I object to the wind farm project at Rye Park including the proposed modifications, and this will severely affect the community, wild life and the environment in the area marked for this project.
1. The area for this project covers fragile, virgin forest which is rare and will not recover affecting vital flora and fauna. This cannot be replaced or offset.
2. The modification to increase the towers to 200 meters will increase the damage to the area with increased length of the towers and the wing spans.
3. There will be increased killing of bird life with the increased areas of impact. Rare parrots live in this area and other bird life in this region that will be killed with the wind towers now significantly bigger.
4. This development will be caused significant erosion, especially the hill tops and the roads being built to service this project. The soil in this area does not respond to earth works, and will cause irrecoverable damage - this has been proven from work done during the gas pipeline still visible today.
5. Dangerous transport of significantly long trucks along single lane country roads. The longer and bigger parts of the wind towers will make this worse, and will require more damage to land and trees.
6. Existing wind turbines have reach capacity in the region. There are 14 separate Wind Farms in a 60km radius of my family’s properties.
7. This seriously affects families living in this area, and destroying the community founded by my ancestors 9 generations ago.
8. The noise of these wind towers will prevent people living in the region and destroy the liveability of the region. This region was settled in the 1800’s and will mean people will leave.
9. The visual impact in this region will be significant and the high increase will impact the areas impacted.
10. There is a risk of bush fires in this region, and as seen by the use of air tankers and helicopters in the recent fires, air access is essential. With the number of towers in this region and at 120 mtrs high, this will make it impossible to fight the fires successfully. Also local brigades will need to learn how to fight fires in these increased dangerous area.
11. Cost of the project will not be recouped necessary gains in the community from renewal energy - other alternatives such as solar, water and wave are more viable without the downsides to the community and the environment.
12. Many houses and the community's are still being directly affected with the towers being too close to humans. It has also reduced the value of the land as it has prevented people to be able to build and live on their properties.
13. Finally has there been a true cost of the life of this project with the blades, at least, are not recycled, and likely left to fall apart in situ. Any project should be considered for all phases of life - cost of building and long term impacts to the land, returns on investment and the cost of removal - especially the ability to recycle.

I object to the Rye Park Wind Farm modification application and adopt the submissions of Andrew Field and his family dated June 2020.
We and hundreds of others within our community do not want the Rye Park wind farm to go ahead. This will have negative affects within the current community and generations into the future. A community that existed since the 1800’s.

Please see attached my submission objecting to the Rye Park Wind Farm Modification 1

Subject: Update to:

My Submission on the proposed RYE PARK Wind Farm –

Regarding my DWELLING R38

Please note that these are further updates to my previously submitted comments dated 23rd December 2013 and 8 June 2016.
It should be noted that nearly all of the assessments are purely guessimates’ at this time. However, these assessments may bare very little in common with the final outcomes.
All Maps used are basically “mud maps” which do not help in understanding the infrastructure and any implications to landholders. For example what is planned to happen along High Rock Road (my only access route to my property).
For example: What guidance!
“If interference to mobile phone, radio, or television signals is experienced as a result of the Project, a range of options are available to rectify difficulties.”

While most interest focuses on the Wind Towers, the other infrastructure goes under their radar, like transmission lines, workshops, and tracks and RFI did not get a mention!

Why are these Consultants being paid when they do not give a “yes or No” answer?

Since it is not possible to determine the potential EMI impacts on point-to-multipoint links without obtaining further information from the service operators, DNV GL recommends that consultation with these operators is prioritised as the link paths may constrain the turbine placement.

G.3 NOISE ASSESSMENT
On page 11
The Predicted Noise Level and Operational Noise Criteria (dB(A)) at Hub Height (m) Integer Wind Speeds
My property’s Predicted Noise Level is shown as
R38 27 35 28 35 31 35 34 35 36 35 37 35
However in the past, Trustpower had a consultant come and measure the background noise, there was no noise, they thought the measuring equipment was faulty, so they installed another recorder, it too found only silence!
5 CORONA AND AEOLIAN NOISE ASSESSMENT
As noted in the Sonus report S3200C9 February 2016, Corona and Aeolian noise can be generated from transmission lines.

As we live in a valley, all vehicles generate noise, so transmission lines and Aeolian effects are going to further increase our noise levels!

6 WIND FARM CONSTRUCTION

6.1 CRITERIA
So the construction of a wind farm comprising of activities such as road construction, civil works, excavation, foundation construction, electrical infrastructure works and turbine erection.

These require processes such as heavy vehicle movements, crushing and screening, concrete batching, loaders, excavators, generators, cranes and subject to local conditions possibly blasting.

Which means our hills will be alive with amplified Noise Pollution!

G.5 BIODIVERSITY (BIRDS AND BATS)
Table 3.9 Frequency of recorded wedge-tailed eagle flights above and below maximum RSA – existing design vs modification
Note: Wedge-tailed eagle, little eagle, black falcon and white-throated needletail in particular are likely to be placed at greater risk of blade strike as a result of the 49% increase in the total RSA of the wind farm under the proposed modification.

The above figures quoted are not up to date, as a group of 17 wedge-tailed eagles (Aquila audax) were seen in recent weeks by a number of local people, the wedges were all flying high within the RPWF area.
G.7 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT
Another hairy ferry traffic management plan, they will think of how they will run things later! Tough luck for the locals going about their businesses.
G.8 ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE
This report is another one that does not know whether my DTV & Satellite Internet signals will be affected by EMI generated by WTG’s1
APPENDIX A Predicted Threatened Species

Appendix H: Preliminary Road Investigation
3.2 Hilltops Council Workshops meeting did not list any discussion about any use and/or changes on High Rock Road.
No mention was made of the amount of traffic using High Rock Road.
Appendix J: Visual Impact Peer Review
This peer review of the Rye Park Wind Farm Modification 1 Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Green Bean Design

This Appendix did not contain any Figures, Tables or Appendix’ although reference was made to them in this document!
Makes it hard to see their point of view!

Appendix H: Preliminary Road Investigation
Preliminary Road Upgrade Investigation would appear to be on one of Tilt’s wish lists.
It does not cover any road works required for High Rock Road, along which they are looking to mount HV Transmission lines.

G.9 AVIATION
Aeronautical Impact Assessment Modification of
Rye Park Wind Farm, NSW
I have been working in the aviation engineering industry for over 60 years and have held a pilots’licence/certificate for 55years.
This assessment by Landrum & Brown Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd on behalf of Rye Park Renewable Energy Pty Ltd (RPRE), a solely owned subsidiary of Tilt Renewables, presents as a very poor piece of guidance.
It refers to air routes, Airspace within the lateral navigation tolerances of an air route, and the vertical allowance is also protected from terrain or obstacle intrusion to ensure safe flight operations during IFR flight on those routes.
Infringement by an infrastructure development or crane into protected airspace requires the approval of the aerodrome operator or Airservices Australia, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
Infringement of PANS OPS protection surfaces are not supported by the aviation authorities.
The US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has changed their guidance in regard to Wind Farms, now requiring Wind Turbine Towers to have lights fitted.
CASA & Airservices find it easier to say no in regard to requiring Wind Farms to be lit-up.
While this assessment discusses IFR & instrument approach procedures, 85 percent of the air traffic in the RPWF area is General & Recreational aircraft!
Airservices Australia has provided the following advice following their assessment of the Rye Park Wind Farm:
“With respect to procedures designed by Airservices in accordance with ICAO PANS-OPS and Document 9905, at a maximum height of 971m (3185ft) AHD, the wind farm will not affect any sector or circling altitude, nor any instrument or departure procedures at any airport,…” (Airservices Response: NSW-WF-038 P3)
There are more General & Recreational Aviation aircraft & helicopters including medical flights operating below 5,000 ft, which is not addressed in this assessment.
“Details of the wind farm will be provided to Airservices Australia to enable their engineers to confirm that the wind farm does not interfere with ATC communications, surveillance or navigation systems.”
In other words they don’t know!

While I am strongly in favor of renewable energy and see it as the future of Australia's energy production I also believe careful consideration of the environmental and aesthetic impacts of these developments must be considered. I oppose the modification of this project for the following reasons:

- The visual impact of eighty 200 meter wind turbines on the Rye Park landscape will be significant and change the look of the area for generations to come. The Rye Park area is rich in natural beauty and turbines of this size do not fit with that aesthetic.
- The increased blade sizes will increase the noise levels and the turbines will be heard from further away. The Rye Park area is a quiet agricultural community with little ambient noise to compete with the the sound of the turbines. The sound from the turbines on a windy day will greatly impact those in the village and surrounding area.
- The increased blade sizes require larger footings and support infrastructure which will increase their environmental impact. The Rye Park hills are predominately shale which is prone to run-off after large rain events that negatively impacts the local waterways. The quality of this water is essential to both the farming community and the delicate local ecosystem which includes endangered species such as the Southern Pygmy Perch (Nannoperca australis). The reduction in vegetation from the increased footings, roads, support infrastructure and the impact of the heavier equipment required in the initial construction will increase runoff and cause significant ongoing damage to the local waterways.

Increasing the tip height of the Rye Park project will have serious environmental and visual impacts and for the these reasons I oppose this development in its current form.

We object due to lack of consultation with effected residents. This proposal directly impacts us in that the planning depicts parts of our private property as "yellow". We are unsure of what this means, but do not agree under any circumstances to have our property used for this development, whether it be temporary, travel related, or otherwise as we use our property for agriculture and it is our families main source of income.

We object due to lack of consultation with effected residents. This proposal directly impacts us in that the planning depicts parts of our private property as "yellow". We are unsure of what this means, but do not agree under any circumstances to have our property used for this development, whether it be temporary, travel related, or otherwise as we use our property for agriculture and it is our families main source of income.

I object to the Rye Park Wind Farm modification application and adopt the submissions of Andrew Field and his family dated June 2020