Mod 4 - Extend Trial

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 27/03/2017

I [REDACTED]

I am disappointed that Parklands (PL) are making this request for a modification and wish to register my total disapproval of it.
I wish to raise the following as my objections to the Modification.
Firstly there are clear alternatives available to PL that make the Modification unnecessary and an inappropriate alternative.
When Parklands accepted the ruling of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission), and signed it, they knowingly were aware that when the Trial Process was over the authority for changes lay with the local Councils. The PAC STATED clearly that, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
PL's request is a request to override and sidestep a condition they knowingly knew as one of their conditions. Quite simply, this request should not even be being considered by the minister. It is now in the domain of the local Councils by definition of the PAC conditions.
I also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (police) which has thrown serious concerns for safety at the PL site. Also as a resident I wish to express my concerns with issues of grave concern to local residents in respect to illegal camping (including camping in state forest with all the consequences of that ), antisocial behaviour and traffic problems as a result of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate the numbers being requested.
It is time PL became accountable to the local community, as is the adjoining festival site, Bluesfest, and the written conditions of the PAC to which PL ha signed should be adhered to.

Yours sincerely,


[REDACTED]

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 27/03/2017

I [REDACTED]
Wish to make a strong submission against the proposed modification request. My reasons are very simply that the request is a nonsense in terms of the options that are available.
1. Parklands (PL) is required under the agreement they consented to with the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) to follow a procedure. This sets out clearly and quite unequivocally that upon completion of the five year period of permission, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act"
What reasons are there and what `excuses' can PL come up with that would require deviation form what they signed to and accepted five years go?? Why is there even a question about such a clear directive?
2. The five year trial still has 9 months to go and they have had FIVE YEARS to make plans around the present situation. These alternatives include;
a. Moving any planned festivals outside the time frame of their PAC to Woodford or another venue as they have in the past.
b. PL's claim that they need an ADDITIONAL 20 MONTHS TO FURTHER MONITOR THEIR PERFORMANCE is either an indictment on their ineptitude for not getting it right in FIVE YEARS or an excuse to avoid fronting the Council as the appropriate controlling body.
I sincerely hope the modification is denied for the simple reason that the course of action for PL is very clearly set and available for them without recourse to this application.
Yours sincerely,


[REDACTED]

The rules have been set up and they've had the time so what is the issue. Go to another site as you have done in the past!

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 27/03/2017

I [REDACTED]

wish to register my objection to Parklands (PL) being given this modification.
I am objecting because I feel that for PL to be given this modification would be to reward `bad behaviour'.
Numerous breaches of the current consent conditions have occurred.
These breaches have been documented in the minutes of Parklands' Regulatory Working Group, in Parklands' own performance reports, by resident groups (who have done their own monitoring), and very occasionally by the Department of Planning.
Parklands has had ongoing problems with traffic, off-site impacts on residents' amenity, and more. Noise has been an ongoing issue. Noise breaches were common early on, but after an increase in the noise limits was allowed (making compliance much easier) breaches still occurred. Also, the NSW Police recently submitted a report on Splendour 2016 to the DOP, raising concerns about on-site safety, emergency evacuation, and more.
Allowing a lengthy extension in the face of so many problems cannot be justified. The proposed extension would reward Parklands for a job NOT well done.
The time has come when the conditions of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) are adhered to. That is, as set out in the agreement accepted by PL, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
The time has come for PL to become accountable to the local community and to do what is expected from them and to work with the local community that they are part of. They have had the benefit of state government in getting established and to help them find their feet. Five years was the time given and now it's time to begin working in a partnership.
I fervently hope that you will stand by the PAC conditions of the original conditions of PL approval and deny this modification.
Yours with respect,


[REDACTED]

NOT happy with their trying to sidestep the conditions of their agreement.
Time they became accountable to the the local councils.
Not happy with the process they are using and their lack of accountability.

IT NEEDS TO GO UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE LOCAL COUNCILS

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 25/04/2017



I am disappointed that Parklands (PL) are making this request for a modification and wish to register my total disapproval of it.
I wish to raise the following as my objections to the Modification.
Firstly there are clear alternatives available to PL that make the Modification unnecessary and an inappropriate alternative.
When Parklands accepted the ruling of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission), and signed it, they knowingly were aware that when the Trial Process was over the authority for changes lay with the local Councils. The PAC STATED clearly that, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
PL's request is a request to override and sidestep a condition they knowingly knew as one of their conditions. Quite simply, this request should not even be being considered by the minister. It is now in the domain of the local Councils by definition of the PAC conditions.
I also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (police) which has thrown serious concerns for safety at the PL site. Also as a resident I wish to express my concerns with issues of grave concern to local residents in respect to illegal camping (including camping in state forest with all the consequences of that ), antisocial behaviour and traffic problems as a result of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate the numbers being requested.
It is time PL became accountable to the local community, as is the adjoining festival site, Bluesfest, and the written conditions of the PAC to which PL ha signed should be adhered to.

Yours sincerely,


S FISHER

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 27/03/2017

I wish to register my objection to Parklands (PL) being given this modification.
I am objecting because I feel that for PL to be given this modification would be to reward `bad behaviour'.
Numerous breaches of the current consent conditions have occurred.
These breaches have been documented in the minutes of Parklands' Regulatory Working Group, in Parklands' own performance reports, by resident groups (who have done their own monitoring), and very occasionally by the Department of Planning.
Parklands has had ongoing problems with traffic, off-site impacts on residents' amenity, and more. Noise has been an ongoing issue. Noise breaches were common early on, but after an increase in the noise limits was allowed (making compliance much easier) breaches still occurred. Also, the NSW Police recently submitted a report on Splendour 2016 to the DOP, raising concerns about on-site safety, emergency evacuation, and more.
Allowing a lengthy extension in the face of so many problems cannot be justified. The proposed extension would reward Parklands for a job NOT well done.
The time has come when the conditions of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) are adhered to. That is, as set out in the agreement accepted by PL, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
The time has come for PL to become accountable to the local community and to do what is expected from them and to work with the local community that they are part of. They have had the benefit of state government in getting established and to help them find their feet. Five years was the time given and now it's time to begin working in a partnership.
I fervently hope that you will stand by the PAC conditions of the original conditions of PL approval and deny this modification.
Yours with respect,


[REDACTED]

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 27/03/2017

I wish to register my objection to Parklands (PL) being given this modification.
I am objecting because I feel that for PL to be given this modification would be to reward `bad behaviour'.
Numerous breaches of the current consent conditions have occurred.
These breaches have been documented in the minutes of Parklands' Regulatory Working Group, in Parklands' own performance reports, by resident groups (who have done their own monitoring), and very occasionally by the Department of Planning.
Parklands has had ongoing problems with traffic, off-site impacts on residents' amenity, and more. Noise has been an ongoing issue. Noise breaches were common early on, but after an increase in the noise limits was allowed (making compliance much easier) breaches still occurred. Also, the NSW Police recently submitted a report on Splendour 2016 to the DOP, raising concerns about on-site safety, emergency evacuation, and more.
Allowing a lengthy extension in the face of so many problems cannot be justified. The proposed extension would reward Parklands for a job NOT well done.
The time has come when the conditions of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) are adhered to. That is, as set out in the agreement accepted by PL, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
The time has come for PL to become accountable to the local community and to do what is expected from them and to work with the local community that they are part of. They have had the benefit of state government in getting established and to help them find their feet. Five years was the time given and now it's time to begin working in a partnership.
I fervently hope that you will stand by the PAC conditions of the original conditions of PL approval and deny this modification.
Yours with respect,


[REDACTED]

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 25/04/2017



I am disappointed that Parklands (PL) are making this request for a modification and wish to register my total disapproval of it.
I wish to raise the following as my objections to the Modification.
Firstly there are clear alternatives available to PL that make the Modification unnecessary and an inappropriate alternative.
When Parklands accepted the ruling of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission), and signed it, they knowingly were aware that when the Trial Process was over the authority for changes lay with the local Councils. The PAC STATED clearly that, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
PL's request is a request to override and sidestep a condition they knowingly knew as one of their conditions. Quite simply, this request should not even be being considered by the minister. It is now in the domain of the local Councils by definition of the PAC conditions.
I also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (police) which has thrown serious concerns for safety at the PL site. Also as a resident I wish to express my concerns with issues of grave concern to local residents in respect to illegal camping (including camping in state forest with all the consequences of that ), antisocial behaviour and traffic problems as a result of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate the numbers being requested.
It is time PL became accountable to the local community, as is the adjoining festival site, Bluesfest, and the written conditions of the PAC to which PL ha signed should be adhered to.

Yours sincerely,


[REDACTED]

[REDACTED]

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 25/04/2017

I wish to make a strong submission against the proposed modification request. My reasons are very simply that the request is a nonsense in terms of the options that are available.
1. Parklands (PL) is required under the agreement they consented to with the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) to follow a procedure. This sets out clearly and quite unequivocally that upon completion of the five year period of permission, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act"
What reasons are there and what `excuses' can PL come up with that would require deviation form what they signed to and accepted five years go?? Why is there even a question about such a clear directive?
2. The five year trial still has 9 months to go and they have had FIVE YEARS to make plans around the present situation. These alternatives include;
a. Moving any planned festivals outside the time frame of their PAC to Woodford or another venue as they have in the past.
b. PL's claim that they need an ADDITIONAL 20 MONTHS TO FURTHER MONITOR THEIR PERFORMANCE is either an indictment on their ineptitude for not getting it right in FIVE YEARS or an excuse to avoid fronting the Council as the appropriate controlling body.
I sincerely hope the modification is denied for the simple reason that the course of action for PL is very clearly set and available for them without recourse to this application.
Yours sincerely,

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 25/04/2017

I wish to make a strong submission against the proposed modification request. My reasons are very simply that the request is a nonsense in terms of the options that are available.
1. Parklands (PL) is required under the agreement they consented to with the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) to follow a procedure. This sets out clearly and quite unequivocally that upon completion of the five year period of permission, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act"
What reasons are there and what `excuses' can PL come up with that would require deviation form what they signed to and accepted five years go?? Why is there even a question about such a clear directive?
2. The five year trial still has 9 months to go and they have had FIVE YEARS to make plans around the present situation. These alternatives include;
a. Moving any planned festivals outside the time frame of their PAC to Woodford or another venue as they have in the past.
b. PL's claim that they need an ADDITIONAL 20 MONTHS TO FURTHER MONITOR THEIR PERFORMANCE is either an indictment on their ineptitude for not getting it right in FIVE YEARS or an excuse to avoid fronting the Council as the appropriate controlling body.
I sincerely hope the modification is denied for the simple reason that the course of action for PL is very clearly set and available for them without recourse to this application.

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 25/04/2017



I am disappointed that Parklands (PL) are making this request for a modification and wish to register my total disapproval of it.
I wish to raise the following as my objections to the Modification.
Firstly there are clear alternatives available to PL that make the Modification unnecessary and an inappropriate alternative.
When Parklands accepted the ruling of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission), and signed it, they knowingly were aware that when the Trial Process was over the authority for changes lay with the local Councils. The PAC STATED clearly that, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
PL's request is a request to override and sidestep a condition they knowingly knew as one of their conditions. Quite simply, this request should not even be being considered by the minister. It is now in the domain of the local Councils by definition of the PAC conditions.
I also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (police) which has thrown serious concerns for safety at the PL site. Also as a resident I wish to express my concerns with issues of grave concern to local residents in respect to illegal camping (including camping in state forest with all the consequences of that ), antisocial behaviour and traffic problems as a result of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate the numbers being requested.
It is time PL became accountable to the local community, as is the adjoining festival site, Bluesfest, and the written conditions of the PAC to which PL has signed should be adhered to.

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 25/04/2017

I wish to register my objection to Parklands (PL) being given this modification.
I am objecting because I feel that for PL to be given this modification would be to reward `bad behaviour'.
Numerous breaches of the current consent conditions have occurred.
These breaches have been documented in the minutes of Parklands' Regulatory Working Group, in Parklands' own performance reports, by resident groups (who have done their own monitoring), and very occasionally by the Department of Planning.
Parklands has had ongoing problems with traffic, off-site impacts on residents' amenity, and more. Noise has been an ongoing issue. Noise breaches were common early on, but after an increase in the noise limits was allowed (making compliance much easier) breaches still occurred. Also, the NSW Police recently submitted a report on Splendour 2016 to the DOP, raising concerns about on-site safety, emergency evacuation, and more.
Allowing a lengthy extension in the face of so many problems cannot be justified. The proposed extension would reward Parklands for a job NOT well done.
The time has come when the conditions of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) are adhered to. That is, as set out in the agreement accepted by PL, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
The time has come for PL to become accountable to the local community and to do what is expected from them and to work with the local community that they are part of. They have had the benefit of state government in getting established and to help them find their feet. Five years was the time given and now it's time to begin working in a partnership.
I fervently hope that you will stand by the PAC conditions of the original conditions of PL approval and deny this modification.

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 25/04/2017

I wish to register my objection to Parklands (PL) being given this modification.
I am objecting because I feel that for PL to be given this modification would be to reward `bad behaviour'.
Numerous breaches of the current consent conditions have occurred.
These breaches have been documented in the minutes of Parklands' Regulatory Working Group, in Parklands' own performance reports, by resident groups (who have done their own monitoring), and very occasionally by the Department of Planning.
Parklands has had ongoing problems with traffic, off-site impacts on residents' amenity, and more. Noise has been an ongoing issue. Noise breaches were common early on, but after an increase in the noise limits was allowed (making compliance much easier) breaches still occurred. Also, the NSW Police recently submitted a report on Splendour 2016 to the DOP, raising concerns about on-site safety, emergency evacuation, and more.
Allowing a lengthy extension in the face of so many problems cannot be justified. The proposed extension would reward Parklands for a job NOT well done.
The time has come when the conditions of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) are adhered to. That is, as set out in the agreement accepted by PL, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
The time has come for PL to become accountable to the local community and to do what is expected from them and to work with the local community that they are part of. They have had the benefit of state government in getting established and to help them find their feet. Five years was the time given and now it's time to begin working in a partnership.
I fervently hope that you will stand by the PAC conditions of the original conditions of PL approval and deny this modification.

RE: Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

25th April 2017

I am making a personal submission to North Byron Parklands submission to extend the trial period for 20 months.

I am disappointed that Parklands (PL) are making this request for a modification and wish to register my total disapproval of it.

I wish to raise the following as my objections to the Modification -


When Parklands accepted the ruling of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission), they knowingly were aware that when the Trial Process was over the authority for changes lay with the local Councils. The PAC STATED clearly that, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".

PL's request is a request to override and sidestep a condition they knowingly knew as one of their conditions. Quite simply, this request should not even be considered by the Minister. It is now in the domain of the local Councils by definition of the PAC conditions.

I also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (police) which has thrown serious concerns for safety at the PL site. Also as a resident I wish to express my concerns with issues of grave concern to local residents in respect to illegal camping (including camping in state forest with all the consequences of that), antisocial behaviour and traffic problems as a result of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate the numbers being requested.

As a local community resident I trusted in the process regarding the trial period, I seriously hope that the State Government does the same. PLEASE listen to the Byron Shire Community we already have 1.5 million visitors a year not counting festivals, we are a shire of only 32,000.


Yours sincerely,

Sue Callaghan
1 Berrimbilla Court, Ocean Shores 2483

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 25/04/2017



I am disappointed that Parklands (PL) are making this request for a modification and wish to register my total disapproval of it.
I wish to raise the following as my objections to the Modification.
Firstly there are clear alternatives available to PL that make the Modification unnecessary and an inappropriate alternative.
When Parklands accepted the ruling of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission), and signed it, they knowingly were aware that when the Trial Process was over the authority for changes lay with the local Councils. The PAC STATED clearly that, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
PL's request is a request to override and sidestep a condition they knowingly knew as one of their conditions. Quite simply, this request should not even be being considered by the minister. It is now in the domain of the local Councils by definition of the PAC conditions.
I also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (police) which has thrown serious concerns for safety at the PL site. Also as a resident I wish to express my concerns with issues of grave concern to local residents in respect to illegal camping (including camping in state forest with all the consequences of that ), antisocial behaviour and traffic problems as a result of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate the numbers being requested.
It is time PL became accountable to the local community, as is the adjoining festival site, Bluesfest, and the written conditions of the PAC to which PL ha signed should be adhered to.

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 25/04/2017

I wish to make a strong submission against the proposed modification request. My reasons are very simply that the request is a nonsense in terms of the options that are available.
1. Parklands (PL) is required under the agreement they consented to with the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) to follow a procedure. This sets out clearly and quite unequivocally that upon completion of the five year period of permission, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act"
What reasons are there and what `excuses' can PL come up with that would require deviation form what they signed to and accepted five years go?? Why is there even a question about such a clear directive?
2. The five year trial still has 9 months to go and they have had FIVE YEARS to make plans around the present situation. These alternatives include;
a. Moving any planned festivals outside the time frame of their PAC to Woodford or another venue as they have in the past.
b. PL's claim that they need an ADDITIONAL 20 MONTHS TO FURTHER MONITOR THEIR PERFORMANCE is either an indictment on their ineptitude for not getting it right in FIVE YEARS or an excuse to avoid fronting the Council as the appropriate controlling body.
I sincerely hope the modification is denied for the simple reason that the course of action for PL is very clearly set and available for them without recourse to this application.

RE; Exhibition of Modification Request
Cultural Events Site, North Byron Parklands
APPLICATION No. MP 09_0028 MOD 4

Date, 25/04/2017

I wish to register my objection to Parklands (PL) being given this modification.
I am objecting because I feel that for PL to be given this modification would be to reward `bad behaviour'.
Numerous breaches of the current consent conditions have occurred.
These breaches have been documented in the minutes of Parklands' Regulatory Working Group, in Parklands' own performance reports, by resident groups (who have done their own monitoring), and very occasionally by the Department of Planning.
Parklands has had ongoing problems with traffic, off-site impacts on residents' amenity, and more. Noise has been an ongoing issue. Noise breaches were common early on, but after an increase in the noise limits was allowed (making compliance much easier) breaches still occurred. Also, the NSW Police recently submitted a report on Splendour 2016 to the DOP, raising concerns about on-site safety, emergency evacuation, and more.
Allowing a lengthy extension in the face of so many problems cannot be justified. The proposed extension would reward Parklands for a job NOT well done.
The time has come when the conditions of the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) are adhered to. That is, as set out in the agreement accepted by PL, "outdoor events following the trial period will require approval from the Council under part 4 of the EP&A Act".
The time has come for PL to become accountable to the local community and to do what is expected from them and to work with the local community that they are part of. They have had the benefit of state government in getting established and to help them find their feet. Five years was the time given and now it's time to begin working in a partnership.
I fervently hope that you will stand by the PAC conditions of the original conditions of PL approval and deny this modification.

I Carol Meppem are disappointed that Parklands are making this request for a modification and wish to register my disapproval.

When Parklanda accepted the ruling of the PAC they were aware that when the trial process was over the authority would revert to the Council. The Council is aware of local conditions and how it affects Byron shire residents and their infrastructure.

My concern is that if they have been unable to get it right in last four years how can they do it in another 20 months.

As a long term resident I have seen many floods in this area and believe that Parklands have not experienced a major flood in their trial with the festival goers in attendance. With only a few exits available it could be a potential disaster.


I also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (police) which has raised serious concerns for safety at the Parklands site.

If a major accident or health issue occurred on the site how would they solve the problem of insufficient ambulances or hospital staff in our area.

Currently they have patrons of at least 32,500 and they want to increase it to 50,000 for two concerts a year but they are not coping from a traffic perspective, noise or security.

If this becomes permanent they are looking at 20 days of events a year which will amount approximately once a month which will dramatically impact myself and my family.