong> the assessment of the <strong>Camilty</strong><br />
proposals.<br />
8.8.6 The Harburnhead <strong>Wind</strong> <strong>Farm</strong> assessor has set a quiet daytime limit of 40dB(A) at 7m/s. The<br />
predicted Harburnhead wind farm scheme operational level at this location is 39.9dB(A). In<br />
order not to exceed this limit cumulatively, the proposed <strong>Camilty</strong> wind farm could add only<br />
23.6dB(A), as opposed to the 35.8dB at 7m/s predicted. As Harburnhead is one of the closest<br />
properties to the proposed wind farm at <strong>Camilty</strong>, this limited contribution is not achievable.<br />
8.8.7 The following Chart 8.25 explores the difference in cumulative noise levels at Harburnhead<br />
should either a combination of Harburnhead wind farm and <strong>Camilty</strong> wind farm or Fauch Hill<br />
wind farm and <strong>Camilty</strong> wind farm be consented as opposed to all 3 schemes operating<br />
simultaneously.<br />
March 2013 8-33 ES Chapter 8<br />
Noise<br />
Copyright <strong>Partnerships</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Renewables</strong> Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©