Recent comments on applications from NSW Department of Planning Major Project Assessments, NSW

  1. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Jim Varelas commented

    This proposal, is not appropriate for the area. We should not be forced to have our children living in such close proximity of such industrial chemicals.

  2. In West Melbourne VIC on “Former Pasminco Site...” at Pasminco Cockle Creek Smelter Pty Ltd c/- Ferrier Hodgson, PO Box 290, Colins Street West, Melbourne,:

    Ryan Greentree commented

    My concerns are with the on going monitoring of the cell and funding to maintain its standard

  3. In The Ponds NSW on “Sydney Metro - Tallawong...” at 75 -81 Schofields Rd, 38 Cudgegong Rd, Rouse Hill,:

    Sharon Hill commented

    Its positive and responsible to note they are including affordable housing.

  4. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Nicole commented

    I don’t feel the UNI are being good neighbours to the private residents that are in between the proposed development. It really looks like a good way to de-value there properties. I know I wouldn’t like going from a nice sunny backyard to having a 3 storey development on both sides. Especially property 120. Nice work let’s put a rooftop terrace overlooking for noise and reducing your privacy. I feel they should be asked to cut backorreduce the height of this proposal at the neighbouring properties. I also feel 2 stories high would be more appropriate and in keeping with the terraces nearby.

  5. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Joe commented

    I think a lot of people are missing the point.
    Students living neat campus have little need for cars with the availability of bus and train so close. Car share covers the need around that. There is no evidence this will bring more cars into the area.
    I moved into Newtown because it is so close to the city and all that offers. One shouldn’t live in the inner city and not expect housing to increase. Mascot and green square are examples of building hoses before community. We already have community.

    Students need a mix of housing. From bespoke accoms like this to shared housing in the private sector. I can only see an upside to more youth in the neighbourhood.

  6. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Deidre Mitchell commented

    Stop with the student accommodation.

  7. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Peter McGee commented

    I feel the proposal is inappropriate and would completely alter and degrade the heritage integrity of the precinct. In addition the public road at the rear of the properties would effectively be captured by the university for its private use and profit.

    The addition of another 300 student residents would increase pressure on congestion of roads and local amenity and will exacerbate a problem that will become apparent when the student accommodation on the Sydney University Regiment site is operational.

    There will be significant additional noise, parking problems and pollution associated with the significant change in residential density in the area.

    One can only feel the utmost sympathy for the owners of few privately held residences within the site that will be dramatically and negatively impacted by this over-development proposal.

    The university could easily build over its sporting fields or utilise the green space in front of the Fisher Library, which would have little negative impact on the local residents of Darlington, if there is a dire need for on campus student accommodation.

  8. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Joe commented

    Karen White
    I love that you came here to express your opinion. That’s fantastic and I encourage you to continue to speak your mind.

    I can appreciate that one public feedback mechanism can look like another. But this isn’t Facebook. I would like to let you know that replying to a DA in Planning Alerts isn’t like other places where your opinion is reviewed in relation to the other posts. It’s a submission to council or your local state or council rep. So you saying “I couldn’t agree more” might be perceived as you agreeing to the DA instead of the opinion you just read against the DA. I’m guessing you are against the DA. It might be worthwhile coming back to clarify your opinion so that your desires and thoughts are clear.


  9. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Karen White commented

    Could not agree more. I live in a very close proximity to the university and have never been consulted about their developments. In addition The Sydney University's seems to be moving into the business of major accommodation developers so not sure why they should apply for any waivers.

  10. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Catherine Kennedy commented

    This is the first time I have seen this DA but the eloquent comments of Ms Ong prompted me to add my voice. For too long Sydney University has acted in its own interest with complete disregard for the local community and it is time this changed. The license to make money from educating foreign students will not last and the University must adjust. One way to transition to this should be making the University available to others but not as a revenue stream. Inclusion of the wider community would lead to a broadening of education and its role in adapting to the challenges of the 21st century. Universities won’t be imitations of Oxford and Cambridge any more, nor will they be corporations with salaries to match.
    I live about 1 km from Sydney University (its hard to tell as they own so much of Darlington and surrounds) and have never been consulted about any developments.
    Time to act honourably Syd Uni!

  11. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Pristine Ong commented

    I question the University's request to waive development contributions under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In Section 13.0 "Waiving of Section 94 Contributions" of the document submitted for assessment titled "Request for the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) – State Significant Development" (p. 29), the University justifies this request by writing that it contributes to the community by providing various communities, sporting and cultural facilities and spaces, etc. However, these are things that the University has to provide to students anyway to support student life. While I understand that the general public may access these spaces, the University effectively acts as a insular community (there are physical gates around the campus which prevents permeability), so the wider community only gets limited access or perceives that it gets only limited access even though it is a public institution.

    Additionally, in 2012, the NSW Vice-Chancellors' Committee wrote a submission to the NSW Planning System review (p. 6), saying that universities should be exempt from payment development contributions because they would impact on university budgets. Given recent reports of financial misconduct by university staff and also the multi-million dollar salaries of vice-chancellors (the University of Sydney's Michael Spence earns A$1.4 million after an increase of 56% over five years), we must question why the salary packages of University bosses are considered more important than contributions to the public.

    Finally, it is questionable if sufficient consultation was undertaken for this project. 200 invitations were letterbox dropped to the surrounding community. I live in the surrounding community and did not receive this invitation, which I gather is because the engagement plan only included residents in a very small radius of the site. However, given the size of the building and the University, the catchment should have been much larger. Furthermore, the consultation report does not indicate if staff and students were consulted. Since this is a building for teaching and research, it would be an oversight if they were missed during consultation. The presentation shown during consultation made no mention of the University's seeking to waive developer contributions, which is an important bit of information for resident action groups.

    Read more:

    NSW Vice-chancellors' Committee (2012), Planning System Review Submission:

    The Conversation (2018), Vice-chancellors' salaries are just a symptom of what's wrong with universities:

    Sydney Morning Herald (2018), More than 20 Sydney Uni staff under investigation:

  12. In Wahroonga NSW on “Waitara Public School -...” at 48 -58 Myra Street, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Leone commented

    This school is crowded now with cars everywhere at drop off and pick up times. How much better will it be with 1,000 children in a high rise. Is the school going to provide internal drop off and pick up areas?

  13. In Strathfield South NSW on “Enfield Intermodal...” at Cosgrove Rd, Strathfield South, NSW:

    Julie commented

    We don't want any more 24 hours noise in Strathfield South. Go elsewhere.

  14. In North Sydney NSW on “Shore School - Construction...” at Senior school campus on Blue/William Streets and 4 and 5 Hunter Crescent and 16 William Street,, North Sydney, NSW:

    Philip Newnham commented

    I remember this being displayed the School was at it,s best showing the most cunning examples of not considering any one who lives in the area, and also remember the selecting of the individuals per person to educate who wished to be present at the meeting,sort of weeding out the desenters whom the School wished not to be present at the meeting. Well it,s going ahead and my sincere wishes the progress in building will have limited noise impact as i will also being high will get some impact also.

  15. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Maria Vuica commented

    I would like to lodge my disapproval. I will also add the lack of community consultation by NULON. We were never informed and didn’t know, until now and found out second hand. Here are my points
    • The land/ block/ area chosen has been approved for light industrial use only NULON is attempting to build a heavy industrial site that the council approved for cafes, restaurants, park lands, shops
    • The impact on our local roads from increased traffic congestion due to heavy vehicles, oil tanker trucks operating 24/7
    • The risk of a heavy vehicle incident involving hazardous materials in/ around our local community
    • The very real daily threat to our local families/ schools/ day care centres/ children (your choice of wording) of a major incident occurring due to mechanical failure or human error. The impact would be catastrophic to the immediate area/s depending on the severity of the incident (explosion/ fire etc…)
    • The immediate threat to the surrounding environment/ community/ residents should there be a major/ spill due to on site tank rupture due to fire incident occurred in or around or local community
    • The hazardous products stored, mixed, refined, transported are carcinogenic (cancer causing) and can be directly related to the development of tumours, rashes, lung and raspatory issues/ complications/ when exposed either directly or indirectly
    • If you can smell it, its affecting you, no price on my families health, zero tolerance
    • The daily smells, the trucks running all night and day
    • Incidents (not accidents) will and have happened, we will not take the chance of having such a hazardous operation directly within our family community
    • Previous incident occurred at the Moorebank factory where an oil mixing/ blending machine was left running until the fire brigade were alerted via an electronic direct alarm, when they attended they found that the blending machine had been left on unattended, if that alarm had failed (mechanical failure) the result (worst case) could have been multiple fatalities. 48 people suffered chemical exposure symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, head ache/ migraines/ sores and rashes as a result. We will not take that chance with our families/ community and surrounding areas. EPA report on the face book page
    • Processes and procedures can be diverted from/ due to fatigue, poor training, poor operational culture (meeting deadlines/ company expectations), alcohol, drugs, repetition (breeds complacency/ laziness/ take short cuts) these would be classed as an example of human error
    • We will not live with the daily fear of a minor, major or any incident ever occurring within our immediate community, there is no price that can be put on our families lives/ health/ wellbeing no amount of compensation would ever take back the damage done
    • If this factory is built it will lower our housing prices considerably, as who wants to live near an oil/ aerosol production factory/ distribution centre (this is one reason NULON has proposed to build next to established homes, would you buy next to NULON?)
    • People/ children/ elderly with pre-existing medical conditions in the area such as autism, asthma and so on would be greatly affected
    The NULON company obviously has no interest in the detrimental effects on the surrounding residents quality of life as a result of their operational goals, this is clear within the information provided on the face book page.
    * This type of facility needs to be in an heavy industrial zone and away from residence.
    Thank you

  16. In North Sydney NSW on “Shore School - Construction...” at Senior school campus on Blue/William Streets and 4 and 5 Hunter Crescent and 16 William Street,, North Sydney, NSW:

    Tom Mitchell commented

    This project will take 18 months to build (4 months demolition, 15 months construction), and the impact will fall largely on the Shore-tenanted properties on William Street. These properties (between Hunter Street and Blues Point Road) will be surrounded on two sides (north and west) by construction and demolition noise, and by traffic on the eastern side along William Street.
    The noise reports note that it will be significantly noisy project, and yet no mitigant is offered to tenants of the Shore-owned properties. These tenants should claim against the Shore landlord for breach of the 'quiet enjoyment' clause of their lease. Better, Shore should voluntarily reduce their rents as a mitigant to salve the impact on their tenants amenity.
    It's inequitable enough that wealthy schools like Shore can enjoy tax-effective landbanking, and government grants of public funds for private schools, but it's galling that they can be so cheap as to dump an 18 month demolition project onto their tenants and neighbours without even honouring their leases to those tenants.
    The permit should be amended retrospectively to compel Shore to offer rent reductions as mitigation to its tenant neighbours.

  17. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Samantha Vandenberg commented

    This proposal is not light industrial, it heavy industrial. Allowing a oil preparation plant next to a gas main and water way is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Please look at this area as a whole. There is high density housing, parklands, water way and gas main. Not the perfect location for such hazardous chemicals plant. Business see the main junction transport line as perfect spots without seeing what else is already survive in the surrounding areas. Hazardous materials need to be contained within heavy industrial zones not residential and park/wetlands. Please consider the local residents.

  18. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Jon Crutcher commented

    This is definitely not an appropriate development. This is within close proximity to a zoned major town centre. You would not want this kind of development near a civc precinct or high density residential. This type of development needs to be in a heavy industrial zoning.

  19. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Joseph Caruana commented

    The EIS is vague and subjective, resulting in a biased conclusion of minimal environmental impact. I am of the view that further quantative analysis is required to substantiate this claim, prior to any formal consideration.

    For example, the EIS states that there is a low risk of spillage and appropriate remediation actions are in place. However, page 27 of the EIS states a spill management plan will be developed, with no further information provided.

    Further, page 35 states that a qualitative air quality assessment was undertaken which identified a medium risk of dust and human health impacts offsite if no mitigation measures are applied. No information is provided on what these health impacts are and who will be effected. It is noted that the proposed development is bordered by residential dwellings to the north and east of the site. In response, the applicant states that standard dust mitigation measures will be implemented where practical. No further information is provided on what these measures are, where / when they will be implemented during construction and what criteria will be used to determine when it is practical for their use.

    The EIS concludes that no serious threat of irreversible environmental damage has been identified and the proposed measures are considered to be robust. I am of the view that an inadequate assessment was undertaken and this led to the biased no impact conclusion. Further, the outlined remediation measures are either non-existent or inadequate.

    It is also noted that the applicant did not meet with Liverpool council prior to lodging the EIS. This has resulted in a flawed consultation outcome by the proponent.

  20. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Sheree Aspinall commented

    This development is not appropriate for the area. The danger to the community and the environment (Western Sydney Parklands) cannot be ignored.

  21. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Maria Fabian commented

    I would like to lodge my disapproval to this submission. Unfortunately the Department has not sought to consult the affected community to an appropriate extent. A number of concerned residents in the suburbs surrounding the proposal have not received letters notifying them of this state significant project which is to be located in their neighbourhood. This is considered unacceptable and appears to intentionally limit the involvement of the community. In order to rectify this, I request that the public exhibition period be extended and the project be notified to all residents within a 5km radius. This would better allow for the concerns of the community to be gathered and considered in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The local Councils Liverpool and Camden should also be provided the opportunity to provide comment and represent their community. I am unaware that Camden has been notified of this development which may have an impact on their planned communities . The project has a range of potential impacts on the local community and environment which include traffic, odours and air quality, bushfire risk, contamination risk, water contamination risk to the heritage listed Sydney Water Channel and potential conflict with the Jemena Gas main. Noise and vibration from the machinery and truck movements add to the noise pollution. The Greater Sydney Commission has said the adjoining Western Sydney Parklands are the green lungs of our community and would be threatened by this proposed development. Surely this type of development would be better suited to an industrial area, possibly in the newly created industrial area near the Western Sydney Airport where the risks on so many residents can be avoided. This development is certainly NOT light industrial due to the safety concerns alone.

  22. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Kelly thompson commented

    I would like to lodge my disapproval to this submission. This business is certainly not ‘light’ industrial, it is in extremely close proximity to the Wesyern Sydney Regional parklands & contains hazardous chemicals !! It is also in a bushfire prone area . The area is surrounded by residential areas which will also be affected by increase in noise due to traffic & any environmental hazards due to production & storage of chemicals .
    Furthermore , residents of Horningsea Park & surrounding areas have not been given adequate information about this submission- I found out 2nd hand . Why is the local community not being contacted directly ???

  23. In Yelgun NSW on “North Byron Parklands...” at Tweed Valley Way and Jones Road, Yelgun, NSW:

    Henrietta Fraser commented

    Issues with Parklands’ State Significant Development Proposal

    1. Control is supposed to revert to Council after the trial period. The issues relating to the site need to be kept in Council hands for overseeing all impacts on local residences, ecology, community, roads, water, sewage, etc.

    Having the state of NSW control the festival site is not consistent with the existing PAC-approved Concept Plan. After the trial period is over, Byron Council is supposed to grant any further approvals for holding festivals at the site. Rather than prepare for this, Parklands got the state to extend their trial period and applied to become a State Significant Development. These moves have allowed them to avoid Council control.

    2. Local Council and community should be deciding what happens in our Shire.
    If this proposal is approved, the local community and its elected officials will again have been pushed aside, as they were by the (now discredited) Part 3A approval in 2012. The state will be in charge but will not be accountable to local residents. Byron and Tweed Councils will have no say. The DOP will continue “overseeing” the development from Sydney but will simply trust Parklands to manage everything. This is not right and not fair. Parklands cannot be trusted to be impartial. Byron Council, in consultation with local residents and business owners, should be determining the shire’s destiny—not the state government.

    3. Byron Shire is overloaded with tourists.
    Permanent approval of this development is not in the best interests of the shire because it will bring increasing numbers of tourists to the area. Byron’s tourism industry needs to be balanced with enterprises that are not dependent on tourism.

    4. Parklands wants permanent approval, but they don’t need it.
    The festivals have been operating profitably under a conditional trial approval for five years and operated for many years before that with year-to-year approvals from Council. If Parklands receives any further approval from the state, it should be conditional on annual reviews, and it should have to meet specific, rigorous conditions that Byron and Tweed Councils have set in consultation with local residents.

    5. DOP oversight of the trial has been lax.
    Parklands claims their compliance with consent conditions has been close to 100%, but locals have documented close to 100 breaches and other irregularities since trial approval was granted. The DOP has issued only a few Penalty Infringement Notices (fines) and Official Cautions (no fines) and does not even appear to have an accurate record of breaches and irregularities. (The DOP has not yet provided clear and complete information about breaches.) If the state remains in charge, oversight and enforcement will continue to be lax and inadequate.

    6. Much unpredictability remains.
    Recurring issues include noise, traffic, impacts on the environment, impacts on local infrastructure (roads, water, sewer systems) and impacts on residential amenity and health. Fire risks continue to be great, especially since the festivals have numerous bonfires and are located in a fire-prone area. Problems have arisen repeatedly throughout the trial, many unpredictable, e.g., the on-site traffic nightmares at Splendour 2016, recurring outbreaks of “festival flu”, unpredictable noise disturbance throughout the area, and repeated illegal use of fireworks on the site. Flooding on the low-lying camping and car-park areas is always a possiblity. Parklands may claim that all the problems have been identified and will easily be mitigated, but that’s pie-in-the-sky thinking. Much unpredictability remains. We can’t be sure what mess or disaster might develop because of the festivals; thus annual monitoring needs to continue.

    7. The proposed sewage management raises many concerns.
    Sewage is to be buried or sprayed on the Parklands site, which straddles two water catchments. Both tactics carry risks of contamination of ground water and surface water that will affect nearby residential areas and the Nature Reserve. On-site land formations and frequent site flooding both present major challenges to the planned disposal of effluent on site. Also, no provision is made for dealing with inorganic matter in the waste stream, e.g., sanitary products, plastics, etc., or for treating chemicals that become part of the waste stream, e.g., prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, and other unmetabolised chemicals. And it’s not clear if UV light or chlorine will be used to disinfect the waste and if the process will be fully effective.
    Parklands says they will implement their sewage treatment plans “progressively as budget allows” although a complete sewage treatment system was supposed to be in place by the end of 2017. So they’re not yet prepared to handle the sewage they generate. What they can’t treat on site will have to be trucked to overloaded sewage treatment plants in Byron Shire or elsewhere. This is irresponsible management.

    8. Independent monitoring of key variables has not been done.
    To demonstrate their performance on key variables, Parklands hires consultants to monitor things and prepare reports. Parklands then sends the reports to the DOP for review. No independent monitoring has been done at any time during the trial. Parklands’ self-monitoring and self-reporting remains a major issue and will continue to be a major issue if this proposal is approved.

    9. An independent cost-benefit analysis has not been done.
    No independent analysis has been done that objectively weighs the purported benefits of the festivals against the costs to the community. The Economic Benefits Report, Appendix W in the proposal, was generated by a Parklands-paid consultant. The report is presented “without the assumption of a duty of care to any other person other than the client [Parklands]” and the report further cautions any third party from “using or relying on the facts, content, opinions or subject matter” in the report. Experts in assessing economic costs and benefits have described the report as incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading.

    10. The proposed increases of site usage are significant.
    The proposed increase in festival use of the site is far from the “few days a year” that Parklands originally argued was their aim. Parklands proposes two large, five-day events and three medium-sized, one-day events every year. Each of these will require 35 days of preparation and dismantling, bringing the total site usage time to 188 working days or 52% of the year’s 365 days. And that does not include either the weekend (non-working) days associated with event set-up and dismantling and does not include the days devoted to “small” and “minor” events. If this proposal is approved, they will be able to get ongoing modifications to increase the numbers of days and the daily attendance still further. Their stated aim of 50,000 attendees per day has to be seen as only the beginning. In early discussions one of the Parklands organisers was heard to say they intended to match Glastonbury Festival, which has 200,000 attendees.

    11. The proposed conference centre is questionable.
    The originally-envisioned centre called for accommodations for 60 people. That has now doubled to a proposed total capacity of 180 with accommodations for 120. These facilities are to be used by staff during festivals and by paying guests at other times. This hotel/event centre is to be located in a forested area of the site where koalas have been sighted, most recently in 2016.

    12. Live Nation will not be accountable to Council and the local community.
    The two major festivals staged on the site are 51% owned by Live Nation, an American entertainment conglomerate. Permanent approval of this proposal will put profits generated at Parklands into the hands of that conglomerate, an entity that is not answerable to elected officials or local residents.

    13. Minimal funds for local Council; minimal benefits for the shire’s north.
    If this proposal is approved, Parklands will pay $420,000 in Section 94 contributions. They suggest this can be used for improving the Byron Tourist Information Centre, redeveloping public toilets (presumably in Byron), additional beach showers and beach access improvement (presumably in Byron), public art, and “civic improvements” such as benches, footpaths, landscaping, and signage. That will be their contribution to bringing this massive development to the north of the shire—a tiny fraction of the profits that each festival takes in and not nearly enough to counteract the wear and tear on the north of the shire.
    Locals question the motive for Parklands offering grants to needy community groups, which is seen as a form of pay-off for accepting the unwanted festival site.

    14. Parklands’ investment is dwarfed by area homeowners’ investments.
    Parklands claims that their intention to invest $30 million in the site makes them a state-significant development. But a conservative estimate of the combined value of just the residential property in Ocean Shores North, South Golden Beach, New Brighton, Ocean Shores, and Brunswick Heads is $3 billion, as a local realtor has said. That $3 billion is surely more state significant than the $30 million Parklands plans to invest in festival-site infrastructure such as concrete platforms and wider roads.

    15. The environment is the true state-significant asset in this part of the state.
    Billinudgel Nature Reserve and Marshalls Ridge Wildlife Corridor, into which NSW has invested millions of dollars over decades, are the most state significant assets in the north of Byron Shire. Approval of this proposal will permanently change the nature of this ecologically-significant area—for the worse. The state should not have been approved festivals at Parklands to begin with. They now have a chance to correct that earlier mistake.
    Even within the original DAs, lists of rare, threatened and endangered flora and fauna are mentioned as being present, and then are summarily dismissed with a wave of "no significant impact" on them.

  24. In Yelgun NSW on “NORTH BYRON PARKLANDS - Two...” at 126 Tweed Valley Way,, Yelgun, NSW:

    Irene Feuz commented

    1. Modification to Concept Approval MP 09_0028 is proposed to allow for changes to patron size ..

    I offer some stats ... for consideration ...

    Currently approx 30,000 people live in the Byron Shire
    Festival nos are approximately 32.500 ..per day = 90.000 people in four days.
    Splendour was NOT allowed 35,000 per day last year, because the NSW Police said having 32,500 on site already affected the safety and security of the attendees.
    The impact would be the equivilant of Sydney with 5.3 mill people - having an extra 21 million people moving in - and taking over your lives and resources for four days ...!

    There are just under 14,500 ratepaying households in the shire, and at least 1.5 million tourists come to the shire each year. So one way of looking at this is that there are about 100 tourists a year for every rate-paying household. When Parklands has 32,000 people on site, per day - that's just over 2 extra people in the shire for every rate-paying household -- using our infrastructure without being charged for it.

    Median age of people in the Byron Shire = 42
    The festival acts are aimed at youth .. is not there to appeal to a large no of locals

    Estimated revenues .. about $30 million per festival (four days) ticket entry - and camping / car parking fees ..
    Alcohol must be purchased at the Festival owned bars
    @ $10 av. per drink x 90.000 patrons (4 days) = $9 mill - for just 10 drinks ..

    Our Council is paid rates only - classified under "rural land" - which is not high.
    We - the rate payers of the Shire have had our rates re-assessed and put up ..

    Council is having trouble fixing roads and providing adequate infrastructure for the influx of tourists to the area (approx 1.5 mill) - extra 90.000 from the festival adds to negative environmental impact and affects our infrastructure ..

    Community groups - if recognised - can apply for a "community grant"
    Those grants amount to a few thousand dollars each.
    The festivals decide where to direct the community grants;
    Council has no say in the matter.

    Jessica Ducrou is on record as saying that she aspires to turn Splendour into the Glastonbury of Australia. (Glastonbury festival, in England, draws 175,000 attendees.)

    Have we felt the impact on our "quiet enjoyment" - as a local community .. YES

    Brunswick Heads (1,300 people) as a small town is overrun at Festival time .. when 32.500 people are around ... and are being bussed in and out of our town hourly ...

    Brunswick Heads looses its normal way of life ... as festival goers : -
    take over coffee shops -
    use our street parking -
    buy out our supermarket products -
    congest our streets as they waiting for shuttle busses.

    FIRE risks at the Festival site are high - this is common knowledge.
    FLOODING risks are also high - as per the 2017 floods in the area
    SEWERAGE treatment plant is already being over taxed - with local developments

    NOISE levels are aggravating to many - still ... (in spite of some changes)
    With Av. age @ 42, noise affects the comfort of older people / families with children
    Some families evacuate their homes to get a good nights sleep .
    Continual thumping affects domestic pets .. particularly dogs... and wildlife.
    REAL ESTATE - prices are dropping in the immediate area to the Festival.

    EXITING THE SHIRE - can be difficult : -
    With large numbers - LIMITED flights, and busses are fully booked early .

    As a volunteer at the Visitors Centre - we witnessed many young people who were stranded and needed help to get away.
    Many were unprepared for the extra costs incurred.
    Those who had not slept for days and could not leave - were very stressed

    Residents of the Shire do have the right to quiet enjoyment of our homes and our lives
    This is not happening while the Festival is on ...

    Local Community should not have to provide and pay for resources and infrastructure for visitors in these large numbers ... our rates have already been increased.

    Our Local Council should be involved and have rights to oversee planning and control - when it directly impacts and affects their constituents. e.g. - There may be a better site - much further away from the 'built up' areas in the Shire - that would suit better.

    As a International promoter - LIVE NATION already has the financial muscle and ability to set demands on venues and management, and has control of all aspects of the touring process - meaning few can compete with them.

    When they say they are aiming to beat Glastonbury .. 175.000 attendees -
    they are not thinking of our local community - or the suitability of this site.

    No I have not made a gift or donation to the Councillor - or a Council employee.

  25. In Yelgun NSW on “NORTH BYRON PARKLANDS - Two...” at 126 Tweed Valley Way,, Yelgun, NSW:

    Irene Feuz commented


  26. In Eveleigh NSW on “Locomotive Workshop, -...” at Locomotive Street, Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh, NSW:

    Kirstin Telmer commented

    As residents in the area, we struggle daily to get any form of parking. A different solution needs to be found.

  27. In Eveleigh NSW on “Locomotive Workshop, -...” at Locomotive Street, Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh, NSW:

    paddy glover commented

    This proposal mentions on street parking with no detail of which streets people are expected to park. The streets in Alexandria close to the ATP are already at saturation point with non residents parking all day.

    Affordable parking must be provided within the precinct to ensure the local residents will not be inconvenienced by the extra vehicles coming into the area

  28. In Eveleigh NSW on “Locomotive Workshop, -...” at Locomotive Street, Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh, NSW:

    Lisa Morris commented

    To whom it may concern,

    There is already a lack of parking in the area and this venture has had no consideration for the local community which already suffers from lack of parking spaces during either the week or weekends.

    I request adequate affordable parking be supplied within the ATP.

  29. In Marrickville NSW on “Marrickville Metro - 34...” at 34 Victoria Road and 13-55 Edinburgh Road, Marrickville, NSW:

    Amanda Whittaker commented

    I am concerned about proposed changes to Marrickville Metro.

    The site is currently nestled in away from major roads. The surrounding area is heavily residential on the eastern side and is often mayhem for cars, pedestrians and bicycles.

    The environmental impact assessment provides a short sentence of information only regarding bicycles, it states that the site is currently positioned on “on road” cycle ways, these roads such as Alice st, Llewellyn st and Victoria rd are already difficult to navigate as a cyclist and should not be considered as a safe cycle path option particularly with increased traffic proposed.

    For pedestrians both the intersections of
    * alice / Llewellyn #streets and edgeware rd
    * Victoria rd and edgeware rd
    Are currently dangerous and difficult to cross

    The traffic modelling in the environmental impact statement provides significant differences in the impacts for alice/Llewellyn streets than it does for Victoria rd/edgeware rd and yet the intersections are only meters apart. I express concern that each intersection is being considered independently and not taking into account it’s effect on the next intersection.

    The crossing at Victoria rd on edgeware rd crosses 2 lanes of traffic in each direction. This is a significant danger to pedestrians who are reliant sometimes on making visual contact with 4 cars at the one time in order to cross the road. The proposals do not appear to offer and alternative to this and the proposal to remove edgeware rd parking on the east side at busy periods will likely increase the vehicle demands to make the turn into Victoria rd quickly.

  30. In Marrickville NSW on “Marrickville Metro - 34...” at 34 Victoria Road and 13-55 Edinburgh Road, Marrickville, NSW:

    sue commented

    We don't need an enclosed footbridge at our local shopping centre - please don't let the Metro become the inner west Bondi Junction.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts