Please see attachment. 1) Personally my biggest concern if flooding. I
live in Wooyung Rd. That road was cut off in last April's flood on two
sections. No one from the festival would have been able to get out
through the northern side of Parklands for 4 days! Even worse, the
front carpark (facing Yelgun) floods first, therefore when it gets bad
there is no escape through the front door either! In this flood the 2
m marker on Wooyung rd was under water and the water was moving fast.
??? I have pics but can't send them as pdf. Contact me if you want to
see them. People could get hurt in all the barb wire fences (cow
padocks) or worse drown! A 1000 gallon water tank was swept onto the
fence of Wooyung rd. during this flood. Peoples equipment and
belongings would have been rendered dysfunctional and spread over a
huge area. What about all the sewage if it floods during a festival?
2) Sewage is to be buried or sprayed on the Parklands site, which
straddles two water catchments. Both tactics carry risks of
contamination of ground water and surface water that will affect
nearby residential areas and the Nature Reserve. On-site land
formations and frequent site flooding both present major challenges to
the planned disposal of effluent on site. Also, no provision is made
for dealing with inorganic matter in the waste stream, e.g., sanitary
products, plastics, etc., or for treating chemicals that become part
of the waste stream, e.g., prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs,
and other unmetabolised chemicals. And it's not clear if UV light or
chlorine will be used to disinfect the waste and if the process will
be fully effective. Parklands says they will implement their sewage
treatment plans "progressively as budget allows" although a complete
sewage treatment system was supposed to be in place by the end of
2017. So they're not yet prepared to handle the sewage they generate.
What they can't treat on site will have to be trucked to overloaded
sewage treatment plants in Byron Shire or elsewhere. This is not
responsible management. 3) Recurring issues include noise, traffic,
impacts on the environment, impacts on local infrastructure (roads,
water, sewer systems) and impacts on residential amenity and health.
Fire risks continue to be great, especially since the festivals have
numerous bonfires and are located in a fire-prone area. Problems have
arisen repeatedly throughout the trial, many unpredictable, e.g., the
on-site traffic nightmares at Splendour 2016, recurring outbreaks of
"festival flu", unpredictable noise disturbance throughout the area,
and repeated illegal use of fireworks on the site. During Falls
Festival the whole shire is already overloaded with tourists. The
festival puts extra strain on roads, accommodation, transport and
services in the highest tourist season. That does not make sense. 4)
Byron Council, in consultation with local residents and business
owners, should be determining the shire's destiny--not the state
government. 5) No independent analysis has been done that objectively
weighs the purported benefits of the festivals against the costs to
the community. The Economic Benefits Report, Appendix W in the
proposal, was generated by a Parklands-paid consultant. The report is
presented "without the assumption of a duty of care to any other
person other than the client [Parklands]" and the report further
cautions any third party from "using or relying on the facts, content,
opinions or subject matter" in the report. Experts in assessing
economic costs and benefits have described the report as incomplete,
inaccurate, and misleading. 6) 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. 7)
Billinudgel Nature Reserve and Marshalls 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. Approval of this
proposal will permanently change the nature of this
ecologically-significant area--for the worse. The state should not
have been approved festivals at Parklands to begin with. They now have
a chance to correct that earlier mistake.

Many economic changes which occur are not aimed at improving overall
benefit for the population, but are the result of corporations cutting
costs and increasing profits. This is the background to the rise of
massive, industrial-scale entertainment festivals like those operated
by Live Nation and North Byron Parklands (NBP). They are not driven by
the musicians or audience, but by the big music promoters. The
dominant corporations are in the process of globalising and
mechanising the music industry, which ultimately leads to less choice
for audiences, and less work for musicians. These large festivals
create nothing and simply poach their audiences from other venues. The
timing of the Falls festival to coincide with New Year's Eve simply
allows them to draw in revellers and holiday-makers who would
otherwise be drinking and spending elsewhere. New Year's Eve was
formerly a profitable period for pubs and clubs, which helped carry
them through the lean times. Not any more. Now every time one of these
festivals is held, another pub or club in regional Australia closes
its doors. So when Live Nation and NBP claim to be bringing $13
million into Byron Shire, they neglect to mention that the same amount
leaves other shires and municipalities. This figure comes from a
report which NBP commissioned and paid for. The real figure could be
much less. So while festival attendees may spend up to $1K each, much
of this is pocketed by Live Nation and repatriated to America, leaving
Australia poorer by the same amount. They pay no tax in Australia.
Since these attendees are almost entirely in the 16-25 age group who
typically spend 100% of their income, directing their spending towards
one sector of the economy necessarily means less is spent in another
sector. In other words, the $13 million (or 8 million, or whatever it
is) would still have been spent even if there were no festivals, and
would show up in other parts of the economy. Before NBP and Live
Nation came along, the land was productive agricultural land producing
cattle and sugar. The owners were continually investing; they were
paying more tax than Live Nation does, and paid rural rates, just like
NBP does. By contrast, these festivals are bad neighbours. They are
not appropriate development outside of an industrial area, and the
developers deliberately understate the problems of noise, traffic,
litter, anti-social behaviour, and the strain on local infrastructure.
NBP commissioned an 'Economic Impact Report' which purports to show
that the events are an economic success. The Report is extremely
biased and a full analysis is attached. Please read it. NBP has
received preferential treatment regarding planning, liquor licenses,
noise, lack of regulatory supervision, environmental breaches,
traffic, etc. This has made it difficult for normal businesses who
don't receive such largesse to compete. There have been significant
losses among local businesses as a result. These are analysed in the
second of the two attachments. Please read it.

Please read attached pdf.

find submission attached

My submission is attached.