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

I object to this wind farm modification due to the expanded off site impacts on neighbours and others nearby. The increase in tip height will greatly increase the amount of visual pollution and the number of locals that will be affected. This proposal and the continued revision of plans, personnel and proponents over a long period has meant that the local community has had to endure ongoing disruption and angst. This has divided the once happy community, put a hold on all their own plans and created a poor social atmosphere.

The only constants in the process have been the ongoing concerns of the local community regarding their health, well being and asset values and the Department's insistence that this is still the same project. If a project very similar to the original cannot be built in a reasonable time frame then the proponent should be asked to start again. If they did so, I am sure they would come up with a much different and better proposal. The current proposal is simply the last in a series of additions and adjustments to a flawed plan that has been retained only because the original was approved by the NSW government. It is time for the government to stop this wasteful process and put an end to what was always a bad job.

I am writing to lodge an objection to the proposed Modification 1 to Development Consent SSD-6693 for the Rye Park Wind Farm. My objections are based on the lack of governance and due process throughout the entire development process, the misleading information provide to the public by the applicant, visual impact, noise impact and substantial effect on biodeversity in the region.
I am not aligned to any part of the political spectrum or party, nor am I against renewable energy as part of a modern energy solution. I am however against poor decision making and due process in relation to development applications such as this.

My concern with the visual impact of the revised proposal is that despite the Department of Plannings own assessment report expressing serious concerns that the original height of the turbines would have on some residences has in no way be addressed correctly. The proposal to increase the height only adds to this issue exponentially and the token gesture to remove some turbines as a trade off is a fallacy as the removed turbines in no way reduce the visual impact on the properties most effected. The Visual Impact Assessment in support of the proposal does not address this issue and also fails to address the issue of night-time hazard lighting and the impact on residences.

The proposed revision to turbine size also leads to increased noise impact in the surrounding area. The change to tip height has taken a proposal that was barely compliant at a number of sound receivers to non-compliant. The proposal also, once again, compares noise impacts to different criteria in what can only be described as an attempt to downplay the significant increase in noise levels and variation from the original proposal. I also note that an independant report conducted by L Hudson and Associates calls into serious doubt the assumptions made and parameters used in the Modification Environmental Noise Assessment which, if corrected, would lead to nosie levels at a number of non-associated residences becoming non-compliant. The MENA also fails to account for increased construction noise and duration to accommodate the larger infrastructure requirements of the proposal.

As someone who grew up on a property in the Wargeila/Rye Park area, has family who still run a property in the area, lives in Yass and pursues a number of recreational activities in the area subject to the proposal I am most concerned about the impact on biodiversity as a result of the modification proposal. Despite the number of turbines decreasing the footprint of the development has increased significantly from 254Ha to 542Ha pointing to a significant error in the original proposal. This alone should require the modification to be rejected and the original consent reviewed. This increased footprint also requires additional clearing of endangered habitat in the form box and gum woodland. Whilst acknowledging that the proponent is offering to "offset" this increase in clearing this does not provide an immediate solution for the issues caused by clearing of this ecosystem, nor account for the cumulative effect of the impact of the large number of operational, approved or proposed windfarms within 60 klms of the proposed development.

The four fold increase in removal of hollow bearing trees from 893 to 4047, including over 200 suitable nesting sights for the endangered superb parrot, is not acceptable in terms of impact on nest sites but also the flow on effects of removal of prey animals from the landscape. The application does not address the issue of habitat fragmentation and its impacts on species such as the Squirrel Glider particularly in relation important wildlife corridors.

The increased footprint of the proposal and required earthworks, impact on local infrastructure and severe risk of extensive and long term environmental damage through erosion etc dictates that the proposal should not proceed with the current modification and the original consent require immediate review.

In summary, whilst recognising the need for alternate energy sources is of critical importance it does not negate the need for good planning processes and assessment of the environmental and social impacts to be followed. Obfuscation and misinformation by proponents is unacceptable regardless of the nature of the application and a development application, or modification for a wind or solar power development needs to be subject to the same level of scrutiny and rigorous assessment as would a proposal to build a coal burning power plant. We cannot gloss over the process and fail to adequately assess a proposal due to a perceived end benefit of the development. The current modification should be rejected and the original consent requires re-assessment based on current information and planning requirements.

The project will badly impact local people , birds , bats , fauna , flora and valued scenery via excessive air pressure generation , damage to landscape , blade damage to birds , bats and bees , Tele-communications from the magnetic effects on copper cable and microwaves Via high voltage (H.V.) electricity transfer from planned Transgrid upgrades and this project’s own planned , to be installed underground and overhead H.V. electricity transfer cable and even by microwave charging medium for internal and external communications.
Accordingly , we will be taking the appropriate legal actions to prevent this foreign entity and it’s associates being aided and abetted by your Department’s complicity and management. I look forward to meeting you all in or out of Courts.
Please be advised that both I and my neighbours and friends will be impacted by this New Zealand company , the foreign owned / leasing entity Transgrid and your own NSW Government Department of Planning.
The whole project is completely untenable for this Yass District fine wool hub of the world and it’s other primary production and Yass Landscape Guardians of which I am a member.

Please see attached document

The Rye Park Action Group comments in opposing the Modification are attached.
The Rye Park Action Group reserves the right to add to this submission should further information come to light.
It should be noted that members of the community received a hard copy of the Submission on Wednesday 27th May for viewing at the Rye Park Post Office, which had restricted hours due to COVID19, limiting effective access by members of the community without internet access. This has greatly limited the opportunity of the community to fully consider the impact of this Modification.

Submission Re: Rye Park Wind Farm Modification (SSD-6693 Mod 1)
From: Rod Gibson
488 Grassy Creek Road
Rye Park
NSW 2586
I am writing in support of the Rye Park wind farm and the modification to increase the tip height. I am a permeant residence of Rye Park and this is where I live full time. There are no turbines on my property, however I will have six turbines on the property across the road in full view of my residence, (R14), the closest is only 750 meters away. Also, noting there are 10 turbines within 2 kilometres and 20 within 4 kilometres from my residence. Our residence is on Grassy Creek Road, one kilometre before the main northern entrance, this will mean that most of the workmen, materials, and turbines will have to go past our place to access the main entrance.

I would think that this residence would be the most impacted residence in the project and despite this, we support the project. It will bring great benefits to our community through Rye Park community payments, land holder payments, and employment opportunities. The annual payments for the life of the project will improve the lives of the citizens of Rye Park regardless of what is said by a small but loud group of people who oppose the project. Most people I speak to are not fussed or are in support of the project.

Rye Park is a great place to have turbines as it is not known for any other reason other than sheep grazing country. There will be minimal impact to these farming enterprises and to the people in the district once it is up and running. The benefits will come from improved roads and money for the local community.
The changes to the height will have little effect visually to the already approved project. Plus, with the new tip height, there will be a lot more renewable power generated, 35% more compared to the existing approved project.

After speaking to the local Land Care committee, they tell me that they have been negotiations with Tilt and are hopeful to be involved with regeneration projects. This will involve planting trees and building fences, all of which employ people locally. This will create many ongoing jobs for several years. This work will not just replace vegetation removed by the project but includes regenerating areas cleared over the many years since white settlement.

The project is aligned to the state goal of zero emissions by 2050 and could play an important part in the post-COVID economic recovery. Tilt have indicated that this will be their next major project in Australia with a starting date hopefully in 2021.

I see these changes as greatly enabling Tilt to generate more renewable power from less turbines, and with less impact to the community.

I object to the current modifications to this project: namely the increase to the height and rotor sweep area; the doubling of land disturbance area; the unknown noise impact of the turbines. There has been a total lack of community consultation - I have never met anyone associated with this project and have not heard anything about this project for at least 3yrs. I object to this project going ahead.