I am submitting this submission because at the present permitted sound levels my whole house throbs during Splendour especially with bass tones/ music. Although I live several kilometres from the Yelgun site , I live right on Marshall Creek. The sound appears to be magnified/ intensified while travelling through water. I am unable to sleep till it stops.
Please don't consent to an increase in the sound levels.
Sincerely,
Vivi

I think that the site is perfect to be used as a safe environment for more activities to benefit the community.

I am part of the Byron Bay Runners and we would welcome the chance to use such a fantastic local piece of land to hold community events.
Our impact on the land and surrounds would be minimal, but our enjoyment huge.
To be able to use the site for school cross country for our kids would be a perfect use for the site.

I would also love to have the opportunity to enjoy local open air cinema with my family and friends.

We hear the festival even though we're miles away, the extra buses that don't usually come this way rumble by until midnight, and the party goers arrive home to the rented accommodation at all hours, happily rowdy with no concept of sleeping neighbours.

To live in this beautiful area we accept next to no public transport, few employment opportunities, appalling roads to name but a few issues and now we are told we're to become "party central". NO THANK YOU.

This is our home. We wish to live quietly and enjoy the naturally beauty surrounding us. The noise pollution is intrusive and distressing, not to mention the additional traffic, rubbish and general inconvenience.

The current allowable noise levels need to be reduced not increased and the fact that the organisers have applied to increase the noise level shows their total disregard for the local inhabitants - both human and animal.

We OBJECT to the application by Parklands to have their project approval modified. Specifically there is absolutely no justification to increase the existing limits of noise levels. I would have thought there is plenty of factual evidence, through the level of complaints and noise monitored breaches, that would justify that the existing noise level limits ought be reduced. The Planning Assessment Commission approved a 5 year trial period to establish if the development could stay within PAC set boundaries. This application by Parklands only serves as further evidence, that in the context of noise, this location is not an appropriate place for major outdoor music festivals; as the large majority of locals emphasized to PAC in 2012. As a directly affected resident, during the course of the 'Splendour in the Grass' festivals of 2013 and 2014 our residential area within Ocean Shores and our counterparts in areas of Mooball were absolutely smashed by excessive disturbing noise and bass vibration. Consider the following: 1/ If the existing noise limits are adjusted upward, naturally the noise increases and we the existing resident is further compromised. 2/ PAC set strict noise limits to protect the residents and the sensitive ecology in the area. Parklands now want these limits must be raised for the good of their business. Parklands themselves are only underlining the unsuitable location of this site. 3/ The complaints hotline results relating to Parklands music festivals thus far are as follows: Spendour 2013-73, Falls 2013-34, Splendour 2014-139, Falls 2014-22. Further the complaints hotline has not always functioned correctly, so the actual number of people who have tried to complain was more than likely higher. 4/ Parklands noise monitoring and management have so far been inadequate. At Splendour 2013 monitoring was so poorly done that the Dept. couldn't tell if the noise limits had been breached or not. Professional monitoring commissioned by residents showed clear breaches. PAC fined Parklands $3,000.00 in 2014 for breaching sound limits. The large majority of local residents all severely affected, still maintain this trial approval granted in 2012 was unjustified. For Parklands to apply for a relaxation within the PAC set boundaries underlines their lack of respect and consideration for those that bear much of the burden for Parklands benefit. Critical conditions like noise limits should not be changed, particularly given the poor performance of Parklands 2 years into their trial period. No changes to the conditions of this TRIAL consent should be entertained by PAC. If Parklands can illustrate they can be responsible and considerate to to the existing residential amenity, (which as at this stage they have failed to adequately apply); only then should this should this TRIAL deserve further consideration.

I am a the owner of a motel in Brunswick Heads for the past 14 years. I am a member of the Byron Bay Runners Club. The North Byron Parklands site would be an excellent venue for the Running Club to hold training events, fun runs or get involved in running a Park Run each week. I am involved in coaching both adults and juniors running and I would anticipate if available the site could be used on a weekly basis or when available. The site is safe and provides a great natural environment to run. The site is a great asset to the community and should be used to its full potential.

The local community is currently negatively impacted by the unnecessary noise levels of the existing festivals no this site. The event participants have no respect for the local residents, or the environment - the waste/rubbish left behind is obscene. Take a walk through local neighbourhoods during the music festival and listen to the dogs whimpering and barking in distress from the noise.
You don't even insist on the event organisers finding a way to compensate the community for the massive traffic inconvenience. You are turning peaceful Yelgun into a disgrace each time you allow this activity to go unchecked. Stop listening to the mighty dollar and please listen to your local rate payers. Please care about your own community and put the limits on these events now.

SOUTH GOLDEN BEACH
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC.
PO Box 11, New Brighton. NSW 2483 Ph: 0429 803561
web: www.southgoldenbeach.com email: [email protected]

________________________________________

To: The NSW Minister for Planning 16th June 2015
From: South Golden Beach Community Association
RE: S.75W Modification Application for MP 09_0028

We object to North Byron Parklands asking you to modify their PAC approval and urge you to consider these points in making your decision:

1. In 2012, the PAC gave Parklands approval for a five-year trial period. That approval is giving the state government, the local council, and the community a chance to see if Parklands can manage noise and other issues satisfactorily. Major conditions of the approval, such as noise limits, should not be changed in the middle of the trial.

2. The proposed new limits for dB(A) noise would mean that Parklands could possibly avoid fines in the future and would have a better chance of saying they are staying within government-approved limits. But the amenity of surrounding residents will be negatively impacted. To protect residents from the disturbance they are experiencing from Parklands festivals, the noise limits should be lowered.

3. The developers are claiming that the dB(A) noise limits must be raised so that their customers and the performers who entertain them are not adversely affected. Festival goers want the noise to be as loud as possible, and performers want to keep the volume high. But residents want the peace and quiet that they are used to in their homes. This is a key issue and was a key issue from the start. When community members spoke directly to the PAC in 2012 and registered their strong objections to the development, they repeatedly pointed out that the site was the wrong location for outdoor music festivals because too many quiet residential and ecological areas surround the site. Now that the community has experienced the impacts of the festivals, we can say again that Parklands is still the wrong location for outdoor music festivals!

4. We would like to see dB(C), or bass, noise limited, but the limits proposed here are questionable (75 dB(C) until midnight; 70dB(C) until 2AM). In October 2013, after the extremely noisy Splendour 2013, the Department recommended similar criteria for bass levels with the suggestion that the suitability of the criteria be judged in light of the subjective assessments of nearby residents. Parklands specified these levels as aspirational targets for the next two events: Falls 2013 and Splendour 2014. Noise remained a problem at both events, however, with numerous complaints lodged both with regard to bass noise and higher-frequency noise, and breaches in the noise limits at Splendour 2014 resulted in the Department imposing a $3000 fine. To protect residential amenity in this very quiet area, lower limits should be set for the bass noise.

5. Parklands want to "level the playing field" by having the same dB(A) noise limits as other venues in NSW. They give examples of other locations and say that these other places had very few complaints when the noise limits were what Parklands wants to use. According to the proposal, these other venues often generated no complaints, and the highest number lodged was 9. However, the complaints to Parklands so far have been numerous: 73 during Splendour 2013, 34 during Falls 2013, 139 during Splendour 2014, and 22 during Falls 2014. (The actual number of people who tried to complain was higher because Parklands has had trouble with their complaint hotline. At one event, for example, the hotline didn't function at all because the mobile phones the operators were using couldn't get a signal.) The large number of noise complaints that have been registered so far, under the current noise limits, strongly indicate that the limits should not be raised.

6. We object to allowing the loud, amplified music to operate until 2AM on New Year's Eve. If the location of the site were different, we would not object to this, but there are too many people in the area who do not want loud music that late in the evening, even on NYE, especially after having suffered from loud music for several days before NYE, the entire day of NYE, and the prospect of suffering up until midnight on New Year's Day as well.

7. Noise data collected to date have mostly been based on Parklands' noise monitoring and management, and both have been inadequate.
a. At Splendour 2013, Parklands' monitoring was so inadequate that the Department couldn't tell if the noise limits had been breached. Residents had commissioned their own professional engineers to monitor the noise, and those readings showed obvious breaches. When this information was sent to the Department, their own noise engineer raised a number of criticisms of the procedures used by Parklands. Although the Department did not acknowledge breaches of conditions, residents in the area were greatly disturbed by the festival noise, which lasted for days.
b. At Falls 2013, Parklands's noise engineer did not do the monitoring that was required at sensitive receivers and at ecological locations, so data on observed noise were simply not generated. However, residents reported that the noise from Falls 2013 was much worse than the noise from Splendour 2013.
c. At Splendour 2014, Parklands engaged a different noise engineer and the required monitoring was done. The result: The DOP levied a fine of $3000 for breaching the noise limits. Area residents again commissioned a professional noise engineer to do independent monitoring, and that engineer found that the noise at Splendour 2014 was even louder than the noise at Splendour 2013.
d. At Falls 2014, noise management was improved. However, breaches still occurred. A stage was allowed to operate for an hour after midnight. That breached approval conditions and most certainly disturbed nearby residents.
This history clearly shows that Parklands should concentrate on improving the monitoring and management of the noise rather than seeking to increase the limits.

8. In particular, with regard to noise monitoring, Parklands should be expected to continue to monitor the areas designated in the approval as sensitive receivers even if agreements with the property owners are in place. Ongoing monitoring is very important to have a record of the noise over time so that when Byron Shire Council takes over as the consent authority they will have useful data for making their own decisions about noise limits. The PAC specifically said "In considering any future project applications, the Council must take into consideration the performance of events during the trial, the effectiveness of the management plans, the monitoring results of environmental conditions ..." (PAC Final Determination Report). We strongly urge the Minister to require ongoing noise monitoring, regardless of any agreements that may be in place.

9. Parklands claims that the strict PAC limits are "prohibitively low in winter and therefore very difficult to comply with". In fact, the two winter (Splendour) festivals so far have been quite disturbing to the surrounding residential areas and will be even more disturbing if the allowable noise limits are increased. If the smaller Falls festival continues to grow, it, too, may be unable to control the noise as well as it did for Falls 2014.

10. The proposal states that noise exceedances were observed during Splendour 2014 even when the festival was not generating amplified sounds. Parklands claims that noise from ocean sounds and vehicle movements were at times at or above the PAC-set limits. However, what matters to the community is the disturbing amplified music noise that is generated by the festivals, noise that needs to be effectively controlled within the existing PAC conditions. The fact that other occasional sources of noise may be observed in the area does not justify an increase in the limits for festival noise. It should be obvious that ocean noise and vehicle movements generate very different qualities of noise to amplified music. It is the amplified music that's the problem, not occasional vehicle sounds or surf sounds.

11. The PAC approval states that noise limits can be lowered if the Regulatory Working Group recommends more stringent levels. RWG members have in fact recommended lower noise limits more than once, given the widespread disturbances that have been experienced by residents, and lowering the limits remains an option that we strongly support.

12. Use of the southern car park was limited by the federal government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) with regard to protecting the adjacent wetlands. The EPBC approval specified "eastern and southern areas of the southern car part that will not be used during the 5 year trial". We're against allowing even more cars so close to this restricted area.

13. We note that several proposed changes are also part of the federal government's approval under the EPBC Act, including the total number of events of all kinds and the bump-in and bump-out periods. We believe that additional approval needs to be sought from the relevant federal government department for these changes.

14. If all noise criteria are to be consolidated into C16, then all five clauses of B3 should be moved to C16. It is not clear from the proposal that this is what would happen. In particular, it is important to preserve the right of the RWG to recommend changes to the noise criteria in the interests of protecting the amenity of the surrounding communities.

15. RE C17, Noise Mitigation. We know that noise mitigation works have still not been completed at some sensitive receivers. This was supposed to have been done before the first event, which occurred two years ago. The Department even gave specific follow-up instructions to Parklands to comply with this condition, and these residents, who are part of our community, have been as accommodating as possible in having engineers and others enter their property to determine what can be done to protect them from festival noise. Four festivals have now been completed. No progress has been made with mitigation, and these residents are still strongly affected by festival noise and will be affected even more if limits are raised further.
With regard to this, the proposed change in (new) C17 is unsupportable. We mean the addition of the clause "over more than two consecutive events". At least one sensitive receiver put in a written request for noise mitigation some time ago, the Department directed Parklands to provide that mitigation, nothing happened, and the matter was referred to the Director-General/Secretary. These residents have experienced very disturbing noise repeatedly. The fact that Parklands now claims that these people experience excessive noise only on a "one-off basis" is extremely misleading. And their attempt to reduce their responsibility to these residents further is unconscionable.



Regards

Angela Dunlop
Secretary
South Golden Beach Community Association

I support the position of the elected Council of Byron Shire.

I object to the proposal to increase higher frequency sound levels emanating from the North Byron Parklands site. I agree that bass levels need to be reduced but higher frequency levels were also a major concern at Splendour in the Grass 2014. There were 139 noise complaints about Splendour 2014. The noise levels were enormously disruptive to the social amenity of the community and many people felt physically disturbed by the intrusive sounds. At the subsequent Falls festival event over the summer of 2014/15, residents barely heard the sounds. Why can't Splendour keep sounds to that level? Much positive work has been done to make Parklands a good neighbour in the north of Byron Shire, and residents have appreciated efforts to minimise traffic and other disruptions. But noise always was and remains the main problem. At the moment it appears to residents that all decisions are going Parklands' way with little regard to the concerns and needs of residents. My submission is my own, but I can assure you that it is also based on the concerns of many residents, particularly the elderly, who do not find it easy to make these sort of submissions. I do hope you give consideration to residents, many of whom have observed the entire approval process with dismay, and some of whom have given up, believing that Parklands will get whatever it wants with the uncritical blessing of the Department of Planning & Environment. Please demonstrate this is not so.

With my personal experience of the North Byron Parklands organization i have found them to be extremely environmentally and socially responsible. The events held at the site contribute greatly to the community through providing much needed employment in our area and all the associated charities that are supported by the events that are held there. I feel they are committed to addressing any concerns the community has and are actively working towards solutions. They have my trust and i support them whole heartedly.