The authors have presented an extensive framework for the optimisation of VAWTs control in the urban environment, accounting not only for the classic performance indicators, but also for novel psycho-acoustic metrics. This is an important step to address the social acceptance issues of such installations. The reviewer believes that the topic and the activity are very interesting, innovative and worthy of investigation. Despite the extensiveness and complexity of the investigation, the authors have managed to maintain an adequate and consistent approach throughout the whole activity. Only the paper structure and presentation need improvement: more in detail, the level of detail given to each element is not balanced.  Some specific considerations:

1. Abstract: it is not clear what the elements of novelty of the paper are. Is it the WSE-TSR controller, the optimisation framework or the application to VAWTs?

2. Introduction: based on the my experience, the third challenge for small VAWTs is the reliable estimation of their performance
3. Introduction, Line 70-85: this part is quite convolute and hard to understand. Please rewrite for clarity
4. Section 2: the description of the test case, including Figs. 1-3, should have a dedicated Section
5. The description of the control and noise models is too detailed for the present application. I suggest transforming Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 3.1 into Appendices to improve readability and help the reader focus on the core of the study.
6. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 should be described instead in more detail
7. Section 3.1: the noise model receives as an input the boundary layer thickness on the airfoil surface. How is this information extracted from the QBlade model?
8. No indication is given in the paper about the QBlade turbine model. What polar data has been used? What aerodynamic sub-models, in particular dynamic stall, have been used? Has the QBlade model accuracy been assessed with respect to higher fidelity load data? Please address this aspects in a dedicated section.

 The manuscript can be accepted after points 1-8 have been addressed by the authos.

This manuscript describes an interesting and important study of small wind turbine noise that has significant novelty.  The novelty consists of two main elements; the first is stated in the manuscript, but the second is only implied.

The analysis of turbine noise from the perspective of acoustic annoyance is a significant advance for small turbines as no previous studies of which I am aware has attempted anything similar.  To consider the noise in the context of control system design and operation provides the second element of the novelty: the study of a small wind turbine as a system.  It may surprise readers experienced in large wind turbine research and development, that whole-system dynamics is not a common objective in small wind turbine research.

The manuscript is well organized and well written.  The analysis is clearly presented and the multi-dimensional optimization technique may well be a useful contribution on its own.  The results look solid and important for small operation in urban areas where noise is critical.  I have several small comments that may improve the manuscript.  Since I will refer to my own work, any response is not obliged to add the references:

1. The coverage of the noise literature of small wind turbines could be improved. Based on the work of Zhu et al. (2005, additional reference below), similar noise models for the aerodynamic noise to those used here have been developed by Clifton-Smith (2010), Sessarego & Wood (2015, 2022) and Pourrajabian et al. (2023) for small horizontal-axis wind turbines and fans.  The last four references include noise models in multi-dimensional optimizations of small turbine design.
2. The aerodynamic model is a quasi-steady one in which power is a function only of tip speed ratio and wind speed. It is well known that, even in steady, uniform flow, vertical axis turbines have a cyclic torque variation which may contribute low frequency noise.  In addition, the basic dynamic equation (2) ignores any resistive torque in the generator and drive train, Vaz et al. (2018), which is likely to be higher when a gearbox is used. 
3. The noise model considers only aerodynamic sources. In line with the references just cited, any mechanical or electrical component of the noise is ignored.

These are minor comments on a very impressive study.

Additional References

Clifton-Smith, M. J. (2010). Aerodynamic noise reduction for small wind turbine rotors. Wind Engineering, 34(4), 403-420.

Pourrajabian, A., Rahgozar, S., Dehghan, M., & Wood, D. (2023). A comprehensive multi-objective optimization study for the aerodynamic noise mitigation of a small wind turbine. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 155, 553-564.

Sessarego, M., & Wood, D. (2015). Multi-dimensional optimization of small wind turbine blades. Renewables: Wind, Water, and Solar, 2(1), 1-11.

Sessarego, M., & Wood, D. (2022). Using Small Wind Turbine Technology to Design an AntiFrost Fan. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 2265, No. 4, p. 042071).

J.R. P Vaz, D.H. Wood, D. Bhattacharjee, E.F. Lins (2018) Drivetrain resistance and starting performance of a small wind turbine Renew. Energy, 117, 509-519.

Zhu, W., Heilskov, N., Shen, W., and Sørensen, J. (2005) Modeling of aerodynamically generated

noise from wind turbines. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 127:517-528.