Rye Park Wind Farm

Refer to the attached.

Refer to the attached.

Sumission attached

Submission attached

Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on the proposed Rye Park Wind Farm - RPWF (I have great difficulty in calling it a `farm', as if turbines just magically grow out of the ground!).
I do not feel the Response to Submissions (RTS) document has allayed my previous concerns in any way.
Community Consultation has still not been adequate. The feeling of mistrust in Trustpower was highlighted in their one and only Community Open Day held in Rye Park on 22nd September 2015. To employ `bouncers' to stand at the door of a small village Memorial Hall was an insult to all attending, as well as intimidating. One person became verbally abusive to the management team of RPWF because his questions were not being adequately answered and yet all those in attendance (I was there at the time) were accused of violence and theft. It was interesting to find out recently that this one person has now taken a neighbour agreement from another WF company. He was not even a Rye Park local. My suspicions suggest he was a `plant' to try to discredit Rye Park residents, and it is distressing to me that this thought can even enter my head, but it is these sorts of feelings that have been injected into the community by the less than honest intrusion to our lives by Trustpower. Please find attached an example of how Trustpower advertised their opinion of Rye Park residents, and yet they expect us to accept them into our community for the next 25 years. Trustpower engaged the services of Graeme Purches, a Community Engagement specialist after this information day, turning up at the CCC meeting on 14th October 2014. Why did it take so long to employ a community consultation specialist?
I am a member of the Trustpower CCC, joining to replace a member who has left the area due to them not being able to envisage living with wind turbines less than 2kms from their home. Minutes of CCC meetings have still not been correct. For example the minutes of the meeting on 26 August 2015 are not the corrected minutes only the draft minutes. I was at that meeting and am not noted as present. There had been no formal minute taker, with MH trying to report and take minutes as well. After CCC members make it clear this was not acceptable Michael Head decided to record the meeting on 9th December 2015. The meeting was recorded with permission from CCC members on the condition that a copy would be sent to all members but they have never been sent and minutes of that meeting have not yet been presented to a meeting. The Trustpower website lists the minutes of that meeting but they cannot be opened (contrary to what table 7-2 tells us). A minute taker was finally employed for the meeting of 17th February 2016. Additionally it has been Michael Head sending info and organising meetings, not the chair Nic Carmody, so do we have an independent Chair.
Also referring to Table 7-2 of the Executive Summary it lists the Community Consultation activities of Trustpower. Of the two media releases one of them was the damning one about the Rye Park residents (attached), radio interviews were not held with local radio stations, and who the hell is the Huffington Post?
Boorowa Council has now been dismantled with Young Council and is now the Hilltops Council. This means we have no council representatives for 2 years and any consultation with the previous council has possibly been lost in the amalgamation. We now have a council with a majority of people that have had no previous dealings with Trustpower.
Maps are still not accurate even after Epuron admitted some maps were inaccurate at the Epuron Information Day on 24th June 2014 during the public exhibition period. There has still been no great effort to get them right. Some of the diagrams showing travel of heavy vehicles have the wrong road names, most of the maps do not have all road names on them, and I would have to question their accuracy at times. The one and only map in Appendix B - Noise impact Assessment is so vague that no one would be able to tell where they were on the map, and by how much they were impacted by noise. Another example is the major map in the Executive Summary, attachment 5 showing Rye Park as just a couple of lines, not even the Village name, the main street being less than 3.5 kms from the nearest turbine 27. And yet photo montage, Figure 37, Public view location PM 6, Kershaw St, Rye Park is one street further away from the main street and it states the `Approximate distance of closest visible wind turbine 2,355 m'. So how far is the village really from turbines, and the deceptiveness of mentioning that one turbine is 2,355m away when the montage shows the majority of the northern section can be seen from the village. And of course I need to mention the deceptiveness of the scale of the montage.
The one map that may give an indication of where we are, Figure 30, Regional wind farm developments, is marked `Not to scale'!
My home is approximately 3.7km from nearest turbine, 2.5 to my boundary. The vague photo montage, Figure 36, Public View location PM 5, Little Plains Road (a road they have refused to name on the maps and is named on table 20 as a `minor local road' even though it is a main thoroughfare), is taken not far from my home. Again the map (figure 31) showing each photo montage location is so vague that no one would have an accurate indication of what they will see. I can make out all 11 of the most northerly turbines in the montage, and who know how many of the next group? The scale of the montage is so deceptive, they will be so close to my home, and this is not indicated.
The visual impact of the proposal is still of a great concern to me. Although Trustpower have made a commitment that turbines will not be more than 137m tall how are we to know that after approval they will not submit an amendment to erect larger turbines as has happened with the Collector WF. Bango turbines are to be 192m. Table 18 - Regional wind farm developments, shows the alarming number of wind proposals and operating developments in our district. One that is not mentioned is the Rugby WF that lies directly north across the top of the Rye Park WF and Bango WF and joining the northernmost turbines of the RPWF. This application has been withdrawn from the Dept Planning website but Trustpower are in consultation with the proposed hosts of this development. Will this be another amendment to the application after approval? When the Rugby WF was first put forward I realised those turbines were going to have a huge visual and sound impact on my home and property, along with that of my son and his family who also live on the property. I started planting trees close to my home, against my better judgement as I have now increased the bush fire danger to my home and can no longer see my views until the trees lose their leaves in winter. It is now perceived by Trustpower that my home will not be visually impacted by the building of turbines due to landscaping of the garden. Those trees are only there because I am to be surrounded by wind turbines. I chose to live there because of the outstanding views of the surrounding hills, which is where it is now considered necessary to build wind powered electricity generators. The value of my property has been decimated just talking about them, and to actually see and hear them will make my property unsaleable to all except the bargain hunting host neighbours.
I continue to feel that the environmental impacts of this development have not been adequately mitigated, and cannot be adequately mitigated. It is clear to see by looking at maps, looking at the information on the rare and endangered birds, reptiles, animals, fish and eco-systems that the Rye Park area is rare and unique. In just 200 years of white settlement the forests on this continent have dropped from 33% coverage to about 16%. We commit the ultimate stupidity of cutting down our precious old growth that potentially regenerate our forests on a continuous basis and Trustpower think that by destroying 256.8 ha of old growth trees and vegetation, sequestering them elsewhere so that they can build wind towers to save the environment, is a good thing?
I am still concerned about the local Koala population as explained in my previous submission. Trustpower are not accepting that there are koala populations in the Rye Park/Rugby area. In Appendix L, page 4, 3.2, SEPP44, Trustpower states that there are no feed tree species listed under SEPP44 recorded in the project area, thus the area is not a potential koala habitat. Where is the evidence that they looked for Koala and talked to people about our local Koalas to locate them. Other areas actually attract funding to preserve Koala habitat. (see attached Koala article)
Referring to Appendix C, Boorowa LEP 3.8.4.3, page 9, no development consent should be allowed on land identified as `High Conservation Value Vegetation". This land has been given that status for good reason and it would be an insult to those who have assessed the land to then have it overturned by a regulatory authority, such as the Dept Planning and Environment, that has not conducted, and made public, their own study.
Section 3.8.4.4 also mentions the groundwater vulnerability of the area. The Rye Park valleys are well known ares for rising water tables and salinity, and many thousands of dollars have been spent by landowners and landcarers to address this. To have Trustpower dismiss Groundwater Vulnerability because the area does not show up on a particular map is insensitive and irresponsible, especially as the large volumes of water needed for the project may need to be sourced from Groundwater (re Section 16, Salinity).
Yass Valley LEP 2013,3.9.3, page 12, sets out that `Electricity Generating works are not permissible in the RUI Primary Production zone' Trustpowers response: `The development does not rely on the provisions of the YLEP for permissibility', so why would they take any of the councils LEPP's into account? Does this make any consultation with councils a waste of time if councils are to be ignored?
Another potential risk is the prevalence of thunder storms in the Rye Park area and the potential for the striking of blades by lightening. The RTS document does not give specifics about the makeup of the blades, using the excused on several occasions that they have not pre-selected a preferred model. This will be done after approval! I understand most turbine blades are constructed of a fibrous material the spreads when damaged. I am concerned about the effect to the surrounding land in the event of blades breaking up, which does happen as demonstrated at Gullen Range recently. (see attachment)
Another possible deception in the RTS document relates to the building of Sub Stations. The Executive Summary, 3.5, page 36 mentions there will be up to 3 collection substations. It then goes on to describe `A new 330 kV wind farm connection substation will be constructed to connect the wind farm into the existing 330 kV .... transmission line'. `This will cover an area of 3 - 4 hectares'. I have attached a newspaper article from the Crookwell Gazette in relation the Gullen Range WF which expresses concern about the bigger than planned sub-station there. I have personally seen this construction and it is massive and an eyesore.
Trustpower quote in the RTS document, yet again, the NRMHC study "There is no causal link between wind turbines and health impacts on human beings", particularly in the Response section of the Executive Summary, page 163, in relation to the concerns for the children of the Rye Park School. Perhaps Trustpower should have read the report a bit further where it also says there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation. As I understand it, following direction from the Federal Government, the NRMHC have announced funding for independent health research into the effects of wind turbines on neighbouring residents. Two grants totalling $3.3 million were granted noting that targeted funding is warranted. This funding was announced on 22nd March 2016, and should be a clear indication the there may be health impacts to people. With the Rye Park Primary School within 3.5 kms of the turbines surely it is not worth the risk, and again there also has to be a question mark about the correct distance the school is from the turbines as photo montage Figure 37, Public view location PM 6, Kershaw St, Rye Park says Kershaw St is 2.355 m from the nearest turbines and Kershaw St is further away than the street the school is in. As if the visual impact of the turbines being able to be seen, and being able to hear them at over 30 decibels was not enough, we would also need to be worried about the health of these children. When taking the cumulative effects of the Bango WF into account, which will surround the village from the opposite direction, it is clear to see that the people of Rye Park will not be putting their small children into the school, and there will not be new residents moving to the village to soak up the `peace and serenity'. Rye Park will die, which is in contrast to the current trend of small villages within commuting distance of Canberra thriving. And who would move to Rye Park from Sydney to retire when the landscape looks like something they have come from?
Please do not listen to those that have been targeted by organisations such as the Australian Wind Alliance who exist on donations from radical `green' people who have been scared into thinking it is ok to destroy little pockets of crucial eco-systems to save the world from climate change.
Please listen to those of us who live in the area.
Please do not approve the Rye Park WF in any form.
Jayne Apps

Please find attached our submission to application SSD 6693

Still opposed

Refer to the attached.

Refer to the attached.

I object

Field attached