See you-tube videos about wind turbine noise     :

 from close-by  

    comments of residents 

         various comments quoted from medical forms

  Horrendous one on  shadow flicker (don't miss second half)

Then read our chairman's recent (April & May 07) open letters to Force 9 about excessive turbine noise below:

Number of tenanted properties may suffer excessive turbine noise
SIR, — The guide-line standard used to evaluate noise levels from wind power stations in the UK is The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms ETSU-R-97. This document recommends that the levels of acceptable day- and night-time noise can be increased for those who have a financial involvement in a wind power station development. In other words, those who derive income from wind turbines, such as the owners of the land on which turbines are erected, can accept higher noise levels because this noise is generated from an income source.
House owners and tenants who do not gain from such a financial involvement are subject to much stricter constraints on the noise generated from wind turbines.
In the Environmental Statement for the proposed wind power station at Barmoor, it is stated that the acceptable limits for wind turbine operational noise are clearly defined in the ETSU-R-97 document and that these limits should not be breached. However, an independent review commissioned by SOUL (and submitted to Berwick Borough Council) suggests that the predicted noise level at a number of tenanted properties would exceed the allowed limits.
Tenants of farm cottages seek the good-will of their landlord and could feel constrained to suppress misgivings about a development if their landlord were to benefit financially from a wind power station development. However, such tenants are not supposed to be subject to less stringent noise limits than the rest of the population.
It has been suggested that some developers in other parts of the UK have resorted to paying money directly to such tenants so that they appear to become subject to the higher potential noise limits, as a result of artificially moving into the category of having a ”financial involvement in the wind farm”. However, such tenants do not really have a “financial involvement” as this requires money or assets to be invested in the project in anticipation of a return. Any developer paying money directly to tenants would be acting against the intention of the noise guidelines, which are directed at those who receive rent for the use of their land for a wind power station.
Can Force Nine Energy and Catamount Energy confirm that they have not paid nor are planning to pay any money to tenants, living close to the proposed Barmoor wind power station, in order to ‘buy’ their acquiescence in accepting higher noise levels than those deemed acceptable for other residents of the area? If they were attempting to make such payments, it would surely constitute a dubious and unacceptable practice; and the Barmoor proposal would still appear to be in violation of the current UK wind turbine noise limits.
PETER H WORLOCK,
Chairman,
SOUL SteeringGroup.

SIR, — In the Berwick Advertiser of April 19 2007, you kindly published an open letter from SOUL to Force 9 Energy and Catamount Energy (the developers of the proposed wind power station at Barmoor). In that letter, SOUL asked Force 9 and Catamount to:
“confirm that they have not paid nor are planning to pay any money to tenants, living close to the proposed Barmoor wind power station, in order to ‘buy’ their acquiescence in accepting higher noise levels than those deemed acceptable for other residents of the area?”
SOUL has had no direct response to that question – either publicly or privately. There has been no response from either of these two companies in the Berwick Advertiser. This seems strange, considering how quick Force 9 have been to respond to other letters in this paper since their planning application was lodged.
What are we to infer from this silence? Surely, if neither company had made such payments nor were planning to make such payments then they would be keen to confirm this, answer the question we have asked and put paid to any lingering concern.
Does this silence mean that we all have to work on the basis that such payments have been made or will be made at some point? If this is the case, it would surely constitute a dubious and unacceptable practice. After all, if any of us were to apply for planning permission to extend our home or build a house and were then to offer our neighbours cash not to object, we would be (quite rightly) pilloried in our communities, criticised by the press and might be accused of bribery and corruption.
SOUL believes that it is in the public interest that this question be answered by Force 9 Energy and Catamount Energy. Therefore, we ask again publicly for a response to the question:
“Can Force 9 Energy and Catamount Energy confirm that they have not paid nor are planning to pay any money to tenants, living close to the proposed Barmoor wind power station, in order to ‘buy’ their acquiescence in accepting higher noise levels than those deemed acceptable for other residents of the area?”
Continued silence on this issue from these two companies means that we will all have to draw the obvious conclusion.
PETER H WORLOCK,  Chairman, SOUL Steering Group.

NOISE    A recent independent UK study* into the impact on health of noise from wind turbines concludes that they can have an adverse impact on the quality of life and/or the health of families living nearby. Many families are experiencing genuine distress as a result of the noise from commercial wind turbines, and some have been forced to leave.their.homes.                                                                                                                                      The report recommends a mandatory minimum buffer of 2 km between the nearest home and a 2MW turbine, and a bigger buffer for turbines over 2MW capacity. At Barmoor there would be 160 homes less than 2 kms from the proposed turbines.                                                               However, the Barmoor turbines would have an installed capacity of 3MW and there would be 300 homes separated from them by less than 2.5 kms.

* Noise radiation from wind turbines installed near homes: Effects on health, by Barbara J Frey, BA, MA and Peter J Hadden, BSc, FRICS, February 2007.

Radio 4’s ‘You and Yours’ programme on Tuesday 13 March  featured one such family whose lives had been“completely ruined” by the noise from a nearby giant wind turbine. The programme also referred to a report commissioned by the UK Noise Association (UKNA) which reinforces the findings of the report we cite above. The UKNA has called for a complete moratorium on new turbine developments until the effects of turbine noise can be fully assessed.

Wind turbines 'are ruining our quality of life'

By Martin Beckford, The Telegraph, 16/04/2007

The majority of people living near wind turbines believe that the noise they make is ruining their health and quality of life, a report has revealed.
Neighbours also claim that the constant hum and the loud "whooshing" sound made by the blades in high winds is destroying the value of their homes.
 A survey of people whose homes are situated within 1.2 miles of turbines has shown that three-quarters of them feel that the noise has damaged their quality of life while four out of five say it has affected their health.
Those who said they were made ill by the sound of the wind farms, which are designed to benefit the environment, described conditions ranging from migraines and palpitations to depression.
Three quarters said their sleep was disturbed by the noise and some claimed that they had been forced to stay in bed and breakfasts to get a proper night's rest or to sell their homes at reduced prices to get away from the area.
One of the respondents to the survey, carried out by a family doctor, claimed that the noise was "like Chinese water torture", while others said they could "see no future" and "dare not sleep at home".
Dr Amanda Harry, a Plymouth GP who compiled the report after studying
the effects of wind turbine noise for several years, wrote: "What this shows is that there are a number of people suffering from the consequences of noise from the wind turbines.
"I'm sure that the cases mentioned here are the tip of the iceberg and further independent investigation is warranted.
There is much concern within communities that if one is seen to complain about the noise and if they decide to move away, their properties will be difficult to sell and possibly devalued as a result. They feel they are in a 'Catch-22' situation."
Some wind farms are situated just a few hundred yards from homes but Dr Harry believes that until independent research is carried out, no turbines should be built closer than 1.5 miles from the nearest dwelling.
Dr Harry wrote: "There are many people living near wind turbines who are suffering from problems with their health. The noise produced from the wind turbines is an extremely complex one and I feel that it is the complexity of the noise and vibration which causes the disturbance.
"From my discussions with people suffering from ill-health who live near wind farms, it seems that the symptoms suffered can occur up to a mile from the wind farm."
But a spokesman for the British Wind Energy Association said it was just a "myth" that turbines were noisy. She said: "We are aware that people have concerns but we are not aware of any evidence that supports their claims.
"The unfortunate thing about noise is that it can be a subjective perception. Some people can be more sensitive than others."
The Government commissioned a report into claims that the low-frequency noise emitted by wind turbine generators was affecting people's health but it found last year that there was "no evidence" of ill-effects.
The report did admit that some wind turbines were responsible for a loud "whooshing" noise created by a phenomenon known as aerodynamic modulation, but the Department for Trade and Industry insisted that this was present in only five of the 126 wind farms in the UK.
A Government working group on wind turbine noise has also been set up.

From Jane Davis  - letter to Berwick Advertiser

My name is Jane Davis and I live 930 m from Deeping st Nicholas Wind farm just south of Spalding in South Lincolnshire.
There are 6 other houses a similar distance away from the turbines but ours is the only one downwind of the prevailing wind and our nearest neighbours are ¼ to ½ mile away.
The wind farm was built last summer and became operational in early June – within 3 days we started having problems with the noise and hum emanating from the windfarm.
We did not object to the windfarm in the planning stage as we did not believe that there would be any issues for us, and we believed that wind power was a good way of meeting the energy gap. We did read some negative reports on the internet but could not believe there would be any issues for us as we were never specifically consulted, nor were any background noise readings taken at our house.
Since last June we have had constant issues with loud noises and low frequency sounds that create a hum in the house all the time. We have kept a log throughout. Many times last summer as we are downwind of the prevailing wind we were woken by loud “WHOOSHING” noises, that stopped us sleeping for more than 4 hours a night. We informed our local environmental health department in June and they came out and were astonished at the loud noise recordings that they made.
Due to the government’s preferred measure for assessing the noise from wind turbines known as ETSU-R-97, which averages noise peaks out over a period of time there is no recourse to justice under existing British law to assist us. We now know that although we were initially told less than 5% of wind farms have this problem the reality is likely to be in excess of 10% and research has been undertaken by the DTI & DEFRA which will be reported soon that will give further and better information on this. We hope that other research will follow. We have found the DTI & DEFRA and the wind farm operators to be supportive so far – but there isn’t anything that anyone can do…..as
We now know that we suffer from a phenomenon known as aerodynamic or amplitude modulation. We also know that “in general, turbines are noisier now than in 1993”. ( Hayes McKenzie Partnership – Acoustic Experts in a report for Angus Council, Forfar, Scotland. June 2004). This seems to support the fact that the government found it necessary to set a specific measurement for wind turbine noise, and that there is a Noise Working Group that operates between DTI & DEFRA.
Aerodynamic modulation is not fully understood, Dr McKenzie from the Hayes McKenzie partnership in the closing statements in April 2007 for South Cambridgeshire District Council explained that:
 "Aerodynamic modulation exists, but there is no clear understanding as to what causes it."
1. It causes sleep disruption.
2. It is not covered by ETSU.3
3. This site (Deeping St Nicholas) is a likely candidate.
4. There is a need to assess and potentially apply a correction to ETSU.
We do know and accept that not every wind farm creates noise issues but those that do make life impossible for those who live near them – and by near I mean less that 2km or 1.5 miles.A
s a result of our difficulties we have been forced to find an alternative place to sleep – our sleeping house – which is 5 miles away in Spalding itself. After spending many nights “sofa-surfing” we reached the conclusion in December that we had to do this in order to be able to work and live safely – with a normal amount of sleep.
Because of our experiences we have been asked to many meetings across England and now Scotland by those areas where wind farm development is proposed. Most recently we have been to Sibsey and Monthreathmont in Angus.
What we find astounding is that wind farm developers and land owners will often attend these meetings with literature that can really only be presented as including Terminological inexactitudes such as:
• “Modern wind farms are generally quiet”
• “property Values are not affected” (Our house which would previously have been worth about £180,000K is now likely to have a value of just the land –35K to 50K ..and would not be marketable as a home for people to live in any longer. And finally
• “I can categorically state that there is no significant infrasound from modern turbines.”I
If the latter is true why do we have a report from Hayes McKenzie themselves that acknowledges that we do have low frequency here and this is also backed up by the fact that we are mole free?
One of our local lanhttps://websitebuilder.1and1.co.uk/xml/wfxdirect/preview;jsessionid=57C97E1A79905490CE01201283CCE0FD.TC110ad owners – who has some of our offending turbines on his land is now showing coach loads of people from other areas around “his” windfarm and reassures them that there is no noise from his turbines. He does not seem to see that there is anything wrong with that, but then I suppose given the income he is going to have annually over the next 25 years – he would say that wouldn’t he…

Monday, 20th September 2004 NEW RESEARCH EXPLAINS WIND TURBINE NOISE PROBLEM In a major new article published this month in the Journal of Sound and Vibration (1), G. P. Van den Berg, a physicist at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands (2), believes that he has at last explained the mystery of why modern onshore wind turbines can cause noise problems for residents at distances of a mile or more. For his article, “Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound” (Journal of Sound and Vibration, 277 (2004), 955–970), Van den Berg measured sound around the Rhede wind-farm (an installation of 17 turbines), on the Dutch/German border. “Residents living 500 m and more from the park have reacted strongly to the noise; (and) residents up to 1900m distance expressed annoyance” particularly at night. Yet, conventional wind industry calculations have assumed that turbines would present no noise problem over 500m. After extensive measurements, Van den Berg discovered that the methods used by wind turbine developers, in the UK and elsewhere, to predict noise are seriously flawed because of their assumption that wind speeds measured at a height of 10 metres are representative of wind speed at the greater heights of modern turbines (often 100 metres and above). The importance of this analysis is further exacerbated when measured at night, when though wind speeds may fall at ground level (to near zero), they remain fast enough at 60 metres (and above) to turn the turbine blades. In fact, his measurements show, wind speeds at night are up to 2.6 times higher than expected. Even in the day background noise is not good at covering the rhythmical thumping caused by the blade as it passes the tower. Consequently, against expectations, the turbines were turning at night and the noise propagating down into an area at ground level where this was no background noise to mask it, and consequently residents were experiencing sound levels 15dB higher than expected. Though turbines were making as much noise as normal, it was carrying much further, and especially at night when it was particularly troublesome. Fascinatingly, Van den Berg has found that the error is smallest within 400m of the turbine but is much greater at distances up to a mile away. Van den Berg concludes, “The number and severity of noise complaints near the wind park are at least in part explained by the two main findings of this study; actual sound levels are considerably higher than predicted, and wind turbines can produce sound with an impulsive character.” “The relatively high wind speeds at turbine hub height at night also have a distinct advantage; the electric power output is higher than predicted and benefits the operator of the wind turbine.” Van den Berg also believes that infrasound is very probably a significant feature in the audible noise problem. He has pointed out that although inaudible, the low blade passing of wind turbine blades, frequency modulates clearly audible higher frequency sounds and thus creates periodic sound (with the effect strengthened at night). Further he observes that groups of several turbines can interact to amplify this effect. The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) has commissioned G. P. van den Berg to produce further research. CEO Campbell Dunford, commented, “As Van den Berg has said, we are all very much in favour of renewable energy, but it is extremely important that the truth about any turbine noise problems is made public. Many developers are currently proposing putting substantial groups of large turbines within 500m of residential areas. Experiences across Europe suggest that there are problems with turbine noise, and Van den Berg’s recent work offers some possible explanations. This is important and should be investigated further as a matter of urgency.” (1) www.elsevier.com/locate/jsvi (2) Science Shop for Physics, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, Netherlands For further information on the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), please contact Margareta Stanley at DBA on 020 7930 8033 or visit www.ref.org.uk or e-mail info@nchl.demon.co.uk

SAVE OUR UNSPOILT LANDSCAPE !

 Barmoor Anti Wind Farm Group