Wind Submissions,
Planning Section,
Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government,
Custom House,
Dublin 1.
21st February 2014
By email to: windsubmissions@environ.ie
Re: Response to Wind Energy Guidelines Focused Review: Draft statutory guidelines.
Dear Planning Section,
Our company works in the design, planning, EIA and construction phase management of wind farms
throughout the country for a variety of wind energy development companies. We also are involved
in similar elements of small hydro and pumped hydro energy schemes along with an array of
infrastructural projects.
We have undertaken extensive public consultation and stakeholder management exercise for wind
farm projects in conjunction with undertaking the full EIA process for projects.
It is timely that the previous guidelines have been updated, and there should be clear science and
good reasoning behind the guidelines that we as an industry operate under. There has to be
transparency for the public as well as the public. Lack of knowledge brings fear, distrust and misinformation, and there is an onus on Government and the wind industry to do their utmost to make
sure that there is clarity, good guidance and a clear policy for all concerned.
We welcome the opportunity to respond to the DoECLG public consultation on the Wind Energy
Guidelines Focused Review: Draft statutory guidelines. We support the IWEA response to this
consultation, and would like to reiterate that clear planning guidance is crucial to ensure community
confidence in the consistent standards being applied, and provide a stable policy framework to allow
the industry, which now employs over 3400 people to make the clear and necessary progress
towards our 2020 targets.
We support the positions taken by IWEA and would like to reiterate the following points:

We believe that the scale of the response proposed by the Department stands
disproportionately with the lack of evidence of issues actually being encountered
under the current guidelines, despite there being over 2GW of wind energy now
operating in Ireland

The proposed use of an absolute 40dBA day and night noise limit is unnecessary,
unsubstantiated and wholly conservative. It is not clear how this figure has been arrived at,
as the setting of such a limit is out of line with the findings of the Marshall Day study. We
also believe the Irish approach as proposed in the Proposed Revisions is grossly out of step
with International and particularly European approaches, and will if implemented be
severely detrimental to continuing viable wind development in Ireland.
While strongly suggesting that the existing noise framework be retained, we propose that if
the Department is minded to change to a 40dB limit that it should be 40dB LA90 10min, or a
maximum increase of 5dB(A) above background noise (whichever is greater). The criterion
should be assessed for both day (07:00 to 23:00hrs) and night time (23:00 to 07:00hrs)
periods. This approach would be in line with the UK best practice under ETSU-R-97.

There is a concern that a setback distance if it is to be established must include a clear
limitation from the turbine to the receptor as per Irish industrial norms. As currently
proposed the Guidelines would include an ill-defined “curtilage” and “special amenity” area
which could cause confusion for planners and developers, and possibly lead to increased
setback distances. We propose that if it is to be maintained, the concept of “curtilage” be
more strictly defined to a radius of 20m for planners in line with international best practice
under the UK best practice standard ETSU-R-97 Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind
Farms1 and the IOA Good Practice Guide on Wind Turbine Noise2.

An absolute exclusion on shadow flicker as proposed would be un-implementable for wind
farm developers as the prospect of shadow flicker for even a short period of time in a year
would provide cause for issue which is wholly unreasonable. We ask that the International
recommended limits for shadow flicker of 30 hours per year or 30 minutes per day for
receptors within 500 metres which have proven effective in Ireland and internationally are
maintained. We suggest a strict planning condition provision ensuring wind farm developers
bring forward rapid remedy in the extremely rare situations where an issue should arise.

While welcoming the proposed flexibility, greater certainty and clarity on exceptions there
are three points we would like to raise:
1. Firstly exceptions to the noise limits should be clarified in line with the UK best practice
ETSU–R-97 Guidelines on noise limits for persons with a financial involvement.
2. Secondly exceptions to the setback limit should be explicitly mandated under the
Guidelines replacing “may” to “will” in the first line of the text on page 8.
3. Thirdly in line with the approaches taken under noise and setback for there to be the
possibility of a similar exception to be provided for in the rare situation of shadow flicker
arising.
Finally, we have large practical questions of how compliance will be assessed at pre-application
(rather than pre-construction) and call for this detail to be fully consulted on along with the
necessary appendices vital to allow for clear and factual scrutiny of the evidential and factual detail
on which the Proposed Revisions rest.
In conclusion we would like to thank Department for the opportunity to engage on this issue and to
highlight the particular importance of this consultation given the significant implications it has for
the continued viability of the wind sector.
Yours sincerely
Ken Fitzgerald
1
http://www.hayesmckenzie.co.uk/downloads/ETSU%20Full%20copy%20(Searchable).pdf
http://www.ioa.org.uk/sites/default/files/IOA%20Good%20Practice%20Guide%20on%20Wind%20Turbine%2
0Noise%20-%20May%202013.pdf
2