Mod 4 - Extend Trial

I strongly object to the proposal of an extension of 20 months to the 5 year trial period at North Byron Parklands. As a resident in the north of Byron Shire and witnessing the unfolding of this inappropriate Festival site, I believed in the "system" and believed that the current approval was for a for a 5-year trial which expires in December 2017 and Byron Council takes over from the state as the consent authority. For the first time in five years, the local community will have a say in assessing, monitoring, and evaluating the festival development. We want local government to be in charge because this development heavily impacts local residents and the local ecology.
I believed that there would be an evaluation of the 5 years already trialled. The festivals need to be brought under stricter controls, as emergency services, especially the latest police report from SITG! Safety is a real threat to everyone! Who will take this responsibility?Numerous breaches of consent conditions have occurred, but the state has responded with only "recommendations" with two minimal fines for breaches of noise limits. I invite politicians to come and visit during the festival and endure the impacts. I am sure that it would not be happening in their neighbourhood! Byron Council, in consultation with Tweed Council, could be in a better position to ensure compliance and listen to concerns of local communities. North Byron Parklands asks for the extension so that it will have time to prepare a proposal to become a State Significant Development with permanent approval to hold more and larger festivals on site in future, asking for in increase up to 50.000 patrons a day over a configuration who knows, as one of the developers said directly to me at a meeting, yes, an event once month! In the beginning of this inappropriate development, we were told it would be one festival and then two and now the potential to be one a month with numbers increasing that cannot be monitored as there are paid tickets, freebies, workers and the locals tell me that they jump the fence!
Parklands has known for five years that their approval would expire at the end of this year, yet they did not plan accordingly and have not approached Council as the soon-to-be consent authority. They had their 5 year trial and during that five years they have managed to impose and impact on small communities,
The festivals are disturbing to residents through noise, traffic, house letting with illegal camping on beaches and residential streets, and anti-social behaviour from "partying" festival-goers are all taking their toll on residential amenity. Many local businesses lose revenue when festivals are going on because locals and regular visitors stay away, as not everyone wants to be in "Party Town" I have spent time talking with residents and retailers and a high percentage speak of the disruption to business and social amenity and I have photos and testimonials to support the concerns.
I truly believed that the government would follow through with the trial and in consultation with community, the government would see the negative impacts of this development. Rumour has it that the owners of North Byron Parklands are saying that this is a "done Deal" and I, along with many other people are totally disgruntled with the system that puts developers greed before community needs. I would challenge any other community in Australia to have to endure this situation. This is totally unacceptable and I oppose and object to this extension!

1. An extension from the state government is not required.
Parklands can apply to Byron Shire Council for an extension. In fact, the current approval states that Parklands MUST apply to Byron Shire Council to get approval for any festivals after 31 Dec 2017.

2. The five-year trial is not finished.
The trial still has nine months to go. Asking for a lengthy extension at this point is unwarranted.

3. 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 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.

4. Parklands does not need more monitoring time.
Parklands says an additional 20 months will give them time to monitor their performance further. They have had five years to monitor their performance, and the DOP has had five years to assess their performance. That's plenty of time. They do not need an additional 20 months to see how they are doing.

5. Parklands' claims of "social and economic benefits" are exaggerated.
Social impacts have been increasingly negative on nearby residents, and while some local businesses may benefit, not all do. Many businesses that cater to local residents actually lose money during festivals. Also, any benefits should be weighed against the costs to the community in terms of loss of amenity, disturbances, security and safety issues, etc.

1. An extension from the state government is not required.
Parklands can apply to Byron Shire Council for an extension. In fact, the current approval states that Parklands MUST apply to Byron Shire Council to get approval for any festivals after 31 Dec 2017.

2. The five-year trial is not finished.
The trial still has nine months to go. Asking for a lengthy extension at this point is unwarranted.

3. 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 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.

4. Parklands does not need more monitoring time.
Parklands says an additional 20 months will give them time to monitor their performance further. They have had five years to monitor their performance, and the DOP has had five years to assess their performance. That's plenty of time. They do not need an additional 20 months to see how they are doing.

5. Parklands' claims of "social and economic benefits" are exaggerated.
Social impacts have been increasingly negative on nearby residents, and while some local businesses may benefit, not all do. Many businesses that cater to local residents actually lose money during festivals. Also, any benefits should be weighed against the costs to the community in terms of loss of amenity, disturbances, security and safety issues, etc.

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

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. North Byron Parklands (NBP) is required under the agreement they consented to with the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) 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 NBP come up with that would require deviation from what they 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 approval to Woodford or another venue as they have in the past.
b. NBP'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.
3. I also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (police) which has thrown serious concerns for safety at the NBP site.
4. Also as a resident I'd like to express my concerns with issues of grave concern to local residents in respect to illegal camping (including camping in nature reserves with all the consequences of that ie fires on the beach, broken glass etc), antisocial behaviour (ie the increase of `party houses' with no regard for neighbours) and traffic problems as a result of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate the numbers being requested.

I sincerely hope the modification request is denied for the simple reason that the course of action for NBP was 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

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. North Byron Parklands (NBP) is required under the agreement they consented to with the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) 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 NBP come up with that would require deviation from what they 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 approval to Woodford or another venue as they have in the past.
b. NBP'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.
3. I also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (police) which has thrown serious concerns for safety at the NBP site.
4. Also as a resident I'd like to express my concerns with issues of grave concern to local residents in respect to illegal camping (including camping in nature reserves with all the consequences of that ie fires on the beach, broken glass etc), antisocial behaviour (ie the increase of `party houses' with no regard for neighbours) and traffic problems as a result of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate the numbers being requested.

I sincerely hope the modification request is denied for the simple reason that the course of action for NBP was very clearly set and available for them without recourse to this application.

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. North Byron Parklands (NBP) is required under the agreement they consented to with the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) 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 NBP come up with that would require deviation from what they 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 approval to Woodford or another venue as they have in the past.
b. NBP'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.
3. I also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (police) which has thrown serious concerns for safety at the NBP site.
4. Also as a resident I'd like to express my concerns with issues of grave concern to local residents in respect to illegal camping (including camping in nature reserves with all the consequences of that ie fires on the beach, broken glass etc), antisocial behaviour (ie the increase of `party houses' with no regard for neighbours) and traffic problems as a result of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate the numbers being requested.

I sincerely hope the modification request is denied for the simple reason that the course of action for NBP was very clearly set and available for them without recourse to this application.

We Kerry Innes and Rod Smith wish to register our objection to Parklands being given this modification.

The trial was for five years and they have already had modifications to the trial requesting an increase in noise levels and patron numbers. Our concern is what other modifications would they request in the 20 months.

We have concerns that they have not experienced severe flood conditions with patrons in attendance in the trial and believe that due to the insufficient number of exists patrons lives would be put at jeopardy as they could not be evacuated before the rapidly rising waters covered the car park as it did in the recent weather system that was the tail end of Cyclone Debbie. (The car park had at least 400mm of water covering it).

We also wish to raise the concern of the Tweed Byron LAC (Police) which has raised serious concerns for safety at Parklands. Particularly if a medical emergency happened with 32,000 patrons up to a potential 50,000 this could put enormous strain on our ambulances and particularly Tweed Hospital which is already stretched.

Major concern is that if they get the extension of the trial that the next stage will be to apply the to increase the numbers to 50,000 for three events and another 8 events. This could account for one event per month which will dramatically impact our way of life.

I object to the extension being granted because:

We, as a community, understood the trial was limited to 5 years only.

We understood that after the 5 years was over the local Council would assess the site's suitability for any future events.

The extension of the Trial period would be inconsistent with the 2012 PAC approval, not following due process and not in the public interest.

I support North Byron Parkland's extension to the trial, thank you.

Hello, I have seen photos of the North Byron Parklands site when flooded, and request that no extension be granted, but than an alternative site be found. It is not safe to have a festival site on a floodplain.

I think the festivals are great. I live in the closest town & all of the festivals make it busy, vibrant & great for business. Many of my friends get work there & I love going to some of them when the lineups suit. I feel the environmental concerns are minor as animals move in & out of the site as it busies & quietens. Please allow more festivals & the use of the site as an all night venue. Thanks

The North Byron Parklands temporary festival site in Yelgun is inappropriate as a major events venue due to the risk of flooding. I recently witnessed the impact of flooding which not only affected the parking, entertainment and camping areas of the site but also compromised the rain water storage and portable toilets situated on the site. Had there been a festival taking place during the recent flood of March 2017 it would have been neccesary to evacuate thousands of attendees, and this would likely have over-stretched the already taxed capacity of the local emergency and rescue services. The safety risks cannot be managed in a way that would ensure the well being of festival goers in the event of flooding, which while not usually as extreme as recent flooding was, is nevertheless an event that occurs multiple times annually and which it is impossible to accurately predict. The site is not safe and an alternative venue that can meet basic safety requirements for an event of its size is neccesary.

The North Byron Parklands site is a world class venue that hosts events that contribute greatly to the region. The cultural events of Splendour in the Grass and Falls Festival are known far and wide which allow for people to come together, share ideas and enjoy creative outputs of amazing artists and musicians.

It is clear there are very significant economic benefits to the Byron Shire and surrounding areas from these events. The environmental and social impacts of the event are managed in a sustainable way. The on-going ecological restoration of the site adjoining the wildlife corridor far outweighs some of the temporary impacts during the cultural events operation. If the site is not allowed to host these events, the ecological restoration of the site will cease and a great opportunity will be missed to expand native forest and wildlife habitat.

The extension of the trial period is necessary to ensure the longevity of the site and assurance that these cultural events can be held into to future, resulting in significant benefits to the community and environment.

I fully support the North Byron Parklands site to continue hosting events like Splendour in the Grass, Falls Festival and any future events that continue to support the local community and economy.

Re: Parklands application for permanancy as a significant site to the north of Byron Bay
The application to increase festval numbers and days - - nearly double - permanently.
There are a lot of good reasons to suggest better sites could be found than the temporarty Parklands site. I object to Parklands application for permanence.
One of my biggest concerns is water and sewerage/effulent. For me the site is not really the best for huge numbers of people - (up to 50,000 a day is proposed - now capped at 30,000 ) camping out for some days using compost toilets and maybe some of the portable too.
Apparently there are 260 composting toilets - which sounds nice and ecologically sound. Double that to manage the numbers and that is a lot of waste. the site is a flood plain and that water washes past our homes all the way down to the sea we swim in daily, They will need more toilets if they get the permanent approval from the STATE government - not our local council. Even if and when they build a sewerage treatment plant on site - where will the treated water go? and what happens in heavy rainfalls when the site becomes a flood plain with fast running water (it does this regularly) - is this the best place for sewerage treatment works for a part time population of 50,000 nearly twice the size as all the 30,000 residents of the Shire ?
At present - its compost and portable waste management with the portable loos needing to have hundreds of truck movements and still get processed at a ratepayer funded facility?? No matter what state the compost is in from 20 days plus of 30,000 to 50,000 patrons and a few thousand more employed by the event .... when it floods - some of that must end up flowing past the residential areas and into our ocean swimming spots ? 52,000 people a day is more than the resident population of the whole shire !
This is just one concern of mine. Traffic jams, fire hazards and people sleeping in cars and leaving waste in our streets with overflowing rubbish bine ( especially bad in summer) and more. Residents woken at night as patrons walk home.
Policing ?
The police have written a long report which is stating they do not have the personnel to manage illegal camping and the rest of the shire, and any situations that need attendance at the festival - a break down in law that can get taken advantage of?. Apart from that - its not "our" festival really as the main festival company who uses the site and produces the Falls and Splendour is now owned 51% by a US festival company - Live Nation, said to be worth? 7 billion with 60 festivals a year.
Not to mention the koalas ??? well .... its true. Its zoned agricultural land and Parklands is using it for commerce which is good for business - but for us and for our wildlife - it is one of the only places i know where there are koalas ? My main objection is the site is unsuitable for such numbers and there are better sites in other areas that are not flood plain that takes 5-8 hours to evacuate, with limited access, right next to a major highway with tens of thousands of extra car/truck movements each start and finish day and thousands of extra movements during, before and after events - from Alakh Analda

Dear Minister for Planning

I strongly object to Parklands seeking an extension of their five year trial period from the State Government. And I totally oppose that there is a dramatic increase in the number and size of festivals on the site. Byron Shire council needs to be the consenting authority not the State Government.

I am a local resident, living in the hinterland, cc 12 kms from the Parklands Festival site and have watched with disdain the trickery and manipulations by Parklands in the development of this site since the very beginning. This saga really reflects the impotency of our local and state government processes and has kept demonstrating time and again that developers interests always win over the will and interests of local community. Developers such as Parklands have always had enormous resources to push their cause .And he we are yet again...

Please listen to the voice of local residents, not festival patrons who live outside the Shire and also not to those with vested business interests as happened in the PAC hearing some years ago.

Parklands know that the distant State Government is a soft touch and will yield to their fabricated arguments that mega festivals are just great for our shire albeit theirs in a wildlife corridor,adjacent to a Nature Reserve that the State paid millions of dollars for back in the 80s to ensure the protection of this significant corridor linking the Greta Eastern Ranges to the coast

1. An extension from the state government is not required.
Parklands should apply to Byron Shire Council for an extension. The current approval states that Parklands must apply to Byron Shire Council to get approval for any festivals after 31 Dec 2017.The five-year trial still has 9 months to go.This is yet another example of developers not prepared to accept the conditions that they originally accepted knowing that it is easy -peasy done the track to apply to have them changed to more suit their needs ,thanks to a compliant State Government..Byron Shire Council must be the consenting authority.

2.The owners of the site want more and bigger festivals - up to 50,000 people per day over 12 days a year and another 25,000 attendees per day 8 days a year. Over a four day festival, and with different ticket packages, the total numbers of people can be as much as double the number attending. Over 100,000 people descending on our beautiful Shire of just 30,00 people This will be a disaster for our local communities especially in the North of the Shire [Yelgun,South Golden Beach, New Brighton, Brunswick Heads the immediate hinterland]. We do not have the resources or infrastructure to accommodate this influx.


3. Tweed Byron Inspector Brendan Cullen recently flagged "major issues and the potential for disaster" which came out of last year's Splendour festival -- with more than 32,000 patrons. [I attended the community meeting where he spoke]. Even on the current numbers the police have said the festivals are not safe or manageable.One his most alarming statements was that the police now needed to consider the likelihood of the festivals becoming a target for terrorism.

4.The site should never have been approved in the first place. The community has always stated the inherent dangers and risks to patrons. The site floods easily -- water was 2 metres deep on the camping ground area after Cyclone Debbie. These local flood events can come out of no-where.The BOM got their predictions seriously wrong in this event. A bushfire in the neighbouring wildlife reserve or on the festival site could be equally calamitous for festival patrons and nearby residents.The exits and evacuation plans are seriously inadequate.


4.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 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 [I could hear the noise from 12 kms away] but after an increase in the noise limits was allowed [making compliance much easier] breaches still occurred. 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.

4. Parklands does not need more monitoring time.
Parklands says an additional 20 months will give them time to monitor their performance further. They have had five years to monitor their performance, and the DOP has had five years to assess their performance. That's plenty of time. They do not need an additional 20 months to see how they are doing.

5. Parklands' claims of "social and economic benefits" are exaggerated.
Many of the on site businesses come from outside of the Shire .The festival musical acts are moistly accommodated in the Tweed where accommodation is cheaper.Many of the employees come from outside the shire and are employed for only short periods .I personally know friends of my sons who now live in Sydney or Melbourne who secure short term jobs.

6.Social impacts have been increasingly negative on nearby residents, and while some local businesses may benefit, not all do. Many businesses that cater to local residents actually lose money during festivals. Also, any benefits should be weighed against the costs to the community in terms of loss of amenity, disturbances, security and safety issues, etc.

7. As well as the noise, impacts outside the Parklands site are huge -- traffic, rubbish, and antisocial behaviour spilling into our neighbourhoods. Illegal camping, literally in people's front yards, is widespread --campers leaving rubbish, defecating and urinating. Friends of mine in South Golden Beach have personally experienced such incidents It is horrific for local residents.



I do not object to music or cultural events - Byron has always supported creative and artistic events[ my son is in the music industry]. I support small festivals that are in keeping with the values and capacity of our Shire. International festival company Live Nation has just bought a controlling share in Secret Sounds Group, the Australian company that produces Splendour in the Grass and Falls festival. Live Nation runs 80 huge festivals around the world. Hence the demand for the 12 x 50k attendees events.

We have now moved into a second very dangerous stage: this is big business exploiting our very precious Byron `brand' that has evolved from the melding our beautiful environment and our creative ,grass roots community
The problem is that the very thing they are selling - Byron, with its environmental, carefree, creative image - is the very thing that the festivals are destroying.

Draft Submission to MP09-0028 MOD 4 Application for 20 month extension of current approval.

Dear Ms Sommer,

Thankyou for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed 20 month extension of the approved 60 month trial Cultural events site at Wooyung / Yelgun.

We object to the extension on the following grounds:

1) It is not in the public interest: As outlined in the NSW Police Force submission to the Permanent Approval application, serious concerns exist in the ability to provide safe evacuation for patrons from the site. It is therefore not considered in the public interest to allow continued use of the site until all of the concerns raised in the Police submission are addressed. In the interim the festivals could be held at the neighbouring Permanent Bluesfest festival site, only 10kms from the existing site.

2) Any required northern evacuation route through Pottsville would not be supported due to the disruption in traffic it would create for our residents and the flood liability of Wooyung rd.

Regards

Tony Cosgrove
Secretary
Pottsville Community Association

Bringing up to 50,000 people into an area requires micro management.Please refuse the application and return local control to Byron Shire Council.Thank you

The request seeking to extend the trial period for outdoor events of up to 35,000 patrons by a further 20 months to August 2019 is preposterous.
The trial was set for 5 years which is sufficient time to evaluate if Parklands are able to safely conduct festivals on this site. There is something inheritably wrong requesting a 20 month extension while the 5 year trial is unfinished and while there is still have 9 months in which to comply.
During this trail period so far Parklands have breached the current consent orders on frequent occasions including with noise violations and traffic. Parklands has failed the trial. The noise levels are disturbing and distressing for the surrounding community. Grid locked traffic is unsafe.
However, I am compelled to write to you, as I am seriously concerned about safety of the patrons at North Byron Parklands. I heard Commander Wayne Starling of the Tweed Byron Local Area Command speak about Brendon Cullen Police report that was sent to Senior Planner Ms Rebecca Sommer Department of Planning. Parklands emergency evacuation, in particular, is a grave concern as there is no possibility of evacuating North Byron Parklands within 8 hours. He spoke of not wanting to be speaking at a potential corner's court inquiry, as he has great fears of possible deaths of patrons during an emergency evacuation at this site. In the event of an emergency - intoxication of patrons is a real concern [19 bars operating on this site] and also [as noted in the police report] with the consumption of illicit drugs increasing and then the challenge of police and others requiring the co-operation of the patrons. Life threatening chaos may occur, involving crowd stampedes and crowd crushing - are all possible. Bushfires are a real threat. As indeed flooding clearly is. The North Byron Parkland site was severely flooded earlier this month. Even without an emergency it takes many, many long hours for patrons to leave the site. Total traffic jam and complete grid lock. Cars cannot move. Buses are appallingly late. Patrons are very disturbed queuing and waiting for many hours for buses. Patrons are not safe. This waiting occurs extremely late at night and into the early hours of the morning. Patrons are exhausted. It would not take much for that waiting area to get totally out of control. In addition, Brendon Cullen lists this North Byron Parklands site with the National terrorism threat level current PROBABLE
Two patrons have already died at 2 separate Falls Festivals at North Byron Parklands and this is without an emergency situation. This is not a safely run site for the patrons.
The trial is concluding at December 2017 - after having 5 years for the Parklands group to comply, they have failed to do so. This site has not been safely run and Parklands have not been able to alter that situation in the 5 year time frame allocated to them. It would be outrageous to extend the time.

I object on the following grounds:

1) It is not in the Ministers power to extend the trial.
Considering the ruling in the recent LEC hearing ( Billinudgel Property PTy Ltd v Minister for Planning [2016] NSWLEC 139 ), where it was ruled that it was not in the Ministers power to alter the consent condition to allow permanent approval, it is considered that it is also outside the power of the Minister to extend the trial period.

2) extension of the trial period is inconsistent with the objectives of the 2012 PAC determination. Environmental impacts from the operation of the project have not been reported on in terms of comparison with data existing prior to the construction works on site and as such Condition 20 has not been fulfilled and this should be required to be provided before any further events are considered after December 31, 2017.

3) an alternate site for the holding of events is available at the Bluesfest site and as such the proposal to extend at this site, is not in the public interest.