Mod 3 - Noise, Events & Condition Changes

I wish to lodge a letter of support for the application. I am a member of both Byron Bay Runners and Byron Bay Cycle Club and believe that small events can be held on the site that is both safe and community acceptable. Healthy pursuits will compliment the site and also keep our children within a safe environment.
An educational bike riding program for school children could be run on the site as well as school cross country events.
Both running and bicycling events are low impact,low noise activities .

I object that the rules pertaining to noise levels could be changed during the " trial" period. We live in a RESIDENTIAL area approx 2 km from the site. Noise levels seriously affect us

Byron Parklands cannot comply with current noise level targets and should not be able to increase them just so they can tick compliance boxes. These Festivals are very disruptive to the local communities surrounding the site. The last Splendour in the Grass could be heard over 20 kilometres away which is absolutely unacceptable. The site is in an ecologically sensitive area with many species of wildlife and the noise level criteria applied should reflect this.

I live almost 10 kilometres from the site and my dog was very upset by the noise and we could hear the music from the last Splendour above the noise of the television. The Government needs to look after the community and the wildlife, not a giant moneymaking machine.

I am so impressed by North Byron Parklands application to manage their sound and to welcome community events to their event site. I am blown away and they have my full support.

With regard to its many environmental initiatives, Parklands has also forged strong links with NSW National Parks to collaboratively care for the adjoining Billinudgel Nature Reserve, an important area of coastal forest wetland that provides a refuge for many important fauna species. One joint project has involved the removal of more than a kilometre of barbed wire fencing that was identified as a threat to fauna in the Billinudgel Nature Reserve under the plan of management (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, November 2000).

Under the North Byron Parklands environmental management manual there is a particular Environmental Standard that requires events being held on the site to adhere to a number of stringent environmental controls. The controls include buffer zones, environmental inductions, fencing aspects, wildlife rescue teams and lighting requirement to reduce illumination of bush blocks. I am unaware of any other outdoor event venue requiring such tight environmental controls. Parklands has certainly be moving towards Australian best practice, if not world's best environmental practice.

The on site camp grounds are very functional and the festival grounds work really well, with heaps of space for everybody. I love this venue like thousands of people.

The natural amphitheatre at North Byron Parklands was really great and a definite improvement to events that are held here. I would travel anytime to see an event at North Byron Parklands.

Small local businesses are able to thrive in otherwise tough times with the introduction of festivals such as Splendour In The Grass & The Falls Festival at North Byron Parklands. The effects can be felt as far North as Tweed heads and as far South as Lennox Head. Without this boost in trade over these times it would be extremely difficult for my small business to survive the year.

Parklands have undertaken a detailed economic impact assessment which bodes well for the tourism industry should these requested changes be approved. Projections show that tens of thousands of people will visit the area each year and this influx of people will significantly bolster our tourism businesses.

North Byron Parklands have presented an application worthy of high praise and approval. Please approve their submission.

I have not made any reportable political donations over the past two years.

With my personal experience of the North Byron Parklands organization i have found them to be extremely environmentally and socially responsible. The events held at the site contribute greatly to the community through providing much needed employment in our area and all the associated charities that are supported by the events that are held there. I feel they are committed to addressing any concerns the community has and are actively working towards solutions. They have my trust and i support them whole heartedly.

I object to the proposal to increase higher frequency sound levels emanating from the North Byron Parklands site. I agree that bass levels need to be reduced but higher frequency levels were also a major concern at Splendour in the Grass 2014. There were 139 noise complaints about Splendour 2014. The noise levels were enormously disruptive to the social amenity of the community and many people felt physically disturbed by the intrusive sounds. At the subsequent Falls festival event over the summer of 2014/15, residents barely heard the sounds. Why can't Splendour keep sounds to that level? Much positive work has been done to make Parklands a good neighbour in the north of Byron Shire, and residents have appreciated efforts to minimise traffic and other disruptions. But noise always was and remains the main problem. At the moment it appears to residents that all decisions are going Parklands' way with little regard to the concerns and needs of residents. My submission is my own, but I can assure you that it is also based on the concerns of many residents, particularly the elderly, who do not find it easy to make these sort of submissions. I do hope you give consideration to residents, many of whom have observed the entire approval process with dismay, and some of whom have given up, believing that Parklands will get whatever it wants with the uncritical blessing of the Department of Planning & Environment. Please demonstrate this is not so.

I support the position of the elected Council of Byron Shire.

SOUTH GOLDEN BEACH
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC.
PO Box 11, New Brighton. NSW 2483 Ph: 0429 803561
web: www.southgoldenbeach.com email: [email protected]

________________________________________

To: The NSW Minister for Planning 16th June 2015
From: South Golden Beach Community Association
RE: S.75W Modification Application for MP 09_0028

We object to North Byron Parklands asking you to modify their PAC approval and urge you to consider these points in making your decision:

1. In 2012, the PAC gave Parklands approval for a five-year trial period. That approval is giving the state government, the local council, and the community a chance to see if Parklands can manage noise and other issues satisfactorily. Major conditions of the approval, such as noise limits, should not be changed in the middle of the trial.

2. The proposed new limits for dB(A) noise would mean that Parklands could possibly avoid fines in the future and would have a better chance of saying they are staying within government-approved limits. But the amenity of surrounding residents will be negatively impacted. To protect residents from the disturbance they are experiencing from Parklands festivals, the noise limits should be lowered.

3. The developers are claiming that the dB(A) noise limits must be raised so that their customers and the performers who entertain them are not adversely affected. Festival goers want the noise to be as loud as possible, and performers want to keep the volume high. But residents want the peace and quiet that they are used to in their homes. This is a key issue and was a key issue from the start. When community members spoke directly to the PAC in 2012 and registered their strong objections to the development, they repeatedly pointed out that the site was the wrong location for outdoor music festivals because too many quiet residential and ecological areas surround the site. Now that the community has experienced the impacts of the festivals, we can say again that Parklands is still the wrong location for outdoor music festivals!

4. We would like to see dB(C), or bass, noise limited, but the limits proposed here are questionable (75 dB(C) until midnight; 70dB(C) until 2AM). In October 2013, after the extremely noisy Splendour 2013, the Department recommended similar criteria for bass levels with the suggestion that the suitability of the criteria be judged in light of the subjective assessments of nearby residents. Parklands specified these levels as aspirational targets for the next two events: Falls 2013 and Splendour 2014. Noise remained a problem at both events, however, with numerous complaints lodged both with regard to bass noise and higher-frequency noise, and breaches in the noise limits at Splendour 2014 resulted in the Department imposing a $3000 fine. To protect residential amenity in this very quiet area, lower limits should be set for the bass noise.

5. Parklands want to "level the playing field" by having the same dB(A) noise limits as other venues in NSW. They give examples of other locations and say that these other places had very few complaints when the noise limits were what Parklands wants to use. According to the proposal, these other venues often generated no complaints, and the highest number lodged was 9. However, the complaints to Parklands so far have been numerous: 73 during Splendour 2013, 34 during Falls 2013, 139 during Splendour 2014, and 22 during Falls 2014. (The actual number of people who tried to complain was higher because Parklands has had trouble with their complaint hotline. At one event, for example, the hotline didn't function at all because the mobile phones the operators were using couldn't get a signal.) The large number of noise complaints that have been registered so far, under the current noise limits, strongly indicate that the limits should not be raised.

6. We object to allowing the loud, amplified music to operate until 2AM on New Year's Eve. If the location of the site were different, we would not object to this, but there are too many people in the area who do not want loud music that late in the evening, even on NYE, especially after having suffered from loud music for several days before NYE, the entire day of NYE, and the prospect of suffering up until midnight on New Year's Day as well.

7. Noise data collected to date have mostly been based on Parklands' noise monitoring and management, and both have been inadequate.
a. At Splendour 2013, Parklands' monitoring was so inadequate that the Department couldn't tell if the noise limits had been breached. Residents had commissioned their own professional engineers to monitor the noise, and those readings showed obvious breaches. When this information was sent to the Department, their own noise engineer raised a number of criticisms of the procedures used by Parklands. Although the Department did not acknowledge breaches of conditions, residents in the area were greatly disturbed by the festival noise, which lasted for days.
b. At Falls 2013, Parklands's noise engineer did not do the monitoring that was required at sensitive receivers and at ecological locations, so data on observed noise were simply not generated. However, residents reported that the noise from Falls 2013 was much worse than the noise from Splendour 2013.
c. At Splendour 2014, Parklands engaged a different noise engineer and the required monitoring was done. The result: The DOP levied a fine of $3000 for breaching the noise limits. Area residents again commissioned a professional noise engineer to do independent monitoring, and that engineer found that the noise at Splendour 2014 was even louder than the noise at Splendour 2013.
d. At Falls 2014, noise management was improved. However, breaches still occurred. A stage was allowed to operate for an hour after midnight. That breached approval conditions and most certainly disturbed nearby residents.
This history clearly shows that Parklands should concentrate on improving the monitoring and management of the noise rather than seeking to increase the limits.

8. In particular, with regard to noise monitoring, Parklands should be expected to continue to monitor the areas designated in the approval as sensitive receivers even if agreements with the property owners are in place. Ongoing monitoring is very important to have a record of the noise over time so that when Byron Shire Council takes over as the consent authority they will have useful data for making their own decisions about noise limits. The PAC specifically said "In considering any future project applications, the Council must take into consideration the performance of events during the trial, the effectiveness of the management plans, the monitoring results of environmental conditions ..." (PAC Final Determination Report). We strongly urge the Minister to require ongoing noise monitoring, regardless of any agreements that may be in place.

9. Parklands claims that the strict PAC limits are "prohibitively low in winter and therefore very difficult to comply with". In fact, the two winter (Splendour) festivals so far have been quite disturbing to the surrounding residential areas and will be even more disturbing if the allowable noise limits are increased. If the smaller Falls festival continues to grow, it, too, may be unable to control the noise as well as it did for Falls 2014.

10. The proposal states that noise exceedances were observed during Splendour 2014 even when the festival was not generating amplified sounds. Parklands claims that noise from ocean sounds and vehicle movements were at times at or above the PAC-set limits. However, what matters to the community is the disturbing amplified music noise that is generated by the festivals, noise that needs to be effectively controlled within the existing PAC conditions. The fact that other occasional sources of noise may be observed in the area does not justify an increase in the limits for festival noise. It should be obvious that ocean noise and vehicle movements generate very different qualities of noise to amplified music. It is the amplified music that's the problem, not occasional vehicle sounds or surf sounds.

11. The PAC approval states that noise limits can be lowered if the Regulatory Working Group recommends more stringent levels. RWG members have in fact recommended lower noise limits more than once, given the widespread disturbances that have been experienced by residents, and lowering the limits remains an option that we strongly support.

12. Use of the southern car park was limited by the federal government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) with regard to protecting the adjacent wetlands. The EPBC approval specified "eastern and southern areas of the southern car part that will not be used during the 5 year trial". We're against allowing even more cars so close to this restricted area.

13. We note that several proposed changes are also part of the federal government's approval under the EPBC Act, including the total number of events of all kinds and the bump-in and bump-out periods. We believe that additional approval needs to be sought from the relevant federal government department for these changes.

14. If all noise criteria are to be consolidated into C16, then all five clauses of B3 should be moved to C16. It is not clear from the proposal that this is what would happen. In particular, it is important to preserve the right of the RWG to recommend changes to the noise criteria in the interests of protecting the amenity of the surrounding communities.

15. RE C17, Noise Mitigation. We know that noise mitigation works have still not been completed at some sensitive receivers. This was supposed to have been done before the first event, which occurred two years ago. The Department even gave specific follow-up instructions to Parklands to comply with this condition, and these residents, who are part of our community, have been as accommodating as possible in having engineers and others enter their property to determine what can be done to protect them from festival noise. Four festivals have now been completed. No progress has been made with mitigation, and these residents are still strongly affected by festival noise and will be affected even more if limits are raised further.
With regard to this, the proposed change in (new) C17 is unsupportable. We mean the addition of the clause "over more than two consecutive events". At least one sensitive receiver put in a written request for noise mitigation some time ago, the Department directed Parklands to provide that mitigation, nothing happened, and the matter was referred to the Director-General/Secretary. These residents have experienced very disturbing noise repeatedly. The fact that Parklands now claims that these people experience excessive noise only on a "one-off basis" is extremely misleading. And their attempt to reduce their responsibility to these residents further is unconscionable.



Regards

Angela Dunlop
Secretary
South Golden Beach Community Association

The local community is currently negatively impacted by the unnecessary noise levels of the existing festivals no this site. The event participants have no respect for the local residents, or the environment - the waste/rubbish left behind is obscene. Take a walk through local neighbourhoods during the music festival and listen to the dogs whimpering and barking in distress from the noise.
You don't even insist on the event organisers finding a way to compensate the community for the massive traffic inconvenience. You are turning peaceful Yelgun into a disgrace each time you allow this activity to go unchecked. Stop listening to the mighty dollar and please listen to your local rate payers. Please care about your own community and put the limits on these events now.

I am a the owner of a motel in Brunswick Heads for the past 14 years. I am a member of the Byron Bay Runners Club. The North Byron Parklands site would be an excellent venue for the Running Club to hold training events, fun runs or get involved in running a Park Run each week. I am involved in coaching both adults and juniors running and I would anticipate if available the site could be used on a weekly basis or when available. The site is safe and provides a great natural environment to run. The site is a great asset to the community and should be used to its full potential.

We OBJECT to the application by Parklands to have their project approval modified. Specifically there is absolutely no justification to increase the existing limits of noise levels. I would have thought there is plenty of factual evidence, through the level of complaints and noise monitored breaches, that would justify that the existing noise level limits ought be reduced. The Planning Assessment Commission approved a 5 year trial period to establish if the development could stay within PAC set boundaries. This application by Parklands only serves as further evidence, that in the context of noise, this location is not an appropriate place for major outdoor music festivals; as the large majority of locals emphasized to PAC in 2012. As a directly affected resident, during the course of the 'Splendour in the Grass' festivals of 2013 and 2014 our residential area within Ocean Shores and our counterparts in areas of Mooball were absolutely smashed by excessive disturbing noise and bass vibration. Consider the following: 1/ If the existing noise limits are adjusted upward, naturally the noise increases and we the existing resident is further compromised. 2/ PAC set strict noise limits to protect the residents and the sensitive ecology in the area. Parklands now want these limits must be raised for the good of their business. Parklands themselves are only underlining the unsuitable location of this site. 3/ The complaints hotline results relating to Parklands music festivals thus far are as follows: Spendour 2013-73, Falls 2013-34, Splendour 2014-139, Falls 2014-22. Further the complaints hotline has not always functioned correctly, so the actual number of people who have tried to complain was more than likely higher. 4/ Parklands noise monitoring and management have so far been inadequate. At Splendour 2013 monitoring was so poorly done that the Dept. couldn't tell if the noise limits had been breached or not. Professional monitoring commissioned by residents showed clear breaches. PAC fined Parklands $3,000.00 in 2014 for breaching sound limits. The large majority of local residents all severely affected, still maintain this trial approval granted in 2012 was unjustified. For Parklands to apply for a relaxation within the PAC set boundaries underlines their lack of respect and consideration for those that bear much of the burden for Parklands benefit. Critical conditions like noise limits should not be changed, particularly given the poor performance of Parklands 2 years into their trial period. No changes to the conditions of this TRIAL consent should be entertained by PAC. If Parklands can illustrate they can be responsible and considerate to to the existing residential amenity, (which as at this stage they have failed to adequately apply); only then should this should this TRIAL deserve further consideration.

We hear the festival even though we're miles away, the extra buses that don't usually come this way rumble by until midnight, and the party goers arrive home to the rented accommodation at all hours, happily rowdy with no concept of sleeping neighbours.

To live in this beautiful area we accept next to no public transport, few employment opportunities, appalling roads to name but a few issues and now we are told we're to become "party central". NO THANK YOU.

This is our home. We wish to live quietly and enjoy the naturally beauty surrounding us. The noise pollution is intrusive and distressing, not to mention the additional traffic, rubbish and general inconvenience.

The current allowable noise levels need to be reduced not increased and the fact that the organisers have applied to increase the noise level shows their total disregard for the local inhabitants - both human and animal.

I think that the site is perfect to be used as a safe environment for more activities to benefit the community.

I am part of the Byron Bay Runners and we would welcome the chance to use such a fantastic local piece of land to hold community events.
Our impact on the land and surrounds would be minimal, but our enjoyment huge.
To be able to use the site for school cross country for our kids would be a perfect use for the site.

I would also love to have the opportunity to enjoy local open air cinema with my family and friends.

I am submitting this submission because at the present permitted sound levels my whole house throbs during Splendour especially with bass tones/ music. Although I live several kilometres from the Yelgun site , I live right on Marshall Creek. The sound appears to be magnified/ intensified while travelling through water. I am unable to sleep till it stops.
Please don't consent to an increase in the sound levels.
Sincerely,
Vivi

I live 2Km from the main stage and I would not want an increase in the volume levels from the splendour site
IT'S LOUD ENOUGH ALLREADY.
Don't be fooled this has nothing to do with cultural events
it's purely a money making venture with little benefit
to the public and I don't know how they get away with
calling it Byron bay as it is 20 Km from byron.

Hon. Prue Goward, Minister for Planning.
I write this in objection to the increase in volume that North Byron Parkland are submitting for. The sound levels are high already, I can hear them at my place and I am a distance away from them. Unfortunately the sound bounces off Devines' Hill into the front of our house plus the back faces the festival so we have a double hit of the noise, there is nowhere to escape. I have a major objection to the fact that it is also situated adjacent to a nature reserve, Australias' most easterly, that have native species and endangered species in residence. These animals are unable to escape this diabolical circumstance. There has been (REDACTED), little is heard of that, what must their parent think... I know that that is irrelevant to the purpose of this but I think it is an horrific situation. My husband and I moved to Ocean Shores about 10 years ago after leaving Byron Bay for this exact reason, there was peace and quiet up here.. no more though. I am not sure what the festival goers can't hear that they need more volume, because I can certainly hear it from my place.
Please Ms Goward, think this one through, 95% of Ocean Shores Residents did not want this site, but we got it, please think kindly upon us and don't allow the increase of volume. Question is "How may festival sites do we need in Byron Shire?







I am not quite sure what the festival goers can't hear that they need increased volume? Quite confounding really.

Dear Department of Planning,

I would like to register my objection to the proposal to increase noise levels and allow more events at the Byron Parklands festival site at Yelgun in Byron Shire.

It seems totally inappropriate to be changing the original limits imposed on activities half way through the trial period for the proposed permanent festival site. The objective of the trial is to assess the effects of festival activites on the local environment and social amenity during a trial period, within the limits of a certain number of events and level of noise.

Very little information appears to be forthcoming from the proponent about the ecological impacts of the trial festival activities. To allow more events and higher levels of noise when assessment of ecological impacts during the trial have not been completed seems totally inappropriate. I and other community groups have serious misgivings as to the adequacy of the ecological monitoring program and if it is capable by means of its design of detecting potentially adverse impact on threatened species, and if such are occurring. Given this uncertainty, to permit the proponent to increase the number of events and thereby the frequency of disturbance of the site, as well as increasing the noise levels of events beyond what was set at the start of the trial seems totally inappropriate.

The proponent should stick to the original trial program set out by the Dept of Planning and to the limits set on noise levels. The proponent should also be more transparent about the results of their ecological monitoring programme. I would also urge the Dept to establish some kind of independent oversight of the ecological monitoring program.

Regards,
Dr Andrew Benwell

I object to the application to increase noise level limits.

Music events held previously have been far too loud and last year breached the current noise level limits. Increasing these limits just to avoid breaches helps only the event directors but does nothing for local residents, and will only compound some of the problems experienced in the past.

This should be considered an important issue as part of the trial currently being conducted, and the solution proposed by Splendour will only make things worse.

Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. I also wish to confirm I do not want the Splendour management to contact me.

First, I want to say that the community appreciates the donations it receives from the enormous profits generated by such large festivals. And, if the event was confined to one a year I would fully support it. However, I object completely to the running of multiple festivals and events in its location. Please see my listed objections below:

1. The increased traffic at festival times is horrendous for such a small community. I have observed a marked increase in cars down my street, people walking in large groups at all hours, and throwing rubbish into yards, mine included. The volume of people affects even parking at the beach for a swim

2. The lack of amenities. By this I mean that even though Splendour assert that the majority of people camp onsite this is not true. Our area is increasingly becoming prey to the Air bnb phenomenon, and this means that the area is being filled with more people that a standard three bedroom house can accomodate. In addition I have observed cars sleeping at the beach entry nearest to us (fern beach) and I am very certain they were also using the sand dunes as toilets. We don't have the infrastructure to handle more events.
3. I also mean amenities when I refer to the shops. To get a park at my local shop is difficult at the best of times. Add in the influx of people and getting in the shops, then attempting to get milk or bread is ridiculous. I am certain that Splendour would claim this is not their fault, however it is a flow on effect on a small town that they didn't ask for.

4. The noise. Let's be honest. My children were so upset last year and the year before we called the police to complain. No, it was not just the bass (although at most of the day and night of two days it actually got into your chest, even with all the windows shut). In amongst the bass was screaming, high pitched sounds and general reminders that there was a large scale concert going on down the road.Every one of the four concerts we have had issues with late night noise in general.

5. The inconvenience. Our family is surrounded by partygoers currently twice a year. This is as much as we can take. It's late nights (people continuing on after the event), rubbish, traffic, having to tell the kids they cannot go out and ride their bikes as normal (because there is more people, more traffic, more drunk people... last year we woke up to a girl vomiting on our front lawn.) We can't handle more of this. Having an event at Christmas/new years is ridicuous. We cant get a cab in our local town to celebrate with family because every cabbie is at Falls festival.

Again, if it was one event a year I would support the festival. I just can't accept that we should have to put up with unlimited events, no matter how large or small. It all has an impact that cannot be minimised no matter how many on site contingencies are put in place.

Dear Minister,

Please refuse the current application to increase the noise limits for Festivals at the Yelgun site. The impacts of the noise over a number of consecutive days is not comparable to noise limits for one day annual events. The events currently are loud for 4 and 5 days in a row and even the current noise levels allowed, greatly impacted on my children and partner, stopping us from sleeping properly at those times.

To allow an increase in such a quiet rural residential area when so many people have complained and been effected by the noise seems to me to be an insult to our community.

The proponent claims it is not possible to comply because the background noise is already so low, that's really the point isn't it? The noise is so intrusive because it is such a quiet area. Its not rocket science. How is increasing the limit going to be better for our community?

Please don't believe the claims in the application that it is only the bass noise that is intrusive. From our house where we were living in Crabbes Creek at the time, we could hear the lyrics, the crowd cheering and the announcements between songs and certainly could not sleep.

The proponent is asking for a level playing field, but please listen to the community asking for a level playing field also. If it was my neighbour making this level of noise I could ask him to turn it down, if he did not, I could call the police. We do not get that luxury here, we are relying on you to give the community a fair go.