TRN 970/01/2015 Review of the evidence on the effects of and response to amplitude modulation (AM) from wind turbines, with a view to recommending how excessive AM might be controlled through the use of a planning condition

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (“DECC”) wishes to commission a review of the evidence on the effects of and response to amplitude modulation (AM) from wind turbines, with a view to recommending how excessive AM might be controlled through the use of a planning condition. The aims of the project are:

• To review the available evidence on Amplitude Modulation (AM) in relation to wind turbines, including but not limited to the research commissioned and published by RenewableUK in December 2013. • To work closely with the Institute of Acoustics’ AM working group, who are expected to recommend a preferred metric and methodology for quantifying and assessing the level of AM in a sample of wind turbine noise data. • To review the robustness of relevant dose-response relationships, including the one developed by the University of Salford as part of the RenewableUK study, on which the correction (or penalty) for amplitude modulation proposed as part of its template planning condition is based. • To consider how, in a policy context, the level(s) of AM in a sample of noise data should be interpreted, in particular determining at what point it causes a significant adverse impact. • To recommend how excessive AM might be controlled through the use of an appropriate planning condition. • To consider the engineering/cost trade-offs of possible mitigation measures.

The contractor will be expected to apply the following methodology:

Phase 1 • Propose an approach and methodology • Prepare a detailed work plan • Engage with IOA’s AM Working Group and other external stakeholders, including researchers, planning authorities, developers and RUK (and the contractors that carried out work packages for them), to compile a list of relevant research and evidence • Define evidence needs

Phase 2 • Review the outputs from the RUK research, in particular: o the robustness of the study into the subjective response to AM and the conclusions drawn about an appropriate penalty scheme o the merits of the proposed planning condition, in the context of ETSU-R-97 and Circular 11/95 • Obtain and review other relevant evidence • Summarise (for non-technical audience) main findings of review of evidence • Recommend an appropriate penalty scheme (or alternative) for use in a planning condition, compatible with the IOA AM Working Group’s preferred metric • Prepare a report summarising the main findings and setting out clear recommendations, in a form suitable for publication by DECC. (The report should discuss the limitations of the evidence on which the recommendations are based.) • Present the main findings and recommendations to the IOA’s AM Working Group and, separately, to DECC’s Steering Group for this work.

The contractor will be expected to work closely with the IOA’s AM Working Group throughout the project. They will also be required to attend DECC’s Steering Group meetings as appropriate.

Additional information: Please note: This contract may be withdrawn and not awarded should there be a change in DECC policy following the General Election. • To review the available evidence on Amplitude Modulation (AM) in relation to wind turbines, including but not limited to the research commissioned and published by RenewableUK in December 2013. • To work closely with the Institute of Acoustics’ AM working group, who are expected to recommend a preferred metric and methodology for quantifying and assessing the level of AM in a sample of wind turbine noise data. • To review the robustness of relevant dose-response relationships, including the one developed by the University of Salford as part of the RenewableUK study, on which the correction (or penalty) for amplitude modulation proposed as part of its template planning condition is based. • To consider how, in a policy context, the level(s) of AM in a sample of noise data should be interpreted, in particular determining at what point it causes a significant adverse impact. • To recommend how excessive AM might be controlled through the use of an appropriate planning condition. • To consider the engineering/cost trade-offs of possible mitigation measures.

The contractor will be expected to apply the following methodology:

Phase 1 • Propose an approach and methodology • Prepare a detailed work plan • Engage with IOA’s AM Working Group and other external stakeholders, including researchers, planning authorities, developers and RUK (and the contractors that carried out work packages for them), to compile a list of relevant research and evidence • Define evidence needs

Phase 2 • Review the outputs from the RUK research, in particular: o the robustness of the study into the subjective response to AM and the conclusions drawn about an appropriate penalty scheme o the merits of the proposed planning condition, in the context of ETSU-R-97 and Circular 11/95 • Obtain and review other relevant evidence • Summarise (for non-technical audience) main findings of review of evidence • Recommend an appropriate penalty scheme (or alternative) for use in a planning condition, compatible with the IOA AM Working Group’s preferred metric • Prepare a report summarising the main findings and setting out clear recommendations, in a form suitable for publication by DECC. (The report should discuss the limitations of the evidence on which the recommendations are based.) • Present the main findings and recommendations to the IOA’s AM Working Group and, separately, to DECC’s Steering Group for this work.

The contractor will be expected to work closely with the IOA’s AM Working Group throughout the project. They will also be required to attend DECC’s Steering Group meetings as appropriate.