Mod 4 - Extend Trial

Any extension of the trial period should not be granted. The current five-year trial approval should expire at the end of this year, and conditions of consent that specify that Parklands must apply to Byron Shire Council to get further approval for any events should be upheld.

Control of the festival site must be placed in the hands of Local Government. Byron and Tweed Shire Councils have had virtually no say in how festivals at the site are operated, monitored, or evaluated. A recent Land & Environment Court decision strongly supports returning control to local council: Billinudgel Property Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2016] NSWLEC 139.

Parklands should not be given an extension now just because it is going to take them a while to apply for permanent approval. Parklands should submit Development Applications to Byron Council for any festival activity they wish to conduct at the site after December 2017 as required by the existing approval or find another site upon which to conduct festivals while they are preparing their proposal for permanent use of the site.

I can hear music from the festivals where I live in Pottsville 8.5 km from the site. (video footage available on request). The social and ecological impacts of festivals at Parklands are unacceptable with excessive noise, traffic, trash, trespass, illegal camping, and anti-social behaviour in the residential neighbourhoods near the site. These problems have persisted throughout the five-year trial approval and have had a severe adverse impact on wildlife in the adjacent Nature Reserve and on the amenity of local residents.

The local koala population east of the Pacific Highway between the Brunswick and Tweed rivers is listed as an Endangered Local Population under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Koalas are now known to reside in the bushland adjacent to the Parklands site (refer NSW Bionet Atlas).

There is a wildlife overpass over the Pacific Highway in very close proximity to the Parklands site. The crossing is there to provide a link from the bushland adjacent to the Parklands site to wildlife corridors west of the highway. It is essential that this link is effective in providing connectivity to the western corridors for koala movement in order to enhance gene diversity in the Tweed / Brunswick endangered local koala population. Lack of gene diversity in koala populations causes inbreeding leading to high incidence of disease and death. I submit that environmental impacts associated with the festival site have a strong likelihood to compromise the effectiveness of the wildlife overpass.

Koala expert Dr Steve Phillips has published a paper titledAversive behaviour by koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) during the course of a music festival in northern New South Wales, Australia (see attached including supporting documentation). The findings of this study should be taken into consideration.

Section 94A of the TSC Act and s. 220ZZA of the FM Act provides that the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water and the Minister for Primary Industries, with the concurrence of the Minister for Planning, may prepare assessment guidelines to assist in the interpretation and application of the factors of assessment.

These guidelines have been prepared to help applicants/proponents of a development or activity with interpreting and applying the factors of assessment. The aim of the guidelines is to help ensure that a consistent and systematic approach is taken when determining whether an action, development or activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats either directly or indirectly.

It is clear that it is very difficult to forecast the cumulative impacts of events of the kind conducted at the Parklands site on the ecology of the area. The Threatened Species Guidelines state: Application of the precautionary principle requires that a lack of scientific certainty about the potential impacts of an action does not itself justify a decision that the action is not likely to have a significant impact.

Considering the Endangered status of koalas in the local area and based on the findings of Dr Phillips' study and the assessment guidelines, I submit that no further festivals should be conducted at the North Byron Parklands site in order to ensure that there is no significant impact on the local koala population.

The NSW Police report (11 January 2017) details numerous issues relating to safety and security on the Parklands site and in the areas around it. The Tweed / Byron Police Force cannot provide the level of response needed to ensure the safety of the local community as well as the safety of festival patrons at current crowd levels.

With so many ongoing problems, granting an extension must not be supported.

For reasons detailed above, I also totally oppose the use of North Byron Parklands as a permanent cultural event site.

The festivals held at North Byron Parklands (NBP) are another tragic example of the government stifling small and medium businesses to assist big business. The playing field is tilted dramatically in favour of big business by government and bureaucracy. Among other things, these festivals:

* Poach their patrons from all the established entertainment venues in the region and beyond;
* Have caused a substantial fall in revenue by pubs and clubs, forcing some to close;
* Have caused an almost total cessation in investment by the area's pubs and clubs (many venues rebuilt, extended or refurbished from about 1990-2010, so the flow-on effects from the moratorium have been significant);
* Have reduced job opportunities and employment for local builders, hospitality staff and musicians;

The NSW state government is unfairly assisting the festivals by:
* Allowing development on flood-prone land. A few weeks ago, Parklands went under 2.5m of water which came up overnight. All electricity was cut off. If such a weather event occurs during a festival (floodwater, darkness, alcohol), the results would be catastrophic. Photographs taken recently are attached.
* Allowing the organisers to operate 9 bars on rural land paying rural rates. No one else is allowed to sell alcohol under those terms.
* Occupying too much police time, often leaving the general community unprotected. The police report is extremely concerning and should be read in detail.
* Allowing noise levels which are unacceptable to the community and which contravene the letter and intent of rural zoning. They should be confined to industrial areas.
* Encouraging the festivals to over-burden the local infrastructure while demanding everyone else pay for the traffic problems, illegal camping, road maintenance, and removing tonnages of garbage spread from Pottsville to Byron. NBP makes no contribution to local infrastructure beyond the rural rates it pays just like any other rural landowner.

NBP commissioned and paid for an `Economic Impact Report' (attached) in 2015 which does not bear scrutiny. The following notes refer to it and should be read in conjunction with it.

Data
On pages19 and 20, the footnotes say data was only collected from people with vested interests, i.e. festival organisers and stall-holders. No objective data was collected. Since the data is highly unreliable, no conclusions should be drawn. It's a case of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
On page 6, according to this biased data, direct expenditure is given as $46.8m. But 2.1 says 30.8m was spent by the punters, and 16m by the organisers. This is the same money, counted twice. It just means that some of the money that came in went out, but it's the same money.

Methodology and Use of Economic Multipliers
On page 7 the economic output figures are more than 2x greater than the total expenditure claimed on the previous page. No explanation or methodology is mentioned. So how do we get from a dollar being spent equals $2.20 economic output? That means every time a pensioner spends a dollar, it's worth $2.20 to the economy.
The Gross Value Added (GVA) figure looks similarly delusional. No means of calculation or methodology mentioned.
Page 8
2.4 Wages paid directly in Byron Shire - 3.4m
This magically becomes 7m. How?
The 118 jobs thus claimed are then inflated to 196 via `supply chain and household consumption', suggesting anyone who employs a person actually employs 1.66 people.
This use of economic multipliers is erroneous. Economic multipliers should only be employed where there is an increase in the monetary base, such as with new government spending. If a teenager spends their money at a festival instead of at the local pub, there is no increase in the monetary base. If multipliers are applied to the festival's increased revenue, they must also be applied to the local pub's loss, via exactly the same effects of `supply chain and household consumption'. There is no net gain.
On page 10 these hyper-inflated figures lacking any defined methodology are repeated.
By pages 13 and 14, the current economic output has ballooned to 107.8m. How did they calculate GVA? Again, no calculations or methodology. The inflated figures of underpaid workers are repeated.
The GVA figures in the table on page 18 are wildly different from those quoted earlier. GVA and Output have also been added together, when it's an either/or situation, meaning more double counting. Another column called `Income' has turned up without explanation. The use of multipliers is again wrong in this context.
The assumptions listed on page 18 are extremely generous to NBP, and generally unrealistic.
In Appendix 3 on pages 21 and 22, there is a long list containing some of the possible shortcomings of their use of multipliers. Most important is `Lack of budget constraints'. In the present case, the punters are aged 16-25, and nearly all have limited incomes and expenditure. Any dollar they spend here is a dollar less they spend somewhere else. The use of multipliers in these circumstances is misplaced. Multipliers are only used where there is an increase in the monetary base, not when consumers direct their expenditure here instead of there.
The reasons stated by RPS for using multipliers have nothing to do with accuracy or authenticity, but are due to "...ease of use and communication of results..." (page 22). That is, multipliers enable them to draw nice, coloured-in graphs which depict their fantasies and are easy for the uninitiated to read.

Breaching labour laws
Page 8
2.4 Wages paid directly 3.4m
2.5 Direct employment claimed as 118FT jobs. Dividing this into the 3.4m claimed in 2.4, that's $28,800 p.a. per FT job. That's below the minimum wage. If workers' compensation and superannuation contributions are being paid, the wages received by workers drop to about $24K p.a.. The organisers should be investigated and/or prosecuted.

Elephants in the Room
If this purports to be an economic impact statement, there are two enormous omissions.
1. Opportunity cost. No mention is made of the opportunity cost of the festivals - business being lost by local entertainment venues, the total lack of investment in these venues over the last decade, and the land itself. The land previously produced sugar, cattle and trees. Now it produces nothing.
2. Ticket sales. The single largest financial item in the economic impact of these festivals is not mentioned at all or accounted for in the report. In fact, using NBP's figures and current ticket prices, $29,560,400 is received by the organisers for tickets and removed, presumably overseas to the shareholders. The organisers also have other sources of revenue from the events, eg, stall-holder fees. Thus over $30m is being removed from the economy every year. There is no mention of this anywhere in the report.

The document's `purpose'
Why has such a biased, evasive and mendacious document been published? On the first page we are told it was prepared for North Byron Parkland's (NBP's) `purpose', however the nature of this purpose is not disclosed. From the type and extent of the bias, it could be assumed the purpose was advertising.
However, we are told that the report is generally unreliable, or cannot be relied on by anyone but NBP. The authors also indemnify themselves against any loss, etc resulting from anyone but NBP relying on the report, or any of the information stated in it.

Conclusion
The entire report can only be categorised as `advertising'. It contains no facts which can be relied on.

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.

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.

Submission in attachment

These festivals are crazy!!! THE LAND FLOODS, WHICH IS WHY THEY DIDN'T BUILD HIGHWAYS ON IT. Please look carefully at the photos I've attached. They were taken about a month ago. If it floods when there's a festival, there will be hundreds of deaths, and YOU (the planning dept) will be responsible. There's no way the site can be evacuated because all the surrounding roads go under water and the electricity goes off. It's a disaster waiting to happen. The drainage can't be improved because all the surrounding drains are tidal, ie, they're at sea level.
The festivals should never be in this area. These are festivals of alcohol consumption, nothing else, and they belong in Botany Bay or Revesby. They are commercial/industrial development stuck in the middle of rural and residential areas. On a planning level, it's INSANITY. The noise, the traffic, the filth, garbage, the police problems, all belong in an industrial area.
The festivals have also had a very negative effect on the local entertainment industry. It's become much harder for pubs and clubs to make a quid, and musicians have much less work than previously. The pay has also been reduced, and some musicians are now working for $80 per night, as they did in 1985.
These festivals should never have been approved in the first place so an extension is not warranted.

See attached

See attached

Please see supporting document

Uploaded

PLEASE SEE SUBMISSION ATTACHED.

See attached

See attached

Please see attached.

See attached

See attached.

See attached