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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Date, 25/04/2017

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

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

Date, 25/04/2017

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

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

Date, 25/04/2017



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

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

25th April 2017

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Yours sincerely,

Sue Callaghan
1 Berrimbilla Court, Ocean Shores 2483