1. art and entertainment
2. shows and events
3. festival

Regulatory Working Group
Revised Minutes
Wednesday 1st April 2015 - 2.00pm to 4.00pm
Parklands Office – 54 Jones Road, Wooyung (02 6680 4049)
Present:
Peter Ryan (Chair, Regulatory Working Group)
Mat Morris (General Manager, North Byron Parklands)
Jessica Ducrou (Promoter, Splendour in the Grass)
Matthew Evans (CEO, Village Sounds)
Elise Huntley (Splendour in the Grass General Manager)
Neil Johnson (Community Manager, North Byron Parklands)
Claire Atkins (Community Advocate, North Byron Parklands)
Brandon Saul (Promoter, Falls Festival)
Julie Howie (Promoter, Falls Festival)
Annette Perkins (Event Coordinator, Falls Festival)
Denis Sheahan (Site Manager, Falls Festival and Splendour in the Grass)
Rob Doolan (Balanced Systems)
Denise Nessel (Community Representative)
Russell Eldridge (Community Representative)
Cr Basil Cameron (BSC)
Darren Steel (NSW Police)
Dimitri Young (Office of Environment and Heritage)
Wayne Pettit (State Emergency Services)
Michael Baldwin (Roads and Maritime Services)
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
1
Apologies:
Krister Waern (Office of Environment and Heritage), Cr Diane Woods (BSC), Matt Inwood
(Rural Fire Service), Inspector Greg Jago (NSW Police), Damien Hofmeyer (National
Parks and Wildlife Service), Gary Cowan (NSW Police), Shannon Burt (Byron Shire
Council)
Agenda Items
1. Introductions
The meeting opened at 2pm. Introduction of members around the table took place.
The Chairperson formally welcomed the new community representatives Denise Nessel
and Russell Eldridge. Members of the RWG also welcomed Inspector Darren Steel from
NSW Police.
Minutes of the 24th November 2014 RWG meeting were finalised on 13th of October 2014
and are currently on the Parklands website.
2. Falls Festival Summary
Mat Morris advised that the focus from a regulatory point of view for Falls Festival Byron
14/15 (FFB) centred around the recommendations made by the Department of Planning
and Environment’s (DP&E) compliance report covering SITG2014 (noise and general
recommendations).
Brandon Saul provided a summary of FFB14/15 performance. For this event particular
focus was placed on noise, traffic and waste management. Brandon advised that traffic
and noise were very well managed while waste management still needed to improve
(even though significant resources were applied to this aspect).
The event also experienced very high temperatures and after some consideration future
FFB events will be reduced in duration by one day. Due to the high temperatures buses
were a challenge on the first day (in terms of catering to patrons wishing to leave the
venue) and correspondingly there was an oversupply of buses on the following day. Better
pre-planning and weather consideration will help resolve this matter.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
2
3.0
Splendour in the Grass 2015 (SITG)
Jessica Ducrou provided the following SITG summary:
•
2013 was a very difficult year as a result of the unseasonably wet weather and the
venue build only being completed just prior to commencement of the event;
•
2014 was a much smoother show. Traffic was resolved however noise had some
issues;
•
2015 is currently analysing the FFB14/15 improvements.
Mat Morris provided an update covering various regulatory matters including the SITG
2015 AMP, BEEP and TMP (which coincidently was recommended for approval this
morning).
4.0
Community Representative Submissions
The two documents provided to the Chairperson by the community representatives (refer
Attachment 1) and responded to by Parklands (refer Attachment 2) covered:
1. Comments relating to RWG issued documents (AMP, BEEP, etc); and
2. Comments received by community members.
The offer was made to run through each comment or only focus on those matters where
clarification was sought by a member or members. The group agreed to focus on those
points where members sought clarification. The RWG commenced reviewing specific
questions from the first document above.
Mat Morris apologised for missing the first two questions relating to traffic. Brandon Saul
provided the following summary in relation to these questions:
1. Buses were a challenge (this issue was previously discussed in Brandon’s
summary of FFB14/15);
2. Camper vehicles were released in limited runs to Wooyung Road for some hours
on departure day. NSW Police were involved in this process. Denise Nessel asked
about patrons leaving the site during the event and how this would be managed in
future. Brandon advised more buses and education regarding transport options
was required. Cars left site mainly due to the high temperatures on the first two
days but not in any great numbers. SITG have also made note of variations in bus
demands experienced at FFB14/15.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
3
Simon Richardson advised he had met with Transport NSW regarding Council’s park and
ride system. He also invited FFB to meet and investigate opportunities to link Fall’s bus
network with the park and ride system.
Dimitri Young raised depatures via Wooyung road and discussed departure times being
an issue for patrons. Brandon discussed options for improvement but also pointed out that
departure from all large venues experience onsite congestion and delays.
The next point raised by the community representatives covered noise.
Denise Nessel discussed the need for consistency of data sets from one event to the next,
particularly with Byron Shire Council eventually becoming Parkland’s regulator. Denise
noted some inconsistencies between data sets and documents. Peter Ryan suggested a
separate discussion about technical noise issues with interested parties.
Brandon Saul shared his experience with noise and his visits to certain receptors around
the venue and the low to inaudible levels of sound from the event that could be heard.
Brandon felt the community amenity in terms of noise had significantly improved for this
event.
Russel Eldridge said regarding community amenity, many people thought that past events
were too loud. He noted that it was not just C-weighted noise that was an issue to some of
the community, A-weighted noise was also an issue.
Basil Cameron appreciated the continuous improvements achieved but backed Denise’s
view that as a whole the data collection was inconsistent with previous years and there
were inconsistencies in application of these measures.
Both event operators highlighted that there were significant problems with the first noise
consultant, which was unfortunate because it has caused a number of inconsistencies in
the data sets. ANE have now been engaged since SITG14 and in that time have
completed a comprehensive winter background survey, which was not affected by
adverse meteorological conditions. They have also expanded on the existing summer
background surveys by capturing data in December 2014 for a number of key receptors
including R12 and R13. ANE also rewrote both the Noise Management plan and the
Acoustic Monitoring Program for events in plain English and has gone to great lengths to
communicate results more clearly and consistently.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
4
Mat Morris provided the following summary of noise performance achieved by FFB14/15:
•
Data loggers were placed at 8 sensitive receptor locations (including 3 ecological
sites);
•
Over 100 attended noise monitoring 10 minute readings were undertaken (all
showing compliance with the noise criteria);
•
Unattended data loggers recorded compliance with noise criteria except during
some periods around 9 pm (for some 40 minutes) and once after midnight at R12.
There were a number of other minor brief exceedences at each of the unattended
logging locations, however many such exceedences also occurred on the days
before and after the event. ANE concluded that such readings were “likely to be
significantly influenced by local extraneous noise sources”.
Mat Morris also discussed the current issues with the noise criteria and the inability to
comply with these criteria by SITG due to the significant drop in background levels during
winter. Parklands need to seek an approval to operate that considers/respects the
community as well as being able to operate at acceptable levels for patron experience.
Denise Nessel pointed out that the PAC set strict background + limits on noise in
consideration of expressed community concerns about festival noise.
Mat Morris advised that Parklands has lodged a modification that will place limits around
the lower frequency spectrum (C-weighting) which is currently unregulated and the more
intrusive component that has led many community members to lodge complaints. The
modification will also seek to amend the existing A-weighted criteria by stipulating an
absolute A-weighted limit at the boundary of the receptor (rather than being tied to a
background plus regime). Setting absolute A-weighted limits at receptors will not lead to
an increase in noise from events, rather it is predicted that by managing the lower
frequencies the overall noise envelope from events will reduce.
Russell said that listening to people is important in setting limits. He also said that
regardless of what limits have been set, if residents are disturbed by festival noise, then it
should be considered too loud. Further, he commended Falls for controlling the noise
better than previous festivals, and he asked Jessica whether SITG 2015 could match the
Falls 14/15 achievement in reducing noise. She said "No".
Simon Richardson commented on the important role of the community representatives.
He said that their role was to bring community concerns to the table and seek clarification
and/or a way forward on such issues. Simon also said their role was to disseminate
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
5
accurate information provided by Parklands and the RWG to clarify misconceptions and
respond to questions raised by members of the community.
To facilitate a greater understanding of the noise monitoring program now well established
by ANE, the Chairperson recommended Parklands convene a meeting with interested
RWG members to discuss the technical aspects of noise monitoring. Parklands agreed
this to action.
Action: Parklands to convene a noise monitoring workshop with ANE and interested RWG
members in the 3rd or 4th week of April 2015
There were no further comments in relation to the AMP.
5.0
Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan (BEEP)
Rob Doolan presented the BEEP advising that it built on previous event BEEPs. Rob
provided the RWG with a run down of refinements made to the BEEP. He advised that the
BEEP had been sent to the LEMC for consideration and approval.
There were no comments (other than those responded to in the community representative
correspondence located in Attachment 1 of these minutes).
6.0
Community Issues
The matter of horses entering the Billinudgel Nature Reserve (BNR) was discussed. Denis
Sheahan advised that during daylight hours NSW Police horses patrolled Jones road
while private security horses patrolled in the evenings. Dimitri Young will arrange for
NPWS to contact Mat Morris about obtaining any necessary approvals to allow horses on
formed tracks within the BNR.
Lighting discussion. Parklands discussed the disappointment regarding search lights
again operating at FFB14/15. The contractor was removed from the event. Regarding use
of laser lights Brandon Saul advised lasers were permitted but should avoid illuminating
forest blocks.
In relation to notification of operating times to community members Mat Morris asked the
community representatives their thoughts on what should be advertised. They advised the
information should state that the main stages would operate from 11am to midnight with
secondary entertainment to 2am.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
6
7.0
Other Matters
Basic Cameron asked that the technical noise meeting should occur before the AMP is
submitted to DPE. This was noted by parklands.
Russel Eldridge thanked Community Manager Neil Johnson for making such a big positive
impact in community relations and communications. Also he said the traffic has been
better than expected for FFB14/15 and pleasingly holiday letting issue associated with
events had not occurred in his area.
Dimitri Young discussed the bond cheque held by OEH for FFB14/15. Julie Howie asked
for the bank cheque to be returned. Dimitri to arrange.
Dimitiri Young also advised that a koala was sighted on the 26th of March about 1.9km
along Jones Road by Bob Ohlman on behalf of CONOS.
Dimitri Young asked Mat Morris about the progress of the Significant Impact Assessment
flow chart regarding OEH’s recommendation for other examples noted their letter sent to
Parklands on 23rd of February 2015. Mat advised the department would have something
soon.
Meeting closed at 3.40pm
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
7
Attachment 1
To:
From:
RE:
Date:
Parklands Regulatory Working Group
Denise Nessel and Russell Eldridge, Community Representatives
Falls 2014
30 March 2015
These issues regarding festivals at Parklands, primarily Falls 2014, have been brought to us
by members of the community with the request that we bring them to the attention of the
RWG and the Department of Planning. Details follow the bulleted list.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Festival-goers trespassing on private property and entering the nature reserve
Noise breaches occurred at sensitive receivers: noise was too loud and extended past
the required shut-down time
Despite less noise at Falls2014, noise remains ongoing concern for community
Mounted security entered the nature reserve, where horses are not allowed
Laser lights and search lights again used on site, as has happened before.
Fireworks again set off in the camp grounds, disturbing nearby residents
Inadequate toilets resulted in bushland, parking lots, etc. used as toilets
Waste management needs improvement
Impaired telecommunications for nearby residents and businesses
Festival-goers leaving and entering site as pedestrians
Incorrect hours of operation given to community
Inadequate entrance procedures and probable exceeding of attendance limits
Permanent structures on site
RWG access to the site for inspection before event
Statements about modification to the approval
Missing documents on Parklands website
Questions about flora and fauna monitoring
1.
Security. Regarding security during the recent Falls Festival, this account was sent
to us by one of the households on Jones Road with the request that it be shared with the
RWG:
Security: this failed on many occasions as seen by the many patrons passing my property on
their way to and from the beach each day of the festival.
On New Years Eve at approx 18.00 my dog alerted me to 2 males walking across my paddock. I
immediately phoned Chris, security at end of Jones Road who did not answer. I then phoned Neil
Johnson, community liaison, who also did not answer. I walked up to where I hoped security would
be at Quarry trail entrance. I had both my personal mobile and the phone supplied by NBP
(telstra) with me. I explained to the female security guard that people were trespassing on my
property. It was clear her English was so poor she could not understand me and was searching for
words to communicate with me. After explaining again and again and requesting her several times
to phone for support I became increasingly anxious. This was my biggest concern - that patrons
would be cutting through my property and here I had seen them with my own eyes (and witnessed
by my family and guests). The female security guard asked me if they had stolen something. She
said that she couldn’t see anyone and she was refusing to phone the mounted security or anyone
for support. She was obstructive. I asked her to walk with me so she could see the trespassers and
then came upon them on the road with another security guard. I spoke at length with the 2 young
men who were apologetic about cutting through my property and they said they had easily left the
festival site at the back of the carpark crossing two fences. They said neither fences had signs on
them and it was not difficult at all to leave the site. Obviously this is the case due to the amount of
people I saw along Jones road (including barefoot, bikini clad, hatless, waterless patrons).
I have suggested before from previous events that the calibre of the security guards needs to be
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
8
improved. The security that are placed at the Quarry trail have consistently been incapable of
fulfilling their duties - from escorting patrons to the beach track, to being unable to read the road
signs, unaware of what their brief was, and now being obstructive in apprehending trespassers on
my property.
I also phoned Dale (security) from the NBP mobile phone, however the number that had been
put in there was no longer in use. Surely when I am given a phone with numbers I need for the
festival they would need to be ensured that they are actually accurate. Also despite having this
phone with me for the whole time when dealing with these trespassers I did not receive any phone
call back from Neil or Chris despite me leaving them a message. Apparently they did try to phone
me however the phone did not ring/work - and this was the phone that was with Testra and
supposed to be my 'lifeline' phone.
I insist NBP secure their festival site to stop patrons from exiting onto my property. My biggest
fear is that my property is not safe from trespassers and now it has happened. It has probably
happened before too without me actually seeing them down in the paddock. It is not my job to sit
and monitor this. Security has failed.
Another household on Jones Road had the same concerns about security. We
understand that both property owners expressed their concerns to Parklands and asked for
improvements in future, especially with regard to fencing or effective patrols along the
eastern boundary of the site.
What will be done to improve security in future, especially with regard to attendees
leaving the site through unapproved exits and entering private properties and Billinudgel
Nature Reserve? These issues have been raised repeatedly by Jones Road residents and
other community members as great concerns.
2.
Noise at sensitive receivers. Regarding noise, the same Jones Road household,
designated as a sensitive receiver, wanted this shared with the RWG:
Noise: generally it was less audible than previous festivals, HOWEVER on the night of the
1/1/15 I phoned the hotline several times as follows 1/1/15 23.45 - complaint 4FFBB36 noise really loud and very thumpy, feeling the vibration in my
body whilst in my bedroom.
2/1/15 00.15 -complaint 4FFBB37 continued to be loud and thumpy, no quieter. Genevieve advised
me that Beau would be here in 15 minutes (which would be then 45 minutes after first complaint at
23.45) and that Beau had texted her saying he was trying to find out where the noise was coming
from. Genevieve said it may not be coming from the festival! I assured her it was indeed coming
from the festival. I was also pointing out the fact that it was now past midnight when main stages
were to have shut down.
00.38- complaint 4FFBB38. I clearly heard the announcement "Are you ready for 1 more". Noise
continued to be extremely loud.
00.45- phone call from Mat stating they had identified the stage and had told them to shut down.
00.58 - Phoned the hotline and Genevieve put Mat on. I complained that the noise was no different,
they were not stopping. Mat aware and advised he was going to ring Brandon (now 1 hour past
agreed shut down time of main stages).
01.05 - phone call from Mat apologising for noise. Noise now coming from Village which was open
til 02.00. I asked if this was going to be the noise now til 02.00 and Mat replied 'afraid so'. He was
apologetic. I requested monitoring be done from my back verandah (no monitoring had been done
from my residence throughout the festival and I firmly believe it is different (louder) than from
where they monitor on the roadside. I had suggested they take readings from my verandah on
previous occasions)
01.30 approx - Beau (ANE) attended monitoring from back verandah.
All main stages are required to stop operating at midnight, not an hour past that
required closing time, so the extended operation described here breached consent condition
B3(1). The PAC permission allowed music at bars and cafes after midnight when people
are dispersing, but this should not be disturbing the nearby neighbors.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
9
Another sensitive receiver on Jones Road had the same concerns about noise during
Falls 2014. We understand that both property owners expressed their concerns to Parklands
and asked for improvements in future. They were especially concerned about the long time
lapses between their complaints and attended monitoring and about the attended
monitoring not being done at their dwellings but instead being done on the road, at a
distance from the dwellings.
What will be done to meet the relevant consent conditions in future and improve
the monitoring at sensitive receivers?
3.
Noise in the wider community. Nearby communities (North Ocean Shores, South
Golden Beach, Yelgun, etc.) experienced much less disturbance from Falls 2014 noise but
several said they were still disturbed by the bass noise and the volume of noise in general.
Residents are mindful of the widespread disturbance they experienced at Splendour 2013
and 2014 and are very concerned that Splendour 2015 will repeat those noise problems,
given that it’s a much larger festival. What will be done to contain the noise at Splendour
2015?
4.
Horses in the nature reserve. Area residents saw festival security patrols on
horseback in Billinudgel Nature Reserve although National Parks and Wildlife does not
allow horses in the reserve. This is of great concern to the residents, and they would like to
know how this happened and what will be done to prevent it in future.
5.
Lights. Community members expressed concern about laser lights and search
lights again being used on the site, as happened during previous festivals. Consent
condition C19e indicates that the effects of lighting are supposed to be minimised on the
surrounding bushland, and laser lights are specifically not allowed on site. A Jones Road
resident called the hotline about search lights and had to call again the next night because
they were still being used. Also, an item on the Complaints Register said that the
Community Manager told a complainant the observed laser lights would be redirected
away from the complainant’s property, not turned off. What will be done to ensure that
these lights will not be used on the site in future and that the hotline operators will be
aware of the ban and respond accordingly?
6.
Fireworks. Fireworks have been ignited on site at all four festivals. They come
from the campground, which is very close to residents’ homes. They are ordinarily set off
in the late-night hours and are quite disturbing to residents. They also significantly increase
the risk of fire. Improved searches as campers enter the site and improved patrols of the
camping areas seem warranted.
7.
Toilets. Community members learned from patrons that the number of toilets and
their condition were inadequate, leading some attendees to use the nearby bush, parking
lots, and other places as toilets. Mayor Richardson also noted significant problems with
this and with the condition of the composting toilets on site.* What will be done to prevent
these sanitation problems in future?
*(http://mayorsimonrichardson.com/council-actions/new-years-eve/)
8.
Waste management. Community members learned from patrons that waste on site
(bottles, cans, and other discarded material) was not managed well. There were many areas
where the trash built up to very unpleasant levels, especially as the days wore on. Mayor
Richardson noted the same issue in his review of the Falls festival, cited in #7 above.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
10
9.
Telecommunications. Many residents and business operators in the community
had great difficulty with their telecommunications. They experienced no phone reception at
all or intermittent reception throughout the Falls festival. Many were greatly
inconvenienced and frustrated. What will be done to prevent such inconvenience to the
surrounding area in future?
10.
Pedestrians. Nearby residents saw many attendees walking from Parklands along
Tweed Valley Way and Shara Blvd to get to and from the beach. The attendees said that
shuttle buses were full or that it was too hot to wait in the sun at Parklands for a bus.
Residents thought pedestrian access to the site wasn’t allowed and want to know why
attendees were able to get in and out on foot.
11.
Hours of operation. Residents want to be sure ads for future festivals give the
correct hours of operation (11AM to midnight) rather than stating the hours extend to
2AM, as was the case for Falls2014 in its adverts. Consent condition C35(a) indicates that
hours of operation must be provided to the community, and the correct information should
be provided.
12.
Entrance procedures. Residents learned from attendees that they had devised
their own tickets for Falls2014, easily obtained entry with the counterfeit tickets, and also
did not have their packs checked when they entered. The counterfeiters claimed that this
was not unusual, leading community members to conclude that entrance procedures were
inadequate and that the allowable number of attendees was exceeded. An excess of entrants
would breach the consent condition that specifies limits to daily attendance.
13.
Permanent structures on site. Residents expressed concern about the general
store at Parklands that appears to be a permanent structure on a concrete slab. It was their
belief that such permanent structures were not allowed under the PAC approval.
14.
RWG access to site. Several people asked us about the RWG site tour that we
were given before the Falls festival and had many questions we could not answer because
our visit was brief and limited. The questioners suggested that members of the RWG
should be allowed much more time on the site so that they are able to see more than a
restricted guided tour allows. What provision can be made for more extensive time on site
for RWG members, such as providing entry passes? We note that more extensive access
was requested by previous community representatives.
15.
Modification to the approval. The media release of 4 November 2014 (on the
Parklands website) states that Parklands has lodged a proposal to modify the project
approval to increase the noise limits and host additional events on the site. Has this
proposal been lodged with the DOP? If not, then the media release is inaccurate and should
be removed or corrected.
16.
Documents on the website. Some of the documents that are supposed to be
available for the public on the Parklands website are not there. These are missing. When
will these be posted on the website?
RWG meeting minutes for Feb 2013
RWG meeting minutes for May 2013
RWG meeting minutes for May 2014 (the link points to the Sep 2014 minutes)
Parklands Performance Report #2
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
11
17.
Flora and fauna monitoring. The summaries of flora and fauna monitoring
program at Parklands (on the website) are too brief and general to be meaningful to those
community members and ecologists who are following this aspect of the approval. Where
are the monitoring data? When will the RWG be able to examine the data to date to see if
the efforts are meeting the conditions of consent and providing the most meaningful
picture of the impacts of the site on the local ecology?
To: Parklands Regulatory Working Group From: Denise Nessel and Russell Eldridge, Community Representatives RE: Response to Documents Distributed for 1 April 2015 RWG meeting Date: 30 March 2015 These key points raised concern among community members and need attention. Each is discussed below the bulleted list. • Allowing attendees to take their vehicles in and out during Falls • Lack of clarity on using Wooyung Road as an exit route for Falls • No data on required monitoring at three ecological sites during Falls (EPBC) • FOH noise management at Falls not in line with PAC conditions • NMR for Falls inconsistent with AMP for Falls, revealing critical issues with noise monitoring and noise management • Stated low-­‐frequency limits in NMR do not match DOP recommendations and are not yet part of the approval • No data provided re Condition 40 (noise levels in camping area) • Breaches of noise limits by Falls not clearly reported in the NMR • Inaccurate time-­‐of-­‐operation information in Falls flyers and adverts • Issues with the handling of specific complaints during Falls • Not all complaints included in Complaints Register • Inaccurate statement in Complaints Register about PAC conditions • Reduced number of complaints from SITG2014 to Falls2014 not the only issue; festival noise is still disturbing residents • Need for more meaningful summaries of complaints in AMP for SITG2015 • Critical inconsistencies in SITG2015 AMP, within the report and when compared to the AMP for SITG2014 • Stated low-­‐frequency limits in SITG 2015 AMP are not yet part of the approval; 5dB increase in limits during adverse weather conditions unnecessary • BEEP for SITG2015: too-­‐long bump-­‐in time and unclear reference to a figure Traffic Evaluation Report for Falls 2014 1. With reference to the inadequate number of shuttle buses on page 12 and the decision to allow people to take their cars off-­‐site during the festival: The more vehicle movements, the greater the impacts on local roads and the greater the risk of increased traffic impacts on the local community, especially for events that are larger than Falls 2014. What will Parklands do to ensure that attendees will not be driving their vehicles off site during events in future? st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
12
2. Given earlier stated concerns about using Wooyung Road as an exit route and Parklands’ response (RWG minutes of 24 Sep 2014), what are the plans to use this road as a regular exit? If that’s the intention, it should be included in this and future traffic management plans so that the RWG and other stakeholders have the opportunity to consider the implications. Noise: Noise Monitoring Report (NMR) for Falls 2014 1. Unattended noise monitoring for three ecological sites is mentioned in the NMR, but no results are reported. When will the RWG get information about the noise monitoring at these three sites during Falls 2014? 2. Section 3.2.3 of the NMR indicates that the “lowest acceptable limits” of FOH noise were determined by Parklands and that FOH noise was kept at those levels when non-­‐compliance was observed at sensitive receivers. But that way of managing noise is not in line with the PAC approval. To protect residential amenity, the PAC required noise limits to be maintained at sensitive receivers in relation to background noise and for the sound to be reduced accordingly at the source as needed. The noise graphs in Appendix C indicate that this was not done. The NMR states that the FOH breaches are to be considered minor “with increases in noise of 2dB generally not perceptible to the average person” (p 19). However, every increase of 3dB represents a doubling of sound intensity, and the intensity of the sound, not the subjective perception of loudness, is the key quality to consider. So the statement about perceptibility isn’t the most meaningful comment on the exceeded limits. But the more important point is that compliance needs align with the PAC conditions, not to Parklands’ self-­‐established criteria. 3. The NMR is inconsistent with the approved Acoustic Monitoring Programme (AMP) for Falls 2014. Event Noise Limits in the two documents are not the same. This happened because the AMP was revised after it had been reviewed by the RWG. Since consent condition C17 requires the AMP to be prepared in consultation with the RWG, this post-­‐review revision was a breach of that condition. The revision wasn’t minor; it involved important data points that affect decisions about whether or not the noise limits were breached at Falls 2014. Two issues are relevant. First are inconsistencies related to background noise in the 2014 AMP vs the 2015 NMR. The NMR states on page 9: “Table 1.2 presents event noise limits as provided in the approved AMP for the event”, but that’s inaccurate. Actually, notably different background noise levels and event noise levels are presented for R12 and R13 in the two documents, as shown here in Tables A and B. Table A. Background Noise Levels (LA90) in AMP and NMR Monitorin
Time AMP Time NMR Applies g Location Period Background Period Background to Level LA90 Level (Dec 2014) (March 2015) Table 3.4, p18 Table 1.2, p 9 R12 7am-­‐6pm 35 11am-­‐12am 44 R12/R13 R12 6pm-­‐
36 12am-­‐2am 47 R12/R13 10pm R12 10pm-­‐7am 40 R12/R13 st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
13
Table B. Event Noise Limits (based on Background Noise Levels) in AMP and NMR Monitorin
Time AMP Event Noise NMR Event Noise Applies g Location Period Limit (Dec 2014) Limit to Table 4.1, p19 (March 2015) Table 1.2 p 9 R12 11am-­‐
46 54 R12/R13 12am R12 12am-­‐2am 45 52 R12/R13 The use of revised numbers calls into question the graphs in Appendix C, pp35-­‐44. If the original AMP Event Noise Limits had been used, the breaches would have been much more numerous than they were with the use of the revised limits. Second is a faulty comparison of background noise between 2010 and 2014. The NMR states that the background noise levels of 2014 were lower than the levels obtained in 2010 and that the lower levels were used to determine event noise limits for Falls 2014 (p14). But that statement doesn’t match the data in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 (pp 13 and 14). The 2014 readings given for R12 are higher than the 2010 readings, and no 2010 readings are given for R15, so 2010-­‐to-­‐2014 comparisons can’t be made for that location. The discrepancy for R12 is shown here in Table C: Table C. Background Noise Levels, 2010-­‐2014, from the NMR NMR pp 13-14
NMR p 14
Monitoring Time Background NoiseBackground NoiseLocation Period LA90 2010
LA90 2014
35 or 36
43.8
R12 11am-­‐12am 40
46.8
R12 12am-­‐2am The statement about lower 2014 readings could be based on Figure 3.1 on page 15 of the NMR, but that figure contains incorrect data. It shows the same 2010 LA90 and LAeq measurements for all locations, but the two measurements actually varied by as much as 17dB (see Table D below). The person who created Figure 3.1 incorrectly used the LAeq numbers to represent both LA90 and LAeq. This was like lumping apples and oranges together and calling the category “oranges”. Table D. Examples of LA90 and LAeq Data from the February 2010 Readings Monitoring Time LA90 LAeq Location Period (Feb 2010) (Feb 2010) (February 2010) R3 (84 Yelgun Rd) R3 R3 7am-­‐6pm 6pm-­‐10pm 10pm-­‐7am R4 (44 Yelgun Rd) R4 (44 Yelgun Rd) R4 (44 Yelgun Rd) 7am-­‐6pm 6pm-­‐10pm 10pm-­‐7am R12 (237 Jones Rd) 7am-­‐6pm R12 6pm-­‐10pm R12 10pm-­‐7am st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
45 db(A) 47 dB(A) 44 dB(A) 54 dB(A) 60 dB(A) 54 dB(A) 44 dB(A) 44 dB(A) 44 dB(A) 52 dB(A) 55 dB(A) 51 dB(A) 35db(A) 36dB(A) 40dB(A) 52dB(A) 52dB(A) 48dB(a) 14
So the claim that the 2014 numbers were lower appears to be the result of making a faulty comparison between the LAeq numbers from 2010 and the LA90 numbers from 2014. That’s like comparing apples and oranges because LA90 and LAeq are two different types of measurements. Assuming that’s what happened, Parklands has made a mistake similar to one that the Department of Planning called attention to in its review of the development’s noise monitoring in October 2013. The Department noted that LAeq readings, instead of the required LA90, had been used as background measurements for setting event noise limits for SITG 2013. The measurement of noise before and during festivals at Parklands has presented ongoing issues: incorrect or confusing measurements used for background data, background measurements taken during adverse weather conditions, measurements done incorrectly or incompletely during events, questionable time periods used in data reporting (from one recording period to another and from one document to another), required measurements not done at all, incorrect data comparisons across years, breached limits that have not been detected by Parklands’ acoustical engineers, and so on. The most recent revision of critical data in an approved AMP without RWG consultation, or consultation with the residents directly involved, is another example of how the noise monitoring process needs significant improvement. 4. The low-­‐frequency limits proposed in section 1.3.2 do not match the interim low-­‐frequency noise targets recommended by the DOP in its 2013 review of Parklands’ noise monitoring. Those interim targets were included in the Draft AMP for Falls 2014 but were revised upwards after the RWG reviewed and commented on the AMP. This was another revision to a critical measurement that was made without RWG consultation and can be considered a breach of condition C17. Also, the NMR presents the new low-­‐frequency limits as approved limits although new limits were only offered as suggestions in Performance Report #2, along with other hoped-­‐for modifications to the consent conditions. Any such modifications need to be formally proposed and publicly exhibited by the DOP with time allowed for public comment. Since these steps have not yet been taken, section 1.3.2 should not suggest that these bass limits are in effect as approved limits. 5. The November 2014 Noise Management Plan states that noise levels in the camping area between midnight and 8AM are not to exceed 55dB(A)LAmax more than 10-­‐15 times per night (Condition C40 of the PAC approval). No data on noise monitoring in the camping area are given in the NMR to demonstrate whether or not this condition was met. When will these data be provided? 6. The conclusions state that noise levels complied with event noise limits the majority of time. That’s good, but the report should also have clear information about the breaches, verbal as well as graphic, so that community members and agencies can get a better understanding of the breaches that occurred. In particular, there should be a reporting of the extent and duration of the breaches when the festival was operating. The graphs in Appendix C would be a useful supplement to a verbal description, but to have the critical information contained only in an appendix, without verbal summary or discussion, is not the best way of reporting it. The conclusions state that disturbances are probably caused by factors other than the festival, but residents have complained repeatedly about festival noise st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
15
during festivals. To suggest that the people are being disturbed by some other source of noise only increases the frustration that many in the community feel about the festivals and about Parklands’ response both to the PAC-­‐imposed noise limits and to the noise complaints that are received during festivals. More careful monitoring of noise and more meaningful reporting of noise impacts is needed in future. Real-­‐time noise monitoring that allows monitors to pinpoint sources of noise would be especially useful. Note: At least two of the sensitive receivers employed an independent acoustical engineering firm to monitor noise during Falls 2014. This monitoring may have yielded data that are different to those obtained by Parklands’ noise engineers, as has happened before. Complaints and the Complaints Register for Falls 2014 1. Flyers and adverts for Falls 2014 stated that the hours of operation were from 11am until 2am the following day. This incorrect information led some residents to assume that a change in the hours of operation had been approved by the DOP without community consultation. Some also thought they could not complain about noise after midnight because the hours had been officially extended. What will be done to ensure that correct hours of operation will be given in flyers and adverts for all future events? 2. In making complaints to the hotline on behalf of CONOS Inc, RW said that he requested feedback for all complaints but received it only for the first complaint. He says he was told by the Hotline Operator that they had been told no feedback would be given to CONOS Inc regarding their complaints after the first complaint. The refusal to provide feedback when requested strikes many community members as unreasonable. RW further notes these points about specific complaints in the Register: • 30/12/2014: 2FFBB7 -­‐ A complaint about on-­‐site noise levels at Lola’s Bar of 109dB(A). The Register wrongly states the reported noise level as 105dB(A). • 30/12/2014: 3FFBB12 -­‐ Complaints about flares, rubbish truck noise and its effect on sleeping campers, and laser lights being directed into forested areas beyond the event site. Feedback was requested but not given. • 31/12/2014: 3FFBB22 -­‐ A complaint about on-­‐site noise levels being 108.9dB(A) at Forest Stage-­‐Tora playing. Feedback was requested but not given. • 31/12/2014: 3FFBB22 (Same as above #) -­‐ a Complaint about on-­‐site noise levels at Valley Stage/ Client Liaison playing being 106.6dB(A). The Register wrongly states that Tora was playing and that the noise was measured in dB(C). Feedback was requested but not given. Register says no contact details available however the Register notes a contact for other complaints by CONOS Inc. • 1/1/2015: 4FFBB26 -­‐ A complaint about the use of laser lights into the forested areas surrounding the event. Feedback was requested but not given. • 1/1/2015: 4FFBB26 -­‐ A complaint about the use of fireworks 4 times over night. Feedback was requested but not given. Complaint not noted on Register. 3. A complaint regarding illegal camping at Wooyung Beach by festival goers also does not appear on the Complaints Register. It was lodged at 8:30AM on 3 Jan 2015. The complainant asked that the community liaison be informed (as the flyer requested) and called Tweed Shire Council, but the complainant expected the complaint to be on the Register and was not pleased to find it omitted. st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
16
It is disturbing to note that not all complaints to the hotline were included in the Complaints Register, as noted here and in #2 above. These omissions call into question the total number of complaints reported in the NMR and reduce confidence in the complaints procedure. 4. RE complaint #3FFBB24: The statement that the only criteria that must be complied with are those related to sensitive receivers (in condition B3) is not an accurate statement about the conditions and is inconsistent with the project approval. The PAC’s approval also includes Parklands’ Statement of Commitments. Commitment C1 refers to Parklands’ Noise Management Standard, and Noise Management Standard 2.1.8 states “Noise levels shall not exceed 102dB(A) at all front of house mixing desks.” So this FOH limit is part of the consent conditions and needs to be monitored and reported as such. 5. The number of noise complaints for Falls2014 was less than what was reported for SITG2014, but although Falls was a much smaller event, at least 48 complaints were still called in. This is a much higher rate of complaints than examples given in previous Performance Reports of other festivals in NSW that received only 1-­‐
3 complaints. The reduction in the number of complaints from SITG2014 to Falls2014 should be applauded but should not be used to justify an increase in the noise limits. That each festival so far has generated quite a number of noise complaints indicates that the current noise limits should remain in place and a reduction in the current limits should be strongly considered, as has been recommended by RWG members in the past. Noise: Acoustic Monitoring Programme (AMP) for SITG2015 1. Figure 3.2 on page 13 is identical to the complaints map in the AMP for SITG2014. Since this map is described as reflecting complaints received “during previous events”, it would be more meaningful for the map to show all complaints from 2013 and 2014, especially since many in the community found SITG2014 to be much more disturbing than SITG2013. Separate maps with complaints for each event could also be presented. Also, Table 3.2 on page 15 (summary of complaints, predicted noise levels, etc.) is identical to the table used in the 2014 AMP, which reflected details from 2013. Were the details from these locations all identical in 2014 to those in 2013? Correction or clarification would be helpful. 2. Table 4.1 on page 18 (event noise limits for winter) is not identical to Table 4.1 in the SITG AMP for 2014 although both are based on the same data (readings taken in June 2014). The Rating Background Level (RBL) from 2014 has been replaced in this AMP by “Average Background Noise Level” without an explanation about why it is replacing RBL. If a new measurement category must be used, then it should be used in conjunction with the previous category so that year-­‐to-­‐year comparisons can be made. The reason for the change should also be explained. Also, the intro to Table 4.1 refers to Section 5.1.1 and Table 5.2 in the AMP, but that table uses different time periods and does not have categories that correspond to the categories used in Table 4.1. For example, there’s no “average background noise level” in Table 5.2. These inconsistencies make this data reporting confusing to follow. Last year, the RBL was used as the baseline noise level for determining event noise limits, and st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
17
that appears to be a typical and well-­‐accepted measurement that’s in line with the PAC’s reference to noise limits being based on background noise levels. Here, although RBL data are reported in Table 5.2, they’re not used as background levels in Table 4.1 but are replaced with higher “average background noise level” numbers. Also, three time periods are used in Table 5.2 but only two are used in Table 4.1. Such inconsistencies across years and within the same document, along with the other problems mentioned above, make it very difficult for community members and agencies to compare reported data from festival to festival and judge how the noise monitoring and noise management are proceeding. Community members remain leery of festival noise, despite their relief that Falls 2014 was not as noisy as earlier festivals. The ongoing inconsistencies in data collection and reporting are increasing concern and are raising questions about the validity, reliability, and transparency of the monitoring and management. 3. In section 4.2, a raising of bass limits above the levels recommended by the DOP is presented as being “protective” although this is a questionable claim. There’s good evidence that the bass at SITG2014, supposedly managed with the lower limits, was as disturbing as the dB(A) levels of noise, so raising the bass limits still further for SITG2015 isn’t in line with the PAC’s intention of protecting the amenity of designated sensitive receivers, other nearby residents, and the environment. In addition, the community does not accept that an additional 5dB allowance to exceed noise limits is needed during periods of adverse weather. Many area residents have pointed out that the wind usually blows somewhere in this coastal area and that Parklands needs to take that into consideration in managing noise instead of expecting to have an increase in the limits when the wind shifts. Residents have pointed out that if windy conditions are present, the volume can be reduced accordingly and that lowering the noise volume aims to protect residential amenity, whereas raising the noise limits does not. This section also mentions that Parklands has lodged a modification of the existing approval with regard to bass noise limits, but unless this modification has been put on exhibition by the Department of Planning, it would be better not to include mention of this in the report. Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan The addition of section 3.9 (Order of Evacuation) to the earlier BEEP for Splendour 2014 is a very useful addition. Two details in the rest of the plan that need attention: 1. The plan states that bump in begins on Monday, 29 June 2015. Counting that Monday as the first day and 22 July as the last day, that’s 24 days of bump in. Condition B5(3) states that the bump in period for events is not to exceed 21 days. 2. On page 29 is a reference to Figure 5 on page 26. That figure appears to be on page 30 although the figure on page 30 is not designated as Figure 5. st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
18
Attachment 2
April 2015
The Chairperson
Parklands Regulatory Working Group
C/O North Byron Parklands
54 Jones Road
Wooyung NSW 2483
PO Box 517
Bangalow NSW 2479
www.northbyronparklands.com
02 6680 4049
Att: Mr Peter Ryan
Dear Mr Ryan,
RE: 09_0028 - NORTH BYRON PARKLANDS – COMMUNITY ISSUES
On 29 March 2015, Ms Nessel and Mr Eldridge (Community Representatives) issued an
email to you and copied in the members of the RWG. Two documents were attached with
the first raising a number of community matters and the second providing comments
regarding documents issued to the RWG as part of the RWG meeting scheduled for 1
April 2015.
This correspondence provides a response to issues raised by certain community
members.
In accordance with RWG procedures, Parklands notes the Requests in the email are
those of the two authors, not the RWG as a group, and consequently Parklands has titled
its responses to the Requests as “Parklands Response to Request [Number]”.
Parklands provides a response (in blue text) below to the community representative
comments (in black text) as follows:
Document 1 – Community Matters
#1 Security
1. Security. Regarding security during the recent Falls Festival, this account
was sent to us by one of the households on Jones Road with the request that it be
shared with the RWG:
Security: this failed on many occasions as seen by the many patrons passing my property
on their way to and from the beach each day of the festival.
On New Years Eve at approx 18.00 my dog alerted me to 2 males walking across my
paddock. I immediately phoned Chris, security at end of Jones Road who did not answer.
I then phoned Neil Johnson, community liaison, who also did not answer. I walked up to
where I hoped security would be at Quarry trail entrance. I had both my personal mobile
and the phone supplied by NBP (telstra) with me. I explained to the female security guard
that people were trespassing on my property. It was clear her English was so poor she
could not understand me and was searching for words to communicate with me.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
19
After explaining again and again and requesting her several times to phone for support I
became increasingly anxious. This was my biggest concern - that patrons would be
cutting through my property and here I had seen them with my own eyes (and witnessed
by my family and guests). The female security guard asked me if they had stolen
something. She said that she couldn’t see anyone and she was refusing to phone the
mounted security or anyone for support. She was obstructive. I asked her to walk with me
so she could see the trespassers and then came upon them on the road with another
security guard. I spoke at length with the 2 young men who were apologetic about cutting
through my property and they said they had easily left the festival site at the back of the
carpark crossing two fences. They said neither fences had signs on them and it was not
difficult at all to leave the site. Obviously this is the case due to the amount of people I
saw along Jones road (including barefoot, bikini clad, hatless, waterless patrons). I have
suggested before from previous events that the calibre of the security guards needs
to be improved. The security that are placed at the Quarry trail have consistently been
incapable of fulfilling their duties - from escorting patrons to the beach track, to being
unable to read the road signs, unaware of what their brief was, and now being obstructive
in apprehending trespassers on my property. I also phoned Dale (security) from the NBP
mobile phone, however the number that had been put in there was no longer in use.
Surely when I am given a phone with numbers I need
for the festival they would need to be ensured that they are actually accurate. Also despite
having this phone with me for the whole time when dealing with these trespassers I did
not receive any phone call back from Neil or Chris despite me leaving them a message.
Apparently they did try to phone me however the phone did not ring/work - and this was
the phone that was with Testra and supposed to be my 'lifeline' phone. I insist NBP secure
their festival site to stop patrons from exiting onto my property. My biggest fear is that my
property is not safe from trespassers and now it has happened. It has probably happened
before too without me actually seeing them down in the paddock. It is not my job to sit and
monitor this. Security has failed. Another household on Jones Road had the same
concerns about security. We understand that both property owners expressed their
concerns to Parklands and asked for improvements in future, especially with regard to
fencing or effective patrols along the eastern boundary of the site.
What will be done to improve security in future, especially with regard to attendees leaving
the site through unapproved exits and entering private properties and Billinudgel Nature
Reserve? These issues have been raised repeatedly by Jones Road residents and other
community members as great concerns.
Parkland’s Response to Request #1
Parklands and the Falls Festival Byron (FFB) have held post event debriefing sessions
with all adjoining neighbours including the two Jones Road residents referred to above. A
number of measures were discussed at these meetings and future events will now provide
additional “mobile security personnel” (i.e motorised vehicles and/or horseback) to
continuously manage and monitor the event boundaries. These measures will be in
addition to the static guards placed in proximity at the Jones Road resident homes during
the event.
#2 Noise – Sensitive receptors
2. Noise at sensitive receivers. Regarding noise, the same Jones Road household,
designated as a sensitive receiver, wanted this shared with the RWG:
Noise: generally it was less audible than previous festivals, HOWEVER on the night of the
1/1/15 I phoned the hotline several times as follows - 1/1/15 23.45 - complaint 4FFBB36
noise really loud and very thumpy, feeling the vibration in my body whilst in my bedroom.
2/1/15 00.15 -complaint 4FFBB37 continued to be loud and thumpy, no quieter.
Genevieve advised me that Beau would be here in 15 minutes (which would be then 45
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
20
minutes after first complaint at 23.45) and that Beau had texted her saying he was trying
to find out where the noise was coming from. Genevieve said it may not be coming from
the festival! I assured her it was indeed coming from the festival. I was also pointing out
the fact that it was now past midnight when main stages were to have shut down. 00.38complaint 4FFBB38. I clearly heard the announcement "Are you ready for 1 more". Noise
continued to be extremely loud. 00.45- phone call from Mat stating they had identified the
stage and had told them to shut down.
00.58 - Phoned the hotline and Genevieve put Mat on. I complained that the noise was no
different, they were not stopping. Mat aware and advised he was going to ring Brandon
(now 1 hour past agreed shut down time of main stages).
01.05 - phone call from Mat apologising for noise. Noise now coming from Village which
was open till 02.00. I asked if this was going to be the noise now til 02.00 and Mat replied
'afraid so'. He was apologetic. I requested monitoring be done from my back verandah (no
monitoring had been done from my residence throughout the festival and I firmly believe it
is different (louder) than from where they monitor on the roadside. I had suggested they
take readings from my verandah on previous occasions) 01.30 approx - Beau (ANE)
attended monitoring from back verandah.
All main stages are required to stop operating at midnight, not an hour past that required
closing time, so the extended operation described here breached consent condition B3(1).
The PAC permission allowed music at bars and cafes after midnight when people are
dispersing, but this should not be disturbing the nearby neighbors. Another sensitive
receiver on Jones Road had the same concerns about noise during Falls 2014. We
understand that both property owners expressed their concerns to Parklands and asked
for improvements in future. They were especially concerned about the long time lapses
between their complaints and attended monitoring and about the attended monitoring not
being done at their dwellings but instead being done on the road, at a distance from the
dwellings. What will be done to meet the relevant consent conditions in future and improve
the monitoring at sensitive receivers?
Parkland’s Response to Request #2
While the stage in question was not a main stage it did operate past midnight. A revision
of the procedures for stage managers to enact noise mitigation measures (including the
shutting down of the stage) has occurred.
Events have been reminded that stages can only operate from 11am till midnight,
however bars, cafes and dance floors may operate between 11am and 2am.
With respect to monitoring at the two Jones Road residents, both have 24-hour noise
loggers installed prior to, during and after events, which continuously record all noise
generated during these days.
#3 Noise – wider community
3. Noise in the wider community. Nearby communities (North Ocean Shores,
South Golden Beach, Yelgun, etc.) experienced much less disturbance from Falls 2014
noise but several said they were still disturbed by the bass noise and the volume of noise
in general. Residents are mindful of the widespread disturbance they experienced at
Splendour 2013 and 2014 and are very concerned that Splendour 2015 will repeat those
noise problems, given that it’s a much larger festival. What will be done to contain the
noise at Splendour 2015?
Parkland’s Response to Request #3
The draft Acoustic Monitoring Program (AMP) for SITG15 provides an evaluation of both
A -weighted and low frequency noise. The data collected as part of the Noise Monitoring
Report for Splendour in the Grass 2014 and FFB14/15 was used by Air, Noise
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
21
Environment to determine meteorological influences and any correlating effects on
surrounding residents. Data from complaints logged for both events was also used to
determine the linkages between noise levels, meteorological conditions and complaints
received.
All of this information was used to better inform SITG15 in the development of proposed
Event Acoustic Controls as outlined in Section 6 of this event’s Draft AMP.
Parklands also used the analysis above (covering SITG14) to revise its Noise
Management Plan (NMP) which now includes both proactive and reactive control
measures for managing noise at this venue. This NMP was approved by the DP&E on the
19th of December 2014 and these proactive and reactive control measures were used to
great effect at FFB14/15.
#4 Horses
4. Horses in the nature reserve. Area residents saw festival security patrols on horseback
in Billinudgel Nature Reserve although National Parks and Wildlife does not allow horses
in the reserve. This is of great concern to the residents, and they would like to know how
this happened and what will be done to prevent it in future.
Parkland’s Response to Request #4
Pending discussion with the National Parks and Wildlife Service representatives, security
horseback personnel will be instructed not to enter any walking tracks of the nature
reserve with their horses.
#5 Lights
5. Lights. Community members expressed concern about laser lights and search lights
again being used on the site, as happened during previous festivals. Consent condition
C19e indicates that the effects of lighting are supposed to be minimised on the
surrounding bushland, and laser lights are specifically not allowed on site. A Jones Road
resident called the hotline about search lights and had to call again the next night because
they were still being used. Also, an item on the Complaints Register said that the
Community Manager told a complainant the observed laser lights would be redirected
away from the complainant’s property, not turned off. What will be done to ensure that
these lights will not be used on the site in future and that the hotline operators will be
aware of the ban and respond accordingly?
Parkland’s Response to Request #5
Parklands has committed to not having events (or their contractors) use searchlights (sky
trackers) at this venue. Disappointingly, at Falls Festival Byron 14/15 a contractor used
searchlights (which were not authorised by the event or the venue). The contractor was
warned on the first evening not to use them. On the second evening, the contractor used
them again and was ejected from the venue.
The lighting referred to by the community manager was not a searchlight and his
statement about them being redirected away was a) correct and b) took place. The
lighting in question was part of an art installation which had been inadvertently directed in
an easterly direction.
#6 Fireworks
6. Fireworks. Fireworks have been ignited on site at all four festivals. They come from the
campground, which is very close to residents’ homes. They are ordinarily set off in the
late-night hours and are quite disturbing to residents. They also significantly increase the
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
22
risk of fire. Improved searches as campers enter the site and improved patrols of the
camping areas seem warranted.
Parkland’s Response to Request #6
Noted.
#7 Toilets
7. Toilets. Community members learned from patrons that the number of toilets and their
condition were inadequate, leading some attendees to use the nearby bush, parking lots,
and other places as toilets. Mayor Richardson also noted significant problems with this
and with the condition of the composting toilets on site.* What will be done to prevent
these sanitation problems in future? *(http://mayorsimonrichardson.com/councilactions/new-years-eve/)
Parkland’s Response to Request #
Noted. This is not an RWG matter.
#8 Waste Management
8. Waste management. Community members learned from patrons that waste on site
(bottles, cans, and other discarded material) was not managed well. There were many
areas where the trash built up to very unpleasant levels, especially as the days wore on.
Mayor Richardson noted the same issue in his review of the Falls festival, cited in #7
above.
Parkland’s Response to Request #8
Noted. This is not an RWG matter.
#9 Telecommunications
9. Telecommunications. Many residents and business operators in the community had
great difficulty with their telecommunications. They experienced no phone reception at all
or intermittent reception throughout the Falls festival. Many were greatly inconvenienced
and frustrated. What will be done to prevent such inconvenience to the surrounding area
in future?
Parkland’s Response to Recommendation #9
Those patrons at Falls Festival 2014 / 2015 operating on the Telstra mobile network
experienced superior connectivity due to the permanent fibre cabling now in place at
North Byron Parklands. This direct cable connection into the Telstra network allowed for
the provision of 2 x mobile COW (Cell on Wheels) towers running for the duration of the
event, and guaranteed that event patrons and workers as well as local residents using
Telstra, had access to high quality mobile voice and 3G/4G data services.
Discussions with Optus and Vodafone are continuing but there is an early indication that
connectivity for both of these networks will be in place for the upcoming Splendour In The
Grass event. We’ll keep you updated as soon as there are further developments.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
23
#10 Pedestrians
10. Pedestrians. Nearby residents saw many attendees walking from Parklands along
Tweed Valley Way and Shara Blvd to get to and from the beach. The attendees said that
shuttle buses were full or that it was too hot to wait in the sun at Parklands for a bus.
Residents thought pedestrian access to the site wasn’t allowed and want to know why
attendees were able to get in and out on foot.
Parkland’s Response to Request #10
This matter was reported via the community hotline on one occasion by a Yelgun Road
resident during FFB14/15. The Venue Manager was notified and contacted the
Emergency Control Centre (ECC). The ECC sent two security patrols to monitor and
respond. The caller was contacted to advise two teams has been sent out to rectify the
issue. Caller then advised that the pedestrians were actually sighted by him some two
hours earlier. Event security reported no pedestrians on this section of road when they
investigated.
#11 Hours of operation
11. Hours of operation. Residents want to be sure ads for future festivals give
the correct hours of operation (11AM to midnight) rather than stating the hours extend to
2AM, as was the case for Falls2014 in its adverts. Consent condition C35(a) indicates that
hours of operation must be provided to the community, and the correct information should
be provided.
Parkland’s Response to Request #11
Technically, the hours of operation for events at Parklands are from 11am to 2am (for
stages 11am to midnight and for bars, cafes and dance floor from 11am till 2am).
What would be the most appropriate wording for flyers and advertisements?
#12 Entrance procedures
12. Entrance procedures. Residents learned from attendees that they had devised their
own tickets for Falls2014, easily obtained entry with the counterfeit tickets, and also did
not have their packs checked when they entered. The counterfeiters claimed that this was
not unusual, leading community members to conclude that entrance procedures were
inadequate and that the allowable number of attendees was exceeded. An excess of
entrants would breach the consent condition that specifies limits to daily attendance.
Parkland’s Response to Request #12
Falls Festival Byron and Parklands refute this claim, which has not been
substantiated by any evidence provided by external and internal security members,
NSW Police, NSW Liquor Licensing or event management and staff.
#13 Permanent Structures
13. Permanent structures on site. Residents expressed concern about the general store at
Parklands that appears to be a permanent structure on a concrete slab. It was their belief
that such permanent structures were not allowed under the PAC approval.
Parkland’s Response to Request #13
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
24
The Project Approval specifically approves structures as evidenced by Conditions E19 &
E41 providing conditions for such permanent structures.
#14 RWG Access
14. RWG access to site. Several people asked us about the RWG site tour that we were
given before the Falls Festival Byron and had many questions we could not answer
because our visit was brief and limited. The questioners suggested that members of the
RWG should be allowed much more time on the site so that they are able to see more
than a restricted guided tour allows. What provision can be made for more extensive time
on site for RWG members, such as providing entry passes? We note that more extensive
access was requested by previous community representatives.
Parkland’s Response to Request #14
As a result of communication with RWG members in late 2014, Parklands provides 30
days notice to members in relation to a tour of the forthcoming event. Parklands
believe “periodic inspections of the site” per C2 (f) are adequately fulfilled by the
event tours offered to RWG members.
#15 Modification to Approval
15. Modification to the approval. The media release of 4 November 2014 (on the
Parklands website) states that Parklands has lodged a proposal to modify the project
approval to increase the noise limits and host additional events on the site. Has this
proposal been lodged with the DOP? If not, then the media release is inaccurate and
should be removed or corrected.
Parkland’s Response to Request #15
The modification has been lodged, however the Department of Planning and
Environment have requested some additional information prior to placing it on public
exhibition.
#16 Documents on the Website
16. Documents on the website. Some of the documents that are supposed to be available
for the public on the Parklands website are not there. These are missing.
When will these be posted on the website?
RWG meeting minutes for Feb 2013
RWG meeting minutes for May 2013
RWG meeting minutes for May 2014 (the link points to the Sep 2014 minutes)
Parklands Performance Report #2
Parkland’s Response to Request #16
Thank you. This matter has been corrected.
#17 Flora and Fauna Monitoring
17. Flora and fauna monitoring. The summaries of flora and fauna monitoring program at
Parklands (on the website) are too brief and general to be meaningful to those community
members and ecologists who are following this aspect of the approval. Where are the
monitoring data? When will the RWG be able to examine the data to date to see if the
efforts are meeting the conditions of consent and providing the most meaningful picture of
the impacts of the site on the local ecology?
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
25
Parkland’s Response to Request #17
All of the environmental monitoring data has been made publicly available on the
website since 30 November 2014 as part of the second Performance Report.
Yours Sincerely
Matt Morris
General Manager
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
26
1 April 2015
The Chairperson
Parklands Regulatory Working Group
C/O North Byron Parklands
54 Jones Road
Wooyung NSW 2483
PO Box 517
Bangalow NSW 2479
www.northbyronparklands.com
02 6680 4049
Att: Mr Peter Ryan
Dear Mr Ryan,
RE: 09_0028 - NORTH BYRON PARKLANDS – RWG - COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE
RESPONSES (TO DOCUMENTS ISSUED TO RWG MEMBERS)
On 29 March 2015, Ms Nessel and Mr Eldridge (Community Representatives) issued an
email to you and copied in the members of the RWG. Two documents were attached with
the first raising a number of community matters and the second providing comments
regarding documents issued to the RWG as part of the RWG meeting scheduled for 1
April 2015.
This correspondence provides a response to Community Representative issues raised
covering documents issued to the RWG for its 1 April 2015 meeting.
In accordance with RWG procedures, Parklands notes the Requests in the email are
those of the two authors, not the RWG as a group, and consequently Parklands has titled
its responses to the Requests “Parklands Response to Request [Number]”.
Parklands provides a response (in blue text) below to the community representative
comments (in black text) as follows:
Document 2 – Community Representatives Responses to RWG Issued
Documents
Noise Monitoring Report (NMR) For Falls 2014
#1 Unattended Noise
Parkland’s Response to Request #1
Parklands will reissue the NMR for FFB14/15 by the 8th of April 2015, which will include
unattended noise monitoring results for the three ecological sites.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
27
#2 FoH Noise
Parkland’s Response to Request #2
While the front of house noise levels referred to in Section 3.2.3 of the NMR are self
established criteria used to help manage noise emissions, the community representatives
are right in stating, “compliance needs to align with PAC conditions” which refer to:
•
•
From 11 am to midnight: background plus 10 dB(A).
From midnight to 2 am: background plus 5 dB(A) when measured outside
bedroom windows.
What the unattended noise monitoring graphs in Appendix C of the NMR indicate is that
noise levels complied with event noise limits for the vast majority of time. Observed
exceedences of these noise limits were typically observed during the period around 9 pm
each day. It is noted however that these exceedences were also observed on days where
the event was not operating (27th, 28th, 29th December 2014 and 3rd, 4th January 2015).
On the basis of these observations, and the attended noise monitoring which identified no
exceedences of the noise limits resulting from event music noise (with noise from the
event inaudible or barely audible for the majority of the time) points to extraneous noise
occurring at the location (i.e. separate to the event).
Further to this, of the 25 noise complaints logged via the community hotline, no complaints
were lodged by any of the 5 unattended residential noise monitoring locations between
the 8pm-11pm times during event days. This would again suggest local extraneous noise
sources during these periods.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
28
#3 Noise – wider community
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
29
Parkland’s Response to Request #3
This issue has two parts, which ANE have dealt with separately below.
Part (A): The NMR is inconsistent with the approved Acoustic Monitoring Program.
This item identifies that there was a variation in the background noise levels and therefore
the noise limits applied in the noise monitoring report. In drawing this conclusion, the
community representatives have compared background noise levels for R12 in the AMP
with those referenced in the monitoring report.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
30
Page 17 of the AMP identifies that additional baseline noise monitoring was to be
undertaken prior to Falls Festival 2014 "to further build on the available datasets and
verify that the results of the noise monitoring undertaken during 2010 are representative of
the area". In accordance with the AMP, this additional baseline noise monitoring was
undertaken during 2014 prior to Falls Festival over a period of 2 weeks (that is two weeks
of continuous monitoring data). Page 14 of the noise monitoring report identifies that the
noise limits for Receptors R12, R13, R14 and R15 have been derived based on the most
recent 2014 noise monitoring data. This provided average background noise levels of 44
dB(A) and 47 dB(A) for R12 for the 11am to midnight and midnight to 2am periods
respectively. It is noted that the Department of Planning and Environment advised that
background noise levels were to be determined based on average L90 noise data rather
than the Rating Background Level previously adopted.
It is noted that the graphs of unattended noise monitoring data provided in Appendix C of
the report correctly apply the noise limits determined in accordance with the approved
AMP.
Part (B): The RWG comments identify that Figure 3.1 of the monitoring report presented
incorrect data for the 2010 monitoring dataset.
This is correct. The presented figure incorrectly provided LAeq data as representative of
LA90 for the 2010 dataset. The figure has been corrected and is provided below. Review
of the revised figure confirms that the 2010 data is generally consistent with that of 2014.
While some variation is observed which may indicate that the 2010 dataset is more
conservative (that is, lower than the current background data), this 2010 data has been
adopted for the assessment of compliance for all receptors except for R12 - R15.
It is noted that this comparison, while informative, does not change the background noise
levels and therefore limits determined in accordance with the AMP.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
31
#4 Low Frequency
Parkland’s Response to Request #4
The low frequency noise limits adopted for Falls Festival 2014 are consistent with
recommendations made by the Department of Planning and Environment following
investigations undertaken in response to the Penalty Infringement Notice issued by them
following SITG 2014. On the basis of this, these noise limits were adopted as the current
low frequency noise limits thereby replacing the aspirational reporting levels for Falls 2014.
#5 Camping Noise
Parkland’s Response to Request #5
Camping noise levels are investigated based on complaints made by patrons. Only one
complaint (out of 16,500 campers) was received. This complaint was lodged with the
community hotline on the morning of the 31st of December 2014 regarding being woken
up by a flare and a reversing garbage truck the previous evening.
#6 Noise Report Conclusions
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
32
Parkland’s Response to Request #6
The comments made by the Community Representatives relate to the conclusions of the
noise monitoring report. In particular, the Community Representatives have focused on
the periods of time where unattended noise monitoring data indicated an exceedence of
the noise limits had occurred.
The conclusions provided in the report identify that the observed exceedences of the
noise limits in the unattended noise dataset typically occurred at the same time each day
and included days prior to and following the event at the same or similar times. On the
basis of these observations, and the attended noise monitoring which identified no
exceedences of the noise limits resulting from event music noise (with noise from the
event inaudible or barely audible for the majority of the time) lead the authors to draw the
conclusions as presented.
It is noted that the Community Representatives refer to a discussion of disturbances
caused by the measured noise levels. The use of the term disturbances incorrectly
represents the information presented in the noise monitoring report. In fact, the results of
the attended noise monitoring did not identify any disturbances caused by event music
noise. Rather, the discussion referenced by the Community Representatives refers to
exceedences of the event noise limits as a result of what are expected to be extraneous
noise sources rather than disturbances (whether caused by the event or otherwise).
Complaints and the Complaints Register for Falls 2014
#1 Flyers and Advert operating times
Parkland’s Response to Request 1#
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
33
Technically, the hours of operation for events at Parklands are from 11am to 2am (for
stages 11am to midnight and for bars, cafes and dance floor from 11am till 2am).
What would be the most appropriate wording for flyers and advertisements?
#2 Complaint Feedback
Parkland’s Response to Request #2
Parkland’s fulfilled its requirements under consent condition C4 and C5 of the Project
Approval. This person’s complaints are reproduced in Attachment 1.
#3 Complaint reportedly not logged
Parkland’s Response to Request #3
Noted.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
34
#4 Noise limits
Parkland’s Response to Request #4
The noise criteria relating to sensitive receivers is covered under B3 of the Project
Approval. The noise compliance monitoring regime undertaken by both the Department of
Planning and Environment and the event focuses on these noise limits at sensitive
receivers.
Front of House noise levels are used as a measurement tool to manage noise levels at
sensitive receivers.
#5 Reduction in current noise limits
Parkland’s Response to Request #5
Noted.
Acoustic Monitoring Program (AMP) for SITG2015
#1 Complaints location map
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
35
Parkland’s Response to Request #1
As noted by the Community Representatives, Figure 3.2 of the draft AMP provides
locations for complaints recorded during 2013 only. This figure has been reproduced with
the layer containing complaint locations for 2014 included. This updated figure is provided
below and will be included in the final version of the AMP. It is noted that Community
Representatives have also queried the accuracy of data presented in Table 3.2 of the
AMP. The data presented in this table, while the same as SITG 2014, remains current and
up to date.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
36
#2 Background noise levels
Parkland’s Response to Request #2
Table 4.1 in the AMP for SITG 2015 has been updated when compared with that
presented in the AMP for SITG 2014. In particular, the background noise levels have been
updated to reflect the change in assessment of background noise level from RBL
(applicable for the assessment of industrial noise sources) to average background noise
level. This update was undertaken in response to comments made by the Department of
Planning and Environment noise experts in relation to the establishment of acceptable
noise limits. Similarly, the time periods for the noise limits have been updated to reflect the
time periods provided in the PAC approval. Previously, the analysis of background noise
data for day, evening and night time periods resulted in confusion when assessing
compliance for noise limits specified for 11am to midnight and midnight to 2am. Analysis
of the background noise data for time periods consistent with the specified noise limits
allows for a clear assessment of compliance.
The confusion of differing time periods between Tables 4.1 and 5.2 is noted. The baseline
noise data provided in Table 5.2 will be updated in the next version of the AMP. It is noted
that the Community Representatives have indicated that average background noise data
is not provided in Table 5.2. This is in fact incorrect with average background noise data
presented in the column labelled LA90 (the statistical parameter used to describe
background noise levels).
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
37
While it is noted that some changes have been made to the AMP since the previous SITG
2014 event, this is consistent with the intent of the AMP and NMP as living documents,
which are updated to improve transparency and noise management for events held at
Parklands. It is important to note that this is reflected in a number of sections of the AMP
including the development of acoustic controls adopted in the design of events.
#3 Bass levels
Parkland’s Response to Request #3
The low frequency noise limits adopted for Falls Festival 2014 are consistent with
recommendations made by the Department of Planning and Environment following
investigations undertaken in response to the Penalty Infringement Notice issued by
them following SITG 2014. On the basis of this, these noise limits were adopted as
the current low frequency noise limits thereby replacing the aspirational reporting
levels for Falls 2014.
Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan
#1 Bump in duration
Parkland’s Response to Request #1
Please note that no bump in activities are scheduled for Sunday 5th or Sunday 12th of
July 2015. As per camping patron arrival times (refer consent condition B6 (2)) the
first campers will be arriving on Wednesday 22nd of July 2015. As such the scheduled
bump in days equal 21 days in total.
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
38
#2 Referencing
Parkland’s Response to Request #2
Noted. Thank you.
Yours Sincerely
Mat Morris
General Manager
st
RWG Minutes Revised - 1 April 2015
39