North Byron Parklands - Cultural Events Site

I live in Mooball, 9km from the festival site / 7 kms as the crow flies.
I object to the North Byron Parklands Cultural Event Site (SSD 8169)
and modification of the Concept Plan (MP09_0028 Mod 5) on the
following grounds: Firstly, the noise levels are already too high and
need to be reduced. When it was happening twice a year I could cope
with the noise but now that they want to have up to 10 festivals per
year the noise limits need to be reduced so that they do not impact on
us. Sometimes during the festival time the noise is so loud we can
hear the performers speaking on the microphone inside our house. It is
not just the bass, but the music as well which we cannot shut out of
our home even with all the doors and windows shut. It was so bad for
the last Splendour in the Grass event that we went away over the last
Falls Festival so that we did not have to put up with it, but with the
increased usage we will not be able to do that for every event and the
noise limits need to be much lower. The organisers promised to be able
to keep the noise on site. So far this has not been possible.
Secondly, the increase in patron numbers on site and the change to
define "patron" as those people with paid tickets necessarily means
there will be a lot more people on site and basically no limit is now
being placed on the number of people able to be on site at any one
time. This creates problems for traffic, waste, water, noise and most
importantly safety and evacuation that have not been addressed.
Thirdly, the issue of being able to evacuate the site during a terror
attack has not been properly addressed. The flooding evacuation
modelling shows it will take 10-12 hours to evacuate the site by
vehicle when there are 35000 patrons and that places thousands of
people at risk when the potential terror attack threat is listed as
"probable ". This is not in the public interest. Lastly, the use of
the Pottsville Mooball Rd to exit patrons to the highway in the north
is unsafe. On festival bump out days this road becomes blocked and
there have been a number of accidents as this is a narrow and windy
road and there are a number of businesses on this road that need to
have access to their sites. Please so not give permanent approval to
the festival site and please do not alter the Concept plan to allow
for more than 35000 people. Minor events nned to have strict noise
limits. Regards, Lutz Gaedt

I support the proposed applications.

As a long-time supporter of Splendour In The Grass and the North Byron
Parklands I write to express my concerns about the ever increasing
scale of the music events promoted and proposed. I believe unfettered
expansion of events on the site has unacceptable impacts on ecology,
community and infrastructure. The mega festival industry has become
out of scale with the form, settlement, culture and environment that
attracted the promoters and patrons in the first instance.
Unfortunately we are now experiencing the exploitation of a place (the
Byron Shire region) by an industry completely out of scale and
disconnected from this place. I ask that no further expansion of
overall daily patron numbers is granted, that environmental
monitoring, including actual patron numbers is strictly enforced, that
business rating applies to the festival site at the appropriate rate
to offset local infrastructure provision and impacts and that wildlife
corridors are repaired and strengthen as conditions of consent.

I support this application as it highlights a performing arts culture on
the North Coast and generates a high profile and revenue into the
area.

I write in support of the North Byron Parklands proposal for permanent
approval of the cultural event site at Yelgun. I am a consultant water
engineer and have lived in the Byron Shire for many years. Byron has
developed a reputation for a wide range of cultural events which are
large in scale and, in general, highly successful. The East Coast
Blues and Roots Festival, Splendour in the Grass, and the Byron Bay
Writers Festival enrich the cultural life of not only the Byron Shire,
but also the broader Australian community. They set the Byron Shire
apart from so many other beautiful NSW coastal resort towns by marking
our area as a place not only to relax, but also to be excited and
inspired by the arts. During the years where these large festivals
were all located in the immediate vicinity of Byron Bay, the strain on
local infrastructure was enormous. This resulted in less than happy
experiences for both locals and visitors. As such, a dedicated
Cultural Events Site and Yelgun represents an excellent way to
eliminate many of the challenges associated with Byron Shire's
programme of festivals without sacrificing the many social, economic
and cultural benefits provided by such events. Further, it must be
noted that the environmental planning and management which is has been
applied to the North Byron Parklands site is visionary, and will yield
benefits to the environment within and around the Yelgun site itself
over the coming decades. The purpose built facilities planned for the
site are configured such that events can proceed with negligible
impact on neighbours, and enable the regeneration of the local
ecosystem started over the last few years to progress.

We support the Parklands and their application.

Ocean Shores has been deprived of much of its territory and
infrastructure by environmental plunderers subsuming promised public
land into giant nature reserves. They are trying to do the same with
the Parklands site.Most of the town's 6000 residents are in favour of
this cultural events site because it gives back to the people
something of what was originally promised. Permanency to Parklands
means employment, training, small business opportunities, music,
culture and fun! The best 2019 50th Birthday gift to the town is a
permanent flourishing cultural events site within Ocean Shores'
boundaries. OSCA has supported this since 2008..

Having worked on the construction of North Byron Parklands, I believe it
is a great venue and I support the sites ongoing use for cultural
music events. Regards Scott Roberts

I have worked and lived at and near Ocean Shores since 1973. Many of the
opponents of Parklands were also responsible for taking most of the
original Ocean Shores estate and locking it up into 1000 Ha of nature
reserves with no humans allowed. Ocean Shores is the largest
residential town in the Byron Shire. It has no high school, university
outreach TAFE, public or community health facilities or services,
usable public space, town centre, government offices or services,
minimal footpaths, cultural centre, art gallery as promised etc.
Nothing can be provided because there is no land left for public use.
Parklands give us back something of what is lost. Please make it
permanent and stop the activists at last.

I fully support these applications. My family of 4 including 2 teenage
boys have attended Splendour for a number of years. Friends and family
from outside the area come and stay with us and at local accommodation
to attend both Splendour and Falls. They eat at local restaurants and
buy local products. These applications give rise to the opportunity
for North Byron Parklands to work with local businesses, generate
employment and support creative industries in the Northern Rivers
region. One of my sons has already worked at the site the other wants
to play there. For these reasons I passionately support these
applications.

Great community and cultural events site that boasts beautiful surrounds.
Stimulates the local economy.

I am writing on behalf of the organisation that is responsible for the
workplace heath and safety at the two events held at North Byron
Parklands. We regularly induct between 1500 to 2000 workers,
contractors and volunteers into our site safety management system, and
I can state, thanks a significant relationship with Safework Australia
and ongoing development of stringent practises and guidelines we have
no notifiable incidents to report. Certainly there is some minor
scrapes and bumps but out qualified first aid on site deals with
those, however, with all the high risk work taking place (forklifts,
cranes, trucks etc) and the number of staff our protocols have reduced
the hazards so dramatically we are operating in a virtually risk free
environment. Both Splendour and Falls use experienced contractors,
short term staff and unpaid labour, meaning we have a variety of
levels of expertise on site for sometimes nearly 28 days. The
management of these folks is dealt with by implementing regimes and
processes as high as any major construction site across the country.
Both events processes rival Australia's largest multi-national
construction organisations however integrate this with market stall
holders, local family run food vendors and local creative people. I
can say without refute that because we have been developing these
system since NBP began we are at the forefront of WHS practise - a
fact reiterated by Safework Australia in that organisations internal
publication. Importantly, the has allowed my organisation to create
more work opportunities across Australia, namely JSES is the national
Safety Consultant for Laneway Festival, same for Winton's Way Out West
Festival and have worked for Qld government managing the Maroon
Festival in Southbank in 2017. North Byron Parklands has allowed my
small business to employ pope and grow, to keep my family working and
living in the area, and I wholeheartedly support it's future in it's
location.

The festival site is part of the Yelgun Wildlife Corridor. I live several
kilometres away and the noise is clearly audible. This must
significantly distress local wildlife. The closest suburbs are small
coastal towns with no infrastructure. We are overwhelmed with festival
goers illegally camped in the streets. Telecommunications fall over
completely during festivals. No mobile signal and internet dies. I
work from home several days a week. This impacts on my livelihood. The
corridor is often bone dry with a large peat content. If there was a
fire the loss of life would be catastrophic. The festival organiser's
'study' the impacts of noise on wildlife. We don't believe them. There
are NO independent studies. The organiser's could use the Blues
Festival site. There is no need to use the Yelgun Wildlife Corridor
site. No amount of 'vegetation rehabilitation' (largely financed by
government grants and volunteer labour) entice wildlife to remain
subjected to intense noise levels and massive patron numbers and their
cars. The organiser's monitor noise levels. Only CONOS Inc have
independently monitored noise levels and found that the organisers are
not truthful and have exceeded the noise limits many times. Only the
Sydney-based NSW environment department oversee whether the organisers
follow the rules. They are rarely seen here. 7. The festivals have a
history of breaking the rules and only receiving minor fines.

1. Common sense tells us that if local residents' windows rattle, one
kilometre away due to festival noise, as ours do, then wildlife will
of course be distressed. 2. The festival organiser's 'study' the
impacts of noise on wildlife. The businesses providing this service
have a vested not independent interest, meaning if they bring back a
negative result they will likely not have their contract renewed, and
thus be more inclined to sway the result to favour the organiser's
interests. Therefore, it is not an independent study and there are NO
independent studies related to their events impacts. 3. The
organiser's could use the fully functional, large enough Blues
Festival site, a site that was and is well up and running before their
site was. Perfect venue already there, we do not need multiple
festival sites in the same shire and most importantly it does not
negatively impact the Yelgun Wildlife Corridor site. 4. No amount of
'vegetation rehabilitation' (largely financed by government grants and
volunteer labour) entice wildlife to remain subjected to intense noise
levels and massive patron numbers and their cars. And by making this a
permanent site, with increased events and attendance we run the risk
of causing irreversible damage. Since moving here I have sadly heard
how the koalas that used to be quite common in the trees around the
area (out the back of our houses and along the Optus trail) are no
longer returning, sadly we have not seen one. 5. The organiser's
monitor noise levels. Only CONOS Inc have independently monitored
noise levels and found that the organiser's are not truthful and have
exceeded the noise limits many times. There have been numerous stories
and articles in the local newspapers, along with personal experience,
of the surrounding community hearing the festival loudly and clearly,
then finding out they breached their noise thresholds, resulting in a
little fine and slap on the wrist. This clearly is not a deterrent for
them to stay within their so called limits and they cannot be trusted
to do so. 6. Only the Sydney-based NSW environment department oversee
whether the organisers follow the rules. They are rarely seen here and
as mentioned above its left to the organisers to abide to and they
clearly have little respect for following and upholding these rules.
7. The festivals have a history of breaking the rules and only
receiving minor fines. So for them it is worth it. For us a community
it is not, it is damaging to our surrounding environment and frankly
unnecessary they don't follow the rules, there is a perfect
operational site they could relocate to and this would remove the
treat to the Yelgun Wildlife Corridor.

This development is inappropriate given the location of the proposed
venue, the nature of the surrounding environment and the lack of
infrastructure to support such a development. The proposed development
will reportedly host festivals at least 20 days per year, and includes
an international conference centre and hotel bar (golden view bar).
The proposal would result in a regular influx of patrons twice the
number of Byron Shire and up to four times the number of rate payers.
The festival patrons will be paying a company with 51% ownership by an
international events company (Live Nation). The current fesitvals held
at the proposed development location (i.e., Falls and Spendour) have
already had a major impact on our neighbourhood and have resulted in
such negative changes to the community (incuding noise, poor behaviour
and increased traffic and noise pollution) that some members of the
immediate neighbourhood have sold their houses. If successful, the
proposed venue has the potential to attract patrons who may not behave
in ways that are responsible or on keeping with the ethos of the
surrounding community. Already during festivals we see people sleeping
on the beach between Wooyung and South Golden Beach, fires on the
beach, an increase in litter on the beach and anti-social behaviour in
our streets and nature reserves. This past summer there were also
instances of predatory behaviour on the beach, which were reported to
the police.

As a community representative on the Regulatory Working Group, I have the
privilege of access to some of the intricacies of the North Byron
Parklands operation and an understanding of what this involves. This
informs my submission as a private individual. NBP have been able to
manage the two large festivals on site at current capacity limits with
limited inconvenience to the general community. However, I have key
concerns regarding the proposal to expand the patron numbers and
festival days as outlined in the SSD application. These are: 1. the
inadequate Economic Impact assessment (Appendix W); 2. the lack of
provision for any ongoing contributions to the local council; 3. the
way in which numbers on site are reported and discussed; 4. the
proposed increase in patron numbers; 5. the proposed incremental
increases in patron numbers at three times the rate of incremental
increases during the temporary approval. 1. Economic Impact assessment
This report is woefully inadequate as it does not provide strong
evidence to support its claims, and is self contradictory, indicating
a flawed model. While claiming that the increase in patron numbers and
festival days will result in increased opportunities for local
businesses and increased employment, with specific numbers given, on
page 22 of the report it notes that "increased demand for a product is
assumed to imply an equal increase in production for that product. In
reality, however, it may be more efficient to increase imports or
divert some exports to local consumption rather than increasing local
production by the full amount" (my emphasis). Furthermore, the
multipliers that have been used are stated as "not appropriate for use
in economic impact analysis of projects in small regions." These
statement undermine the quality of the report to such an extent that I
think it should be discounted. The lack of any independent modelling
or reporting on the economic impact of such a major development is a
serious flaw in this approvals process. 2. Contributions to Byron
Shire Council The Economic Impact assessment refers on page 4 to the
fact that NBP can "leverage" on Byron Bay's "well-established national
and international brand and reputation." There is no provision,
however, for any ongoing contribution to the local council to help
support the proposed increase in visitor numbers, while acknowledging
that patrons do spread out from the site and use local facilities. NBP
is required to make Section 94 contributions, but this is a one-off
contribution and does not reflect the ongoing stress on the community
and its infrastructure (such as roads, amenities). I understand NBP is
in talks currently with council about a potential per-ticket levy to
go to council. This is a good start, however, I would like to see a
commitment to this prior to consent being considered. 3. Reporting of
numbers on site The proposed increase in patron numbers discussed
generally and with community groups is not the actual number of people
on site, which is greater. Thus 35,000 patrons means 40,290 people on
site, and 50,000 patrons means 57,850 people on site (page 35 of EIS).
I understand that the total number is accounted for in emergency
services planning, but the larger numbers have not been mentioned in
any press releases, or been raised in community consultations unless
prompted. I do not feel the community has been appropriately briefed
by NBP on the numbers, and would like to see the total numbers of
people on site being the benchmark number referred to, rather than the
patron numbers. For example, rather than 50,000 people, the discussion
should focus on the `real' number of just under 60,000. 4. Proposed
increase in patron numbers I have not been convinced by anything in
the EIS and supporting documents that the proposed increase in patron
numbers will be of benefit to a shire of 32,000 residents. The
increase in numbers will certainly benefit the owners of the site and
the promoters of the flagship festivals, but due to the poor economic
modelling and the lack of commitment to ongoing financial
contributions to the local council, I would like to see the patron
numbers kept as they are, which in reality means the influx of just
over 29,000 for Falls Festival and just over 40,000 for Splendour in
the Grass. I do support the conference centre development, assuming it
stays at the size proposed, and the small and minor event days. 5.
Proposed incremental increases in patron numbers Although I am opposed
to an increase in patron numbers, if this is granted, the incremental
increases need to be adjusted. During the temporary approval period,
NBP has been allowed to increase patron numbers by 2,500 per year,
subject to meeting KPIs. This has allowed them to iron out any issues
that have arisen. This process has worked well to date, but this
success is not in itself proof that an increase of 7,500 patrons per
year (subject to meeting KPIs) is workable or advisable. If an
increase in patron numbers is considered at all, experience shows that
2,500 per year is an appropriate number. Furthermore, for Falls
Festival there is no proposed incremental increase from 25,000
(current) to 35,000. While smaller than Splendour in the Grass, Falls
Festival occurs at peak tourist time in the region and an extra 11,040
people (that is the projected increase in people on site), is
significant. Incremental increases of 2,500 patrons (subject to
meeting KPIs) would make much more sense in order to assess the impact
on the area. In conclusion, while I can see benefits of having a
permanent approval in terms of being able to have better
infrastructure and improve facilities, I cannot support this
application for the reasons outlined above. Thank you for this
opportunity.

North Byron Parklands Cultural Events Site - Yelgun SSD 8169 and MP
09-0028 MOD 3 (Concept Plan), Tweed Valley Way and Jones Road, Yelgun
A SUBMISSION ON THE D.A. SSD 8169 and MP 09-0028 MOD 3 Concept Plan. I
have read the DA and the Environmental Impact Statement and am
bringing attention to issues that the DA and its reports presents.
These issues include the magnitude of the events proposed. 1. I object
to the magnitude of the proposal to the SSD particularly as Live
Nation has bought a controlling interest in the Splendour in the Grass
and Falls held on the NBP site. Live Nation will not be accountable to
Council and the local community. The two major festivals staged on the
site are 51% owned by Live Nation, an American entertainment
conglomerate. Permanent approval of this proposal will put profits
generated at Parklands into the hands of that conglomerate, an entity
that is not answerable to elected officials or local residents. As we
do not know the nature of the festivals or events to be held, beside
the events Splendour in the Grass and Falls, once a permanent approval
is granted modifications could possibly be obtained thereafter. 2.
Billinudgel Nature Reserve and Marshall's Ridge Wildlife Corridor,
into which NSW has invested millions of dollars over decades, are the
most state significant assets in the north of Byron Shire. The
environment is the true state-significant asset in this part of the
state. The environment, which encompasses not only the flora and fauna
of the area but its human inhabitants and their social welfare, will
be compromised by this proposed development. The Precautionary
Principle has not been taken into account and is an essential aspect
of this proposed development. Approval of this proposal will
permanently change the nature of this ecologically significant site.
What has not been adequately researched and noted upon in the DA is
the chemical contamination from 50,000 attendees per day, plus several
thousand staff, performers, guests and stall holders, using sunscreen
lotions, insecticide, insect repellent, cooking contaminants, motor
vehicles and generators producing large quantities of particulate
matter and chemicals from rubbish and sewerage seeping into the air,
waterways and soil, on a permanent basis within the heart of a state
significant wildlife corridor and adjacent nature reserves. Nor has
there been an investigation into the effects of chemical contamination
on the invertebrates that make up the basis of the ecosystems that
support common, rare, threatened and endangered flora and fauna
species and migratory fauna species that exist within and adjacent the
site. Consequently, the ecosystems of the wildlife corridor and nature
reserves will be compromised and degraded. With the massive amount of
vehicle and people movement on the site, the ecological values will be
slowly diminished and destroyed. In Sec 5.1 Impact avoidance and
minimisation, Parklands consultants 'eco logical' state; "Outside of
event times, the proposed permanent security fencing will be opened to
allow movement of koalas. That is, every 5th or 6th panel will be on
hinges (acting as a gate) and will be permanently open except during
events. Each fencing panel is approx. 2.5m long. The fence will also
be set 100mm off the ground to allow movement of smaller fauna." This
is unacceptable in a regionally significant wildlife corridor. (refer
FNCRCP, 2010) The concept plan approval outlines a number of
requirements for future applications for the North Byron Parklands
project after the end of the trial period. In particular, Term C1(1)
requires that the performance of the trial events must be addressed as
part of any development application for outdoor events after the trial
period. It is noted that Term C1(2) of the concept plan requires that
any development application for outdoor events after the trial period
must be accompanied by an environmental management and monitoring plan
that details the management strategies, monitoring regimes and regular
reporting on the key matters associated with the project (including
noise, traffic and transport, flora and fauna, bushfire, flood,
surface water and event management). The site is located in an area of
significant ecological value, with Billinudgel Nature Reserve
immediately to the east of the site, a SEPP 14 wetland to the east and
south-east, and the Marshalls Ridge wildlife corridor extending
through the central portion of the site. A number of threatened flora
and fauna species, endangered ecologically communities (EECs) and
critically endangered ecological communities (CEECs) listed under the
NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and/or the
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 (EPBC Act) have been recorded within or nearby the site, as
outlined in the following sections. Two vegetation communities on the
Parklands site also classify as endangered ecological communities
(EECs) listed under the BC Act. Four threatened flora species have
been identified as occurring on site, and a further 7 species have the
potential to occur on site. 18 threatened fauna species have been
identified as occurring on site, and a further 4 species have the
potential to occur on site. The biodiversity assessment identifies 9
migratory species listed under the EPBC Act that are either known to
occur, or potentially occur, within the Parklands site. The assessment
identified 34 threatened species and 12 migratory species that either
occur, or potentially occur, within 1 kilometre of the site. These
species include many of the species identified as occurring or
potentially occurring on the Parklands site. Parklands is proposing to
implement a number of mitigation measures, including ongoing
ecological monitoring and continued habitat restoration and vegetation
management, which to date has seen the planting of 22,000 native trees
on the site. The Biodiversity Assessment Report states that ongoing
monitoring and adaptive management will be geared towards the
enhancement of endangered ecological communities and associated
threatened species habitat via vegetation management and bush
regeneration. A proposal for an operational monitoring program is
included in Appendix N Biodiversity Assessment Report Because of the
proposed increase in the number of event days and the number of
festival attendees we are concerned that the impacts on threatened
species, populations and communities may also increase and
consequently we regard it as essential that the ongoing ecological
monitoring and the continued habitat restoration and vegetation
management is undertaken as proposed. 3. I object to Gate A on Jones
Road being used for heavy vehicle traffic including bus and truck
movements on such a narrow road. Gate A on Jones Road, Yelgun in
Appendix D - refer Sec 4.1 External Road Works (pg. 5) states; At
Jones Road, the existing intersection at gate A will undergo minor
roadworks in order to accommodate the regrading and consequent
realignment of the existing service vehicle road to be more suitable
for buses. In Appendix P - Traffic and Transport Assessment 4.3 Gate A
(pg. 23) it states; From Jones Road: used for service vehicles, bus
entry and VIP/performer entry. Parklands excavated a tunnel through
the Jones Road ridge-line so the heavy vehicles such as buses and
trucks would not have to enter via the dangerous Jones Road
intersection and would enter via Gate C instead and gain access to the
event site via the tunnel under Jones Road (Appendix C - Civil Design
Plans). This has worked satisfactorily for 10 festivals over 5 years.
4. Fire risks continue to be great, especially since the festivals
have numerous bonfires and are located in a fire-prone area and the
NBP boundary fences along Jones Road are overgrown with exotic weeds
including Lantana, have never been maintained over the 5 years and
represent a fire hazard to residents and others during a fire
emergency. 5. Combined value of the locality's residential property of
$3 billion is more state significant than the $30 million Parklands
plans. Parklands claims that their intention to invest $30 million in
the site makes them a state-significant development. But a
conservative estimate of the combined value of just the residential
property in Ocean Shores North, South Golden Beach, New Brighton,
Ocean Shores, and Brunswick Heads is $3 billion, as a local realtor
has said. That $3 billion is surely more state significant than the
$30 million Parklands plans to invest in festival-site infrastructure
such as concrete platforms and wider roads. 6. Having the state of NSW
control the festival site is not consistent with the existing PAC
approved Concept Plan. After the trial period is over, Byron Council
is supposed to grant any further approvals for holding festivals at
the site. Rather than prepare for this, North Byron Parklands
requested that the NSW state government extend their trial period and
have now applied to become a State Significant Development. These
moves have allowed them to avoid Byron Council control. The proposed
increases of site usage are significant. The proposed increase in
festival use of the site is far from the "few days a year" that
Parklands originally stated was their aim. Parklands proposes two
large, five-day events and three medium-sized, one-day events every
year. Each of these will require 35 days of preparation and
dismantling, bringing the total site usage time to 188 working days or
52% of the year's 365 days. That does not include either the weekend
(non-working) days associated with event set-up and dismantling and
does not include the days devoted to "small" and "minor" events. If
this proposal is approved, NBP may be able to get ongoing
modifications to increase the numbers of days and the daily attendance
still further. Their stated aim of 50,000 attendees per day has to be
seen as only the beginning. The long-term issues and variable outcomes
are unknown because of the size of this proposed development and
consequently is of major concern to the local community.

We support the festivals and one day concerts as it brings so much joy to
our children, and I would like to see more that we can go to for the
40-60's age group.

I strongly object to this invasion of a Satellite City consisting of
Mega, Medium, and Small Festivals, in the North Byron Parklands site
and the repercussion's that it is having in, on the Shire. I'm a
direct neighbour of this site and the enormity of effects to our
village and surrounding towns, villages are unbelievable. Remembering
that this Shire consists of approx. 15,000 rate payers and 35,000
population. Our Village of SGB while the 5-year trial period has been
in force has changed completely, ABB rentals have taken over our
village and surrounds, traffic has doubled on roads that are not able
to handle extra tar weight. People are arriving to the Shire for
festivals earlier and departing from the shire in some cases weeks
later. We have illegal camping everywhere in front of homes, across
drive ways, etc. As well as Parking, everywhere, and if punters can't
find a park they are informed to park in other towns, preventing
people accessing their place of employ, their shopping centres, just
so they can catch one of the buses supplied to take them to the
festivals. Stress... to our communities is pulpable Trying to navigate
all these problems that are forced on us so that a company that is 51%
owned by one of the biggest music companies in the USA can make a
dollar at our expense is quite frankly sickening. NO FESTIVAL...
should be held at the Christmas / New Year period. As Byron, has / is
been touted by State and Federal Governments in ads to sell Australia
to the world, as well as the NSW Tourism plus individual tourist
companies and Chambers of Commerce we are being.... " Loved to death
and Locked out of our villages". Also, as I stated above approx.
15,000 rate payers are paying for all festival punters etc. to use our
shire. Nothing else goes to council to cover usage of our shire and
its infrastructure. This cannot be allowed to occur anymore. Police...
2016 report is another situation that has become a very tangible
realization of late. Terrorism considering the numbers NBP wish to
allow on this site would be a catastrophe, placing not only punters at
risk but our LAC and other agencies, plus community. Plus, numbers of
police on site should be increased. Fire and Flood .... Knowing this
area and what has happened prior with both these elements, NBPs could
not evacuate said site in either situation. I believe it will place
our Fire Brigades, and SES in a very life-threatening situation for a
51% USA money making company. Remembering that these same Fire and SES
people are part of our community and if hurt trying to direct 57,0000
screaming scared punters and others to safety. When they are running
all over the place is a horrifying thought. One thing to consider is
that these volunteers are based here and as such, the ripple effect
will be enormous. Sound... is another issue that has not been overcome
no matter what the proponents say. For many it is still a very big
issue. We note that the NSW Industrial Noise Policy of 2000 must be
the guiding policy for this assessment, according to the SEARs, and
that the INP's Intrusiveness Criteria are the applicable ones.
Adhering to that required policy would set the allowable noise at 35
dB(A) over a 24-hour period. Parklands dismisses these criteria as
unsuitable, but we point out that the noise limits established for the
trial were just that: trial limits. They cannot be assumed to be
suitable outside the trial, especially given the proposed changes to
event layouts, numbers of stages, and attendance numbers. Most
importantly, though, the SEARs specifically call for the INP to be
used for this assessment, and that's what we expect to see used. Drugs
and drunken behaviour .....are another situation that appear to worsen
when festivals are on. Each festival there have been people walking
onto the roads, new highway, etc. Intoxicated thinking that they can
walk home when in fact they cannot as they are to far away from their
accommodation. Drugs accessible on site are apparently easy to get and
with the deaths of punters, over the years as seen on TV from other
festivals this has to be looked at very closely. Traffic... along
roads accessing and leaving NBP site can be blocked for hours. (Tweed
Valley Way, Falls Fest, 2017-18.) We only have so many access roads
that we can use to transit either north or south and if one becomes
blocked as happens when festivals are on, this could become life
threatening. The Flora and Fauna ...management program C20 has not
been completed. No more Self-monitoring and Self Reporting by NBP, and
no employing people that have any connection with NBP. All reports
should be done by independents and independent companies. There is No
benchmark for 57,000 punters, staff, LAC, etc. having seen the
unpredictable problems that have arisen from 35,000, increasing
numbers appears not to be an option. Plus, significant ongoing
breeches that have resulted in unsatisfactory performances during the
trial. Numbers on the site if Development passed have to be capped at
30,000 with 7,000 for staff, LAC, SES, Volunteers. Free Tickets, etc.
Permanent approval is rarely given for this type of development, and
shouldn't this should stay the way it is. Consent for future festivals
if they meet all consents, if not lower numbers. Council should be
governing body, (consent authority) as they are here and can be onsite
within minutes, whereas the DOPE is in Sydney and on one festival date
are on holidays. There is so much more, over the years we have
submitted re many situations, please take on board what the
communities around said site are saying. Thank you for your time in
this matter.

I strongly oppose the approval of this development for the following
reasons: Our communications are badly affected during festivals, the
mobile towers built to cover a normally sparse population are
overwhelmed with calls, texts and mobile data from visitors to the
site. It become difficult for us to send and receive messages and
calls which is a disruption for us both personally and for business.
In an emergency situation we would find it difficult to call for help
and get emergency services to us. In a larger emergency or disaster
situation we would struggle to get out with thousands of people
blocking our only access road. The 2 festivals that have been running
for the past five years already impact on our day to day access. The
volume of traffic on our normally quiet access roads plus checkpoint
to try and slow the number of illegal campers into our road (only
partially successfully) makes it very time consuming and frustrating
to simply go in and out of our valley as a normal part of our lives.
It means finding alternate transport to get my son to school. It also
restricts our social life for these periods as it is awkward and
inconvenient for friends and relatives to visit us during festival
periods. NBP claim to be creating jobs in the area, but the volume of
workers needed at peak times means much of the workforce is brought in
from elsewhere and the work available for locals is extremely seasonal
and not sustainable for year-round stable employment. The operations
of 1 business - NBP - and the international conglomerate who uses
their land, should not be given precedence over the many small
businesses (mostly farms) that operate out of Yelgun that rely on
getting livestock, produce and workers in and out of the valley. They
are the type of businesses that keep this community going year round.
Noise pollution is an ongoing issue, with parklands operating at
levels far above the levels set by the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.
NBP should adhere to the relevant limits or move their festivals to a
more suitable area. Members of our wider community are affected with
huge influxes into surrounding towns, making it difficult to go about
normal life, especially our elderly residents who can't park near or
access services, centrelink, doctors, grocery shopping etc. Police and
emergency services tied up with intoxicated teenagers etc are then
unavailable to help our local residents in need. There is also extra
wear and tear on our roads and public amenities, putting a large
strain on council resources in a shire with an already very low
ratepayer to visitor ratio. The original approval for the 5 year trial
specified that after that period control would revert to Byron Shire
Council, who has a much better chance of understanding the needs of
our community and what our local resources can cope with. Decisions on
further festival numbers, capacity and developments should revert to
Council as originally agreed. The NBP site is in one of the last
remaining wildlife corridors from the ocean to the mountains in this
area. There are several pockets of forest in and around the site that
are home to a large variety of native wildlife. The noise pollution
that these animals have to deal with is very disruptive to their
feeding, sleeping and movement. There is also a large amount of
pollution coming from the site into these areas. The acres and acres
of discarded camping gear and general detritus may be cleaned up after
each festival but the many thousands of smaller bits of rubbish that
blow into the surrounding bushland and millions of pieces of
microplastic (eg glitter) cannot be cleaned up by a few work teams and
will stay in our environment and wash out to sea for decades to come.
Any increase to the number of patrons or events on the site will
exacerbate the above problems. I implore you to consider the local
residents and communities and not allow this development to change the
nature of our local community NBP and SITG have called out to their
customers to submit in favour of this proposal with little or no
background information on the impact on local residents, communities
and wildlife, as a resident of the area immediately surrounding the
site in question I would hope that my concerns of direct impact on our
lives will be weighted accordingly and given greater consideration
than those only worried about missing out on a party.