MOD 1 - Tip Height Increase

I would like more information for the following points.
1. Where our residence is situated ,is the road to be widened and if so, on which side? What distance is the road to be widened by ?
2.Will the impact of the works damage the structure of our home and surrounding buildings on our block?
3. What is the duration of the works and what impact is the noise pollution to have on us as I look after a small child ?
4. Concerning the corner block ie: corner of Rye Park Road and Long Street - will this involve construction of buildings and plant equipment areas which will be detrimental to our welfare with dust, noise and heavy traffic and bright lights?
5. What are the working days and hours?
6. If any damage or removal of vegetation is required, is it replaced?
Please reply via email.

Due to the enormous size of the modification document (1378 pages) and the fact we had to request a USB from Tilt as we could not download all the information so reducing the time that we have to make submissions, I will be submitting further submission after the closing date as discussed with Tatsiana Bandaruk from the DPI&E


This submission relates to the Previous Department of Planning & Environment decision about the location of wind turbines overlooking Rye Park village

In 2017 the Department of Planning & Environment recommended (as below) the removal of the 16 turbines around the village but Independent Planning Commission re-instated 8 of them. That means that TILT now want to make 43m higher the 8 turbines that the Department of Planning & Environment said should not be there. If they should have been removed because of the visual impact they should definitely not be allowed to be made even big and more of an impact.

STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT Rye Park Wind Farm (SSD 6693)
Assessment Report Section 89E of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 March 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“Based on advice from the independent visual expert, the Department considers that with the combination of proximity, the elevated position of the turbines along the nearby ridgeline, and the extensive horizontal views of turbines from the village, the project would result in an unacceptable visual impact on the village and a number of nearby residences.
Due to the nature and extent of the impacts, there are limited options to avoid or mitigate the visual impacts to acceptable levels, apart from removing turbines from the proposed layout. In consultation with the independent visual expert, the Department has recommended that all 16 turbines in the North Western be removed to reduce the impacts to an acceptable level. The Department considers this approach is consistent with the objective of maintaining the character of rural villages under the applicable statutory planning scheme.” (page2)

Due to the enormous size of the modification document (1378 pages) and the fact we had to request a USB from Tilt as we could not download all the information so reducing the time that we have to make submissions, I will be submitting further submissions after the closing date as discussed with Tatsiana Bandaruk from the DPI&E

Appendix I: Stakeholder Community Engagement Plan (165 pages long)
The cynically contemptuous lodging of the modification documents in view of the public movement restrictions due to COVID19 demonstrates TILT’s disregard of their ‘commitment’ to public consultation.
There are:
• 1378 pages in the proposal
• No hard copies of the document provided due to COVID19
• The expectation that residents will download the documents when download speeds are slow and GB allowances limited in rural areas. We have 8GB allowance for the month at a cost of $65.
• 3 weeks to read and make comment with no extension being allowed.
• Many, many residents have not made aware of the modifications to the approved project and the impact they will have on the village because public meetings have not been and now cannot be held. This relates especially to the facts that the height increase means 19 turbines with the equivalent height of 60 story buildings will tower over the village but also from the main street it is projected that they will see 55 to 60 turbine hubs and even more blades. Also that the main route for the oversized vehicles carrying heavy equipment as well as turbine blades and turbine generators is straight through the heart of the village.
• Tatsiana Bandaruk from the Department of Planning stated they put notices in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Telegraph and ‘a local paper‘ but could not name which one. Very few people in this area access those papers and, during ‘lockdown’, even fewer. No one we have spoken to saw these notifications. In a small community the village residents who will be most affected have to collect their mail from the post office in the village as there is no door-to-door mail delivery. Therefore, in order that the majority of people were made aware, a notification should have been sent to the post office. The fact that this was not done demonstrates a lack of understanding of the differences between town and country.
• The offer of providing the documents on a USB was only made when we complained to the Department of Planning. This should have automatically been sent to everyone who had made a previous submission.
Comments on the content
The Rye Park Wind Farm project has been met with mixed responses from the overall community, however it’s not weighted to one side or the other (Page 17). A Community meeting in Rye Park on 06/06/2014 was attended by 104 people. Of 10 people within 2km zone only 2 had been consulted. At the meeting 91% of attendees were not in favour of the wind farm (identified by a blind ballot).
In 2015 Tilt Renewables offered Neighbour Agreements to landowners within 2km of a turbine and 4 of 25 accepted. Neighbour Agreements were re-offered to 32 landowners in October 2019. (Page 17) How many were accepted?
“There is a potential dynamic in the community that makes it difficult for locals who are neutral or supportive of the Project to publicly express their views, resulting in fewer advocates speaking out and a lack of balanced local debate about the Project.” (Page 17). The potential hosts and those taking Neighbour Agreements do not represent the views of the majority of the community. In the submission cover letter written by Marita Giles there are 58 ‘owners’ but only about 17 properties will ‘host’ turbines.
Community Risk Assessment: (Page 22)
• Threats of violence against Tilt Renewables staff when engaging with communities face-to-face.
• Consultation sessions are targeted by anti-wind farm protestors.
• Landowners become upset or outraged while talking with staff at the sessions.
• Supporters are intimidated and do not participate.

• Develop and implement safety plan and protocols
• Clear escalation procedures and dedicated escalation person to attend sessions
• Staff training on how to de-escalate situations
• Brief local police pre sessions and seek advice
Epuron initiated confrontation at their ‘Community Consultation’ session by having ‘bouncers’ in uniforms blocking entry to the community meeting and assaulting local residents trying to access the Rye Park Soldiers Memorial Hall. Residents are irritated when the questions they ask cannot be answered by the windfarm staff.
Tilt Renewables acknowledges that the approach to consultation and communication must meet the expectations of the community. (Page 28). All residents of the area should have been informed about the project and the visual impact it will have on their lives.
This has been TILT’s mode of action all through this process. They keep the ‘hosts’ well inform and ignore the rest of the community. We have asked for site visits to our property and for sound monitoring 3 times but all have been ignored. With this modification proposal it was the first time we discovered how many turbines we would be subjected to.
Tilt Renewables takes a long-term project ownership and local community relationships approach to consultation as it sees itself becoming an active participant in the local community for the life of the RPWF project (Page 49). What about the windfarm at Snowtown completed in 2014 and now sold?
Ongoing financial boost to the local economy will be provided during the life of the Project through landowner related payments. (Page 49). Many of the landowners who will benefit from this do not live in the area eg R Pearsall, Cotterill, Cotter and Murphys but will have a large percentage of the turbines and therefore the payments. As they do not live in the area they therefore do not ‘spend’ in the area.
Changes in names/owners and therefore responsibility 4 times so far in the project: Epuron then October 2016: Tilt Renewables demerges from Trustpower, along with all Trustpower wind farm assets and development pipeline. (Page 51). Now Rye Park Renewables
Following the public notification period DPIE received submissions from 224 individuals. Of those, 110, nearly 50% were in support of the Project, a very significant improvement from previous consultation. (Page 52). Means the majority do not support it. The majority of the ‘fors’ were not from the area or had any relationship with affected area.
Page 53-54. From 2017 onwards 6 ‘engagements’ with landowners, none with the community
Rye Park Progress Association meetings to define opportunities to fund community projects March 2020 Ongoing (Page 57). According to Martine Holberton, Community and Stakeholder Engagement Advisor this sole contact was made by phone to the Secretary (personal communication as I was the Chairperson for this committee for 3 years until November 2019).
P66 to 82. Included Eupuron Consultation Documentation- already identified as a misleading
Page 84 False propaganda by using of cover photo- the land the turbines are being sited on is not a flat field but wooded hills 770m high (turbine 50)

G.2 SHADOW FLICKER AND BLADE GLINT
When I built my residence on top of the hill, I positioned the building, so the upstairs bedrooms located at the front of the building would catch the rising sun coming over the top of nearby Sinai Hill and range, for at least an hour per morning. In addition, for most of the year the sun shines directly into our Office/Study and Lounge, providing lovely way to heat our home. My property is listed as R38.
But with Wind Turbines stuck on top of the ranges, we will suffer a visual intrusion of flicking shadows as the sun and/or the moon rising from behind the extra high Wind Turbines!
We also anticipate suffering another visual intrusion of flicking shadows as the sun and/or the moon sets from the west caused by the Bango Wind Farm!
It is a known fact that awaking from sleep to flicking shadows is a possible torture health hazard.
It should be noted that as the Earth rotates so the Sun will pass behind many more Turbines and thus increase the Flicker effect.
Thus use of the geometrical model within the DNV GL WindFarmer - Analyst software package is USELESS as it does not address my location!
NOTE: DNV GL has modeled all listed receptors as habitable building structures. DNV GL has not carried out a detailed and comprehensive survey of sensitive land uses and building locations in the area and is relying on information provided by the Customer (TILT).
Table 5 Shadow receptor locations within 3000 m of turbines at R38#3 Non-associated 679623 6173620 1738 (67) 1738 (67) 1738 (67)
Note that there is no 3 listed on Table 5!
I also note on the “Theoretical Shadow Chart”, the position of my dwelling is shown at the worst case.
This Report has very little to say about non-associated dwellings.
Although the Development Consent specifies a limit on the shadow flicker duration at non-associated dwellings and the Director requirements for assessing and minimising shadow flicker impacts, they do not provide detailed methodologies for these assessments. See Page 11
Note MY Dwelling subject to acquisition on request.

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

Hello please find attached the BCD response to Rye park wind farm. We understand this response is late however we had difficulties getting access to the data within the BAM tool. I have spoken to Tatsiana in regards to this.
thanks Allison

Brad Pearsall
160 Grassy Creek Road
Rye Park NSW 2586


Rye Park Wind Farm – Modification 1
SSD-6693-Mod 1


I support the modification to increase the tip height from 157m to 200m for the Rye Park Wind Farm and reducing the turbine numbers from 92 down to 80, which will have less impact on my farming operation due to the reduced numbers.

The construction of the Wind Farm will create employment for the local community, which has already been demonstrated with the construction of the Bango Wind Farm under way.

Income from the Wind Farm will enable us to take measures to drought proof the farm and enable us to better manage stocking rates during drought periods, maintain better ground cover and conduct more environmental projects. The income will also aid us to better manage our farm commodity sales.

The ridge line on my property is slate rock country; the construction of the Wind Farm will utilize this poor grazing area of the farm.

Tilt Renewables has been very up front and approachable during the planning process and I look forward to this project going ahead.

I strongly object the Rye Park wind farm project. The Project will have massive environmental impacts on the surrounding bush and forests, much of which holds endangered species of plants and animals.
This proposal is also done at a time when people are struggling with corona and may find it hard to voice concerns and grievances.
I OPPOSE THE RYE PARK WIND FRAM PRJECT AND ANY FURTHUR PROJECTS INTO THE FUTURE.

See attached

Well I have many comments the first is that I'm shocked that this project got approved in the first place! The letter I received dated the 8th of May had a map attached and the map wasn't readable, it was so blurry and didn't make sense. After looking through the reports online there are details not mentioned for example our house! There are two dwelling on property number R121. Also on the transport maps there is no mention of any school bus stops on Rye Park road and Grassy Creek road.

I'm also questioning the statment "The Department’s assessment found that despite the proposed ground disturbance, the Project would not result in any significant impacts on threatened species or EECs". Seriously have you look at vegetation in this area or even the satalite maps! Below is a screen shot of the Rye Park Wind Farm noise map that is a satalite map. It looks like 90% of wind turbine placement has high levels of vegetation that will be destroyed due to this project. How can that statement be made and not be questioned. Not to mention the land and vegetation disturbances just to transport the turbines here. The amount of unnecessary changes to the roads by trying to aquire private land and replacing historical and sound bridges just to get the turbines here is just crazy. Do you really think a project like this is going to help the enviroment? All I can see is destruction of the environment for a project that doesn't have sound research to begin with.

Consulation is poor also I and others have had to inform locals about this project that knew nothing about. Even an Aboriginal Local didn't know this was happening.
It was also mentioned that the increased size of the turbines won't increase visual imapact, are you serious! They would be a visual impact before the modifation they would be more so now. Shadow and blade glint will have no increased impacted again are you serious! One thing you mention is that noise will increase but will impliment a curtailment stratergy possibly by turning off the turbine if that is the case why bother building them in the first place. It was mentioned no affects to certain vegetation, bird and bat biodiversity but look at what is being destroyed what about all vegetation and species not just endanged or protected ones. You also stated that a 20m buffer to be applied to areas of archaeological potential. Really 20 meters! Shouldn't be anywhere near areas of archaeological potential.

My personal comment about wind farms in general are that they don't help the environment or "climate change". Look at what has to be done to get the turbines to this and other locations. The ommissions created to make them, land clearing, historical bridge removals and road altercations ect. Wind turbines to me aren't reliable forms of renewables. The amount of time I have traveled past some that weren't operating seems pointless and for what, descruction of the land. There are many reliable sources of renewable energy that is more effective and doesn't require damaging the environment to set up. Not to mention high possibilty of health side affects. And if you think you can safely continue to farm the land as per normal around them think again and how do they "drought proof" your farm? Money can only do so much it cann't make it rain can it.

I'm going to be brave and say look at the environmental effects of COVID-19. With less unnecessary travel, local shopping ect our air quality improved. But household power usage was the same if not more yet the environment still improved without more wind turbines. Perhaps we should look at climate change across the board not just the energy sector.
If you the government are really keen to "combat climate change" instead for forking out grants and incentives to unreliable wind farms why not put these grants and incentives into environemtally safe farming practices. eg Programs for soil improvment without the use of chemicals that damage the soil ect. Thus improves plant growth and with having healthier soil so when it rains the soil will hold the rain instead of washing across the surface taking the chemicals with it. Don't belive me? Look into biodynamic farming practices and there are some compelling points in the flim 2040 although I don't agree with using the wind turbine in their graphics. I'm a beliver in that solar and using the ocean waves as a more reliable form of renewables.

On behalf of Andrew Field and his family, I attach:
1. Covering letter dated 2 June 2020;
2. Submission dated June 2020 including Appendix A - Review prepared by L Huson & Associates dated May 2020

Please see the attached submission (VIA) and a supporting document (2016 Review of the VAB)

Please see the attached submission. The Rye Park wind farm is no longer in the public interest.

See attachment for comments.

As we could not download the huge amount of pages in this modification request and had to wait for a USB from TILT I will be lodging submission after the closing date as discussed with Tansiana Bandruk DPI&E

As per previous submission about late lodgement

As per previous submission regarding late lodgement of submissions as per Tatsiana Bandruk

160 Grassy Creek Road
Rye Park, NSW 2586
2nd June 2020

Rye Park Wind Farm - Modification 1
SSD-6693-Mod-1

I strongly support the Rye Park Wind Farm. I believe there are various advantages of wind power including:
• Creating jobs for local community members
• They can be constructed on existing farms
• It is a sustainable and clean fuel source
These benefits have already positively impacted my life. Community members have the opportunity to remain in the rural area with increased job opportunities with potential for ongoing employment in the future. Additionally, these employees have already begun supporting local businesses. Farmers will benefit with extra income that will allow them to continue to run stock and drought proof farms. It will make farms more sustainable for future generations to remain on the land.

I strongly believe the use of non-polluting renewable energy will benefit our future.

Regards,
Maddison Pearsall

As per previous submissions about late lodgement of submission as discussed with Tatsiana Bandaruk

Hi, I am writing in support of the Rye Park wind farm. Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, wind turbines do not produce heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Instead, they redistribute heat. Rotating turbine blades draw down warmer air from higher up in the atmosphere. Wind’s climatic impacts could be reduced by increasing the height of the turbine rotor to reduce interactions between the turbulent air behind them and the ground. The Rye Park wind farm has done this by increasing the tip height form 157m to 200m - Despite the increase in the height of the turbines and the rotor swept area, the specialist ecological assessments identified that its unlikely the modification will increase the risk of blade strike or adverse impacts to bird and bat species listed under State and Commonwealth legislation. The Project is strongly aligned with the NSW Government energy and Commonwealth climate policies. The Project will provide 100% emissions free, renewable energy and help NSW with its inevitable transition away from its current reliance on fossil fuels which are continuing to contribute to climate change impacts. The Project will provide full time employment for up to 250 staff during construction and up to 10 ongoing regional jobs during its operational life providing increased employment opportunities. Therefore by installing the wind turbines on the Rye Park farm, not only are you creating more jobs for regional towns you are creating an efficient, sustainable power source.