Skip to main content
Back to Main Project

SSD Modifications

Determination

MOD 1 - Tip Height Increase

Hilltops

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. Prepare Mod Report
  2. Exhibition
  3. Collate Submissions
  4. Response to Submissions
  5. Assessment
  6. Recommendation
  7. Determination

Increase in maximum tip height to 200 m, decrease in maximum number of turbines to 77 and determine a single transport route for construction traffic.

Attachments & Resources

Modification Application (27)

Response to Submissions (17)

Amendments (9)

Additional Information (3)

Determination (3)

Consolidated Consent (1)

Submissions

Filters
Showing 101 - 120 of 151 submissions
Grant Winberg
Object
ROSLYN , New South Wales
Message
I object to the Rye Park Wind Farm modification application and adopt the submissions of Andrew Field and his family dated June 2020
Name Withheld
Object
BOOROWA , New South Wales
Message
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.
Name Withheld
Object
BOOROWA , New South Wales
Message
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.
Bronson Sainsbury
Object
YASS , New South Wales
Message
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.
John Washbrooke
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
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!
John Washbrooke
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
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.
John Washbrooke
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
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!
Jayne Apps
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached my submission objecting to the Rye Park Wind Farm Modification 1
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
YASS , New South Wales
Message
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.
Jean Frost
Object
YASS , New South Wales
Message
I object to the Rye Park Windfarm Modification.The proponent can continually modify their plans and the people of Rye Park and surrounds should be able to judge these modifications as new proposals.The changes are so great that they are new plans,and should be judged as such.I support the submission of Andrew Field and his family,dated June 2020.
Tom Hersee
Object
BOWNING , New South Wales
Message
I object to the Rye Park Wind Farm modification application and adopt the submissions of Andrew Field and his family dated June 2020.
Anthony Folkard
Object
Bowning , New South Wales
Message
“I object to the Rye Park Wind Farm modification application and adopt the submissions of Andrew Field and his family dated June 2020”.
Tony and Penny Bickford
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
David Sainsbury
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
Noise
We discovered by reading this application that we will not only see 58 turbines and 64 if the original approval goes ahead (Appx G.1 Visual Impact Page 24). But that we also hear them. This was not included in the original Epuron application, so it is the first indication of how severe the visual and auditory impact on us will be.
Adding an extra 43m onto 157m structure built on a hills that are up to 776m high (turbine 50) will definitely increase the auditory as well as visual impact. We also discovered that we are on the cusp of the area of concern for sound and visual effects from the Rye Park and Bango Windfarms (Green Bean Design Figure 48) both of which will have 200m structures making us more at risk from cumulative impacts.
The modification document states that ‘as noted in the Sonus report S3200C9 February 2016, the ambient noise environment was monitored at 20 residences in the vicinity of the wind farm and the results were often below 30 dB(A). Therefore, in accordance with the INP, an RBL of 30 dB(A) has been considered for all residences in the assessment (page 19). Martine Holberton, Tilt’s Community and Stakeholder Engagement Advisor could not state where they are actually taken as the application document only states grid references not property number references. Of the places that we know have had sound monitoring all are on ‘associated’ properties which should call into question the veracity of the results. Obviously anyone who is not a host is not of consequence to the proponents.
The closest monitoring site was later identified by Ms Holberton as R36 which is an associated property 2 km away to the north-east. The Green Bean visual assessment identified that R36 would be subjected to 28 hubs and 42 tips in the modified plan compared to our residence having 58 hubs and 62 tips. The hubs and blades produce the noise. We will have 8 turbines within a 30-degree arc to our east which means that the noise of 1 will be amplified 8 times. One person speaking becomes babble if there are 8 speaking at the same time and at the same volume.

When we raised our concerns about the cumulative effects and for the 4th time requested that Tilt perform sound monitoring. Ms Holberton stated in an email that: “For any dwelling between the two projects the noise levels from the projects will not be additive. i.e. when the wind is blowing from the Rye Park direction it won’t be simultaneously blowing from the direction of Bango. This means any increase in noise level at your house for instance will only be due to one of the wind farms at any point in time.” Ms Holberton’s response appears to suggest that the opposing windfarm will not operate if the wind is not blowing directly from the east or west towards us or that sound is only heard if the wind is blowing towards you. https://sciencing.com/effect-wind-sound-transmission-23531.html identifies that “a person standing downwind of a sound source hears higher levels of sound, while a person standing on the opposite end will hear lower sound levels.”. Being in the valley between the two projects means that no matter which direction the wind blows (north, south, east, west or any combination in-between) we will be affected. Obviously even low levels of noise from one windfarm combination of towers and higher levels from the other combination of towers will have a cumulative (or additive) effect. Her response also indicates that we will have no respite from turbine noise. She stated ‘if there was found to be an exceedance in the post-construction testing we would implement measures to ensure the requirements are met by implementing a noise curtailment strategy”. However, she also said that “at this stage we won’t be conducting additional background noise monitoring prior to construction”. This means that unless we pay thousands of dollars for private sound monitoring prior to Bango and Rye Park wind turbines being operational we will not know the noise level at which we start and therefore if it being exceeded.
Ms Holberton also stated in her email that ‘our Noise Consultant will be in the area some time over the next few months and would be happy to discuss noise levels with the community’. They should have been here before the community submissions needed to be completed.
Name Withheld
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
This project is already going to cause irreparable damage to local environment and eco systems, to increase the size of the blades, increase the already unacceptable risk to bird life including the colony of wedge tail eagles in the area. The increased size of the turbines also means more clearing of threatened woodlands on either side of the roads. The importance of this these woodlands is stipulated in a post on Hilltops Council official Facebook page today (3/6/2020) that states “ Council’s roadsides and reserves are often the last refuge of intact remnant woodlands and are of high conservation status. By conserving these small areas of existing vegetation, Council hopes to maintain viable habitat corridors for native wildlife.”

The roads around the project are not equipped to cope with the documented estimated extra 100 heavy vehicle trips plus extra 100 small vehicle trips PER DAY for 18 months. This is even more so on the dirt sections of road that the project has documented that they have no intention of sealing.

The Super Parrot is of high risk of extinction having to navigate turbines of any description. This risk is greatly increased with an increase in turbine size swinging as low as 30m from the ground.

I strongly oppose this project and the increase in turbine size. Other concerns I have include the health and wellbeing of residents, the many other wildlife, livestock and native that are out at risk, the risk of fire caused by the turbines (I appreciate that this may be a small risk, but it’s certainly higher than if they weren’t there at all, and the impacts in the event that it does happen would be devastating) and the immediate and future impacts in the value of most residents biggest asset - their land.
David Sainsbury
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
I am making this submission for my mother Mrs Anne Sainsbury who as no access to a computer.
Attachments
Bill and Annabel Scott
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
Hi Tatsiana,

Thanks for your time earlier. As briefly discussed, we have significant concerns regarding the Rye Park Wind Farm.

Having only just recently become aware of the approved Wind Farm, there is so much more that we would like to address in addition to our original ‘submission of objection’ email.

Community members that we have spoken to locally, held the same impression as us – that the Rye Park Wind Farm was simply not going ahead. For us, this understanding was confirmed as we purchased our farm on the Little Plains Rd twelve months ago (dwelling approx. 4km from the nearest turbine, with our boundary fence approx. 2km from nearest turbine). The State Significant development did not appear in the searches. We specifically asked our solicitor about any proposed wind farms in the area. The real estate agent was also unaware that the wind farm was going ahead, or its whereabouts. The same thing also happened to our neighbours, who purchased their farm approx. 6 months prior to us. We now realise that if we had contacted yourself directly at this time, we would have known about the development – however with the community believing that the Wind Farm was not going ahead, to be honest, we simply did not give it any more thought. We feel disenfranchised about the entire situation.

We of course are significantly worried about land values, the visual impact, noise and disturbance – and all the factors outlined in our original email below. In addition:
- We hold serious concerns for the vulnerable Superb Parrot and other wildlife that would be affected by the Wind Farm. The Rye Park hills are a nesting and foraging area for these vulnerable and precious birds.
- Do the community have any opportunity to make submissions or voice concerns as part of the new EPBC discussion process?
- The modifications are significant. An increase from 157m to 200m is huge. The main impact for us will be visual – from both our properties. Also the increased concern for native habitats. The resources involved in constructing the 200m turbines, the earthworks, the clearing of land, water usage, natural disruption…we could go on… all for the good of the environment?
- The lack of community consultation and communication is shocking. On a side note, from what we have been told, the Hilltops council engineer was also unaware of the proposed modifications. We read that Tilt have been carrying out regular meetings with council? Working together with communities? We think not.
- Many community members that we have spoken with over the past couple of weeks, were not aware of the submission period for the proposed modifications and therefore did not make a submission. They were also surprised to hear that the development had actually been approved 3 years ago. Taking into consideration the ‘quiet’ approach that was taken with the public exhibitions, we do not feel that the process has been fair and the number of submissions that you would have received would not be a true indication of the community as a whole.
- Did Tilt time the modification submission period with the Covid self-isolation period to minimise the ability for the community to gather and discuss?
- Decommissioning the wind farm at the completion of its life-span – whose responsibility is this? From what we can understand, in some cases this would be the responsibility of the land holder, and sometimes Tilt themselves. Is there any clarity available to the community – so we have assurance that the wind turbines will be disposed of in an environmentally friendly way? Will the entire wind farm area be rehabilitated appropriately?
- As mentioned, the primary transport route is along the Rye Park Rd, and from what we understand, so too are the power lines that the Wind Farm will require. The Rye Park Rd is along our boundary fence and our children catch the bus there. The powerlines go past our home, on our property. From what we have heard, the Rye Park Wind Farm will require the construction of larger powerlines to handle the power. We have heard this through the community, nothing from Tilt themselves. We would absolutely object to this construction and the powerlines running through our property. However without any communication from Tilt on this topic, we are unsure where we stand.
- Also as discussed, we have heard that the Rye Park Wind Farm was approved based on incorrect information (as apparently admitted by Tilt in a community meeting). Should clarification be gained to establish what incorrect information they are referring to, and whether the assessment should be looked at again?
- We are also worried about the integrity of Tilt Renewables and the longevity of the business. Are they a strong enough business to last the life-span of the Rye Park Wind Farm, to carry out the required maintenance, continue paying the landholders, upkeep of the environment and decommissioning the wind farm to completion?
- It also appears that our dwelling on the Little Plains Rd property was not included in the visual impact assessment. Tilt Renewables offered us a very small sum of money to ‘keep quiet’, in the form of a neighbour agreement. We are also upset about the aggressive nature of the document.
- Community division as a result of the proposed Rye Park Wind Farm is so sad to witness.
- We also hold concerns for our nation itself and the environmental and social impacts that wind farms are having now, and over years to come.
- Our main point of relevance at this stage – is that we absolutely OBJECT to the proposed modifications and to the entire project itself. From what we understand, this is the view of the majority of the community – with the exception of course, of the wind farm land-holders, and we do understand and respect their views.

Thank you for your time Tatsiana and again, our apologies for the rant-like nature of this email! We are simply land-owners holding significant concerns regarding the adverse-affects on land values, the environment, the community and our nation as a whole.

Kind regards,
Bill and Annabel Scott
--------------------------------------------

Dear Tatsiana,

We have two properties which will be affected by the Rye Park Wind Farm. This is our fourth year here and the first communication we received from Tilt Renewables regarding the Rye Park Wind Farm was 11 May 2020. We feel disenfranchised and would like to object to the modifications and the development.

We have several concerns regarding the Rye Park Wind Farm:
1. Visual impact
2. Surrounding land values being adversely affected
3. Lack of communication until this point
4. Shadow Flicker Guidelines recommend using a limit of 265 times the maximum blade chord length, which is not provided in the documents. Is clarity on that length available to confirm the impact zone? We notice that Tilt Renewables have instead used the UK Guidelines which say 10 times the turbine rotor diameter.
5. Safety concerns for the bus stop at the end of the Kenny’s Creek Rd, which is on the main transport route. The road is quite narrow in this area and our children cross the road there every day. From what we can see, the bus stop has not been identified. There are two other families who also catch the bus from this point.
6. Noise and disturbance during construction, living on the proposed main transport route
7. Agricultural aerial safety with turbines at 157m and also 200m
8. Environment impact
9. Is there a cumulative assessment of the noise from the Bango wind farm and the Rye Park wind farm available? We can’t see the two developments on a single map so we can’t determine what issues this may create, and how close they are to each other. Could an assessment please be undertaken to determine the cumulative noise impacts?

Kind regards,
Bill and Annabel Scott
Name Withheld
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
Anyone making a submission is asked if they have made a reportable political donation but how many submissions are being made by people receiving financial gain from this project?
Garry Veness
Object
RYE PARK , New South Wales
Message
The huge visual impact of the proposed height and number of turbines will be a huge eye sore and provide no relief visually from the wind farm. The proposed roads will damage unique fauna and flora, and also promote erosion in this fragile environment. The traffic will impact on all current roads that are already in a poor condition. The wind farm will also impact the ability to protect the community from bush fire due to poor visibility and access for fire fighting services and aircraft. The health impact on residents is also a major concern. Thank you

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-6693-Mod-1
Main Project
SSD-6693
Assessment Type
SSD Modifications
Development Type
Electricity Generation - Wind
Local Government Areas
Hilltops
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Deputy Secretary

Contact Planner

Name
Tatsiana Bandaruk