performance report #4ipcn.nsw.gov.au/resources/pac/media/files/pac/projects... · 2017. 8. 21. ·...

Performance Report #4 MP 09-0028 Covering Falls Festival 30 – 31 December 2015 & 1 – 2 January 2016 & Splendour in the Grass 21 - 24 July 2016 operating at North Byron Parklands December 2016

ii

Table of Contents GLOSSARY V

FOREWORD VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VII

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT 1 1.2 BACKGROUND TO EVENTS 2 1.2.1 FFB 15/16 2 1.2.2 SITG16 3 1.2.3 PARKLANDS SITE PLAN 4

2. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS 5

2.1 OVERALL EHSMM COMPLIANCE 5 2.1.1 FFB 15/16 5 2.1.2 SITG16 6

3. PROJECT CONDITIONS & OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 7

3.1 PROJECT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 7 3.2 EVACUATION PLANS 8 3.3 MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT PLANS 9 3.3.1 TRAFFIC MONITORING 9 3.3.2 NOISE MONITORING 9 3.3.3 ECOLOGICAL MONITORING 9 3.3.4 OFF-SITE MONITORING 9 3.3.5 EVENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 9 3.3.6 CAMPING MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 3.3.7 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 3.4 LICENSES, PERMITS AND APPROVALS 11 3.4.1.1 S138 ROADS ACT TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS 11 3.4.1.2 S68 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT – TRANSPORT AND DEPOSIT TO STP 11 3.4.1.3 S68 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT – PORTABLE TOILETS AND SHOWERS 11 3.4.1.4 S68 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT – ONSITE GREY WATER MANAGEMENT 11 3.4.1.5 S68 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT – WATERLESS COMPOSTING TOILETS 11 3.4.2.1 S138 ROADS ACT TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS 12 3.4.2.2 S68 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT – TRANSPORT AND DEPOSIT TO STP 12 3.4.2.3 S68 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT – PORTABLE TOILETS AND SHOWERS 12 3.4.2.4 S68 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT – ONSITE GREY WATER MANAGEMENT 12 3.4.2.5 S68 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT – WATERLESS COMPOSTING TOILETS 12

4. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE & TRENDS 13

4.1 KEY ISSUES 13 4.2 TRAFFIC 13 4.2.1 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 14

iii

4.2.2 TRAFFIC TRENDS 15 4.3 NOISE 16 4.3.1 NOISE MANAGEMENT PLANS 17 4.3.2 ACOUSTIC MONITORING PLANS 17 4.3.3 COMPLIANCE WITH NOISE CRITERIA 17 4.3.4 FFB15/16 NOISE IMPACT REPORT 18 4.3.5 SITG16 NOISE IMPACT REPORT 18 4.4 FLORA AND FAUNA 19 4.4.1 BACKGROUND 19 4.4.2 IMPACT PREDICTIONS AND PERFORMANCE 20 4.4.3 HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAM 23 4.4.4 SUMMARY OF MONITORING RESULTS - EVENT IMPACT MONITORING (EIM) 26 4.4.5 FLORA AND FAUNA TRENDS 28 4.5 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM 29

5. STAKEHOLDERS 29

5.1 KEY STAKEHOLDERS 29 5.2 REGULATORY WORKING GROUP (RWG) 30 5.2.1 BACKGROUND 30 5.2.2 RWG APPROVAL CONDITIONS 31 5.2.3 MEETINGS 32 5.2.4 RWG COMMUNITY ISSUES AND HIGHLIGHTS 32 THE RWG HAS EVOLVED AND CONTINUES TO EVOLVE AS A USEFUL FORUM FOR COMMUNITY

ISSUES TO BE RAISED AND FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN EVENTS TO BE SUGGESTED AND REALISED. WHILST

NOT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE OPERATORS, MANY ARE,

AND AN EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RWG HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED

DUE TO THE INPUT OF ITS MEMBERS. 33 5.2.5 RWG PERFORMANCE REPORT REVIEW 33 5.3 COMMUNITY HOTLINE 33 5.3.1 COMMUNITY HOTLINE ANALYSIS 33 5.3.1.1 FFB15/16 34 5.3.1.2 SITG16 35 5.4 IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOURS 37 5.4.1 FFB15/16 SECURITY 38 5.4.2 SITG16 SECURITY 40

6.0 CONCLUSION 42

APPENDIX A - EHSMM COMPLIANCE TABLES 44

APPENDIX B1 - ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 45

APPENDIX B2 - RESULTS AND ANALYSES OF EVENT IMPACT MONITORING DATA 46

APPENDIX B3 – FFB15/16 PERMANENT PHOTO POINT VEGETATION ASSESSMENT 47

APPENDIX B4 – SITG16 PERMANENT PHOTO POINT VEGETATION ASSESSMENT 48

APPENDIX B5 – HABITAT RESTORATION REPORT 2015/16 49

APPENDIX C1 – FFB15/16 BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN 50

APPENDIX C2 - SITG16 BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN 51

iv

APPENDIX D - EVENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 52

APPENDIX E1 – FFB15/16 TRAFFIC EVALUATION REPORT 53

APPENDIX E2 – SITG16 TRAFFIC EVALUATION REPORT 54

APPENDIX F1 – FFB15/16 NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN 55

APPENDIX F2 – SITG16 NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN 56

APPENDIX G1 – FFB15/16 ACOUSTIC MONITORING PROGRAM 57

APPENDIX G2 – SITG16 ACOUSTIC MONITORING PROGRAM 58

APPENDIX H1 – FFB15/16 NOISE IMPACT REPORT 59

APPENDIX H2 – SITG16 NOISE IMPACT REPORT 60

APPENDIX I – RWG TERMS OF REFERENCE 61

APPENDIX J1 – FFB15/16 COMMUNITY HOTLINE REGISTER 62

APPENDIX J2 – SITG16 COMMUNITY HOTLINE REGISTER 63

v

Glossary

AMP - Acoustic Monitoring Program

ANE - Air Noise Environment (Acoustic Consultant)

BMP - Bushfire Management Plan

BEEP - Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan

BFS - Biennial Fauna Survey

BSC - Byron Shire Council

SECRETARY - Secretary (Department of Planning and Environment)

DP&E - Department of Planning and Environment

EHSMM - Environmental Health and Safety Management Manual

EIM - Event Impact Monitoring

EMC - Event Management Centre

EMM - Event Management Manual

EMP - Event Management Plan

FDR - Fire Danger Rating

FFB - Falls Festival Byron

FFMP - Flora and Fauna Monitoring Program

FRMP - Flood Risk Management Plan

KPI - Key Performance Indicator

LEMC - Local Emergency Management Committee

NBP - North Byron Parklands

NIR - Noise Impact Report

NMP - Noise Management Plan

PAC - Planning and Assessment Commission

RMS - Roads and Maritime Services

RWG - Regulatory Working Group

SITG16 - Splendour in the Grass (July 2016)

TER - Traffic Evaluation Report

WIRES - Wildlife Information Rescue and Education Service

vi

Foreword North Byron Parklands (Parklands) originally applied for a permanent approval for an outdoor sustainable cultural arts and music venue in August 2010. The current approval issued by the Planning and Assessment Commission in 2012 provided a five-year trial period allowing up to 3 events per annum. This precautionary approach has greatly benefited Parklands by allowing it to develop, implement and refine various systems and processes such that the organisation now has a clearly documented pathway of continuous improvement.

Having now hosted seven internationally acclaimed events at Parklands with an eighth event scheduled for December 2016/January 2017, both the venue and the events themselves continue to demonstrate a pathway of ongoing improvements from one event to the next across a range of key performance indicators.

During 2016, Parklands worked with the Department of Planning and Environment to better manage sound generated during events. Through a process of better onsite attenuation measures coupled with a sophisticated front of house acoustic monitoring system at main stages, significant improvements in sound management have been achieved.

The success in managing noise during the year was clearly reflected in a dramatic drop in the number of calls to the community hotline about noise issues. This is a very positive outcome and highlights the benefits of working with a range of stakeholders to improve performance at this world class venue.

This fourth annual performance report provides the reader with a detailed assessment of the effectiveness of Parkland’s systems covering Falls Festival Byron 2015/16 (FFB15/16) and Splendour in the Grass 2016 (SITG16).

The report identifies compliance with Approval Conditions and other requirements, improvements achieved in relation to past events and documents areas where further improvement can be achieved.

It is personally very satisfying to witness the outstanding performance that both these nationally significant events have attained during this reporting period.

Mat Morris Venue Manager December 2016

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2010-2012, the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) assessed the Parklands project. Following public exhibition and comprehensive assessment by the DP&E, a report recommending permanent approval was published. The Planning and Assessment Commission (PAC) was delegated the responsibility to determine the application by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The PAC visited the site and locality, took public submissions and decided to approve a five-year trial with amended Concept Plan and Project Approval consents.

The approval, issued on 24 April 2012, allows three events per year with an overall maximum of 10 event days per annum and was based on a “trial period” of up to 5 years to 31 December 2017.

This trial approval includes a complex suite of Approval Conditions and the establishment and management of a range of systems, plans, programs, monitoring regimes, reports and performance assessments.

This Performance Report is the fourth such report, and covers two events during the reporting period being FFB15/16 and SITG16. While there is always room for improvement, during this reporting period the venue and events have clearly demonstrated a pathway of continuous improvement across most key performance indicators as can be seen by Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Event Compliance Performance to Date

Considering the extensive breadth of key performance indicators across a range of operational areas, broadly speaking the categories of traffic, noise and the environment tend to be of most interest to regulators and some community members.

As was achieved in the previous reporting period, FFB15/16 continued to manage traffic in a manner that resulted in no offsite impacts. Both the NSW Police and the RMS provided positive feedback regarding the range of traffic management initiatives employed by this event.

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SITG13 FFB13/14 SITG14 FFB14/15 SITG15 FFB15/16 SITG16

EHSMM Compliance (%) Consent Conditions Compliance (%)

viii

SITG16 successfully implemented its approved traffic management initiatives, however because of unprecedented increases in patron drop off/pick up numbers and Uber taxi services, several opportunities for improvement were identified on Friday and Saturday evenings to better manage excessive internal traffic impacting on the public transport system. Apart from these internal issues the traffic evaluation report noted that all public roads and intersections performed well with the traffic volumes experienced. Refer to Appendix E2 of this report (SITG16 Final Traffic Evaluation Report).

The most significant performance improvement related to Noise management. During 2016 Parklands was successful in gaining approval to modify the noise criteria in a manner designed to reduce noise impacts on the surrounding community.

Specifically, Parklands requested that lower frequencies (or bass sounds) be included in Approval Conditions by setting limits for this part of the noise spectrum. Prior to the noise modification, no such limits for lower frequencies were included in the approved noise criteria. The setting of actual limits for low frequency emissions has allowed Parklands to more consistently regulate events held at the venue, resulting in SITG16 being compliant with the approved noise criteria. Higher frequency or A-weighted limits were also targeted and significant improvements were achieved by implementing a live monitoring and feedback system that tracked noise levels at all main stages. These industry leading changes resulted in improved amenity for many residents as reflected in an 81% reduction of calls regarding noise to the community hotline during 2016.

The Parklands initiative to install high capacity optic fibre in the previous reporting period has dramatically improved mobile phone and mobile data network capabilities for patrons and the surrounding community. During FFB15/16 & SITG16 zero calls to the community hotline by community members advising of issues with mobile phone coverage were made. This is an excellent result.

With respect to the environment, examination of the before-during-after Environmental Impact Monitoring (EIM) data during the 2016 monitoring period again revealed no significant adverse impacts for any of the fauna groups monitored as a consequence of the conduct of both events. No significant adverse effects on flora, threatened fauna species or Endangered Ecological Communities across the site were identified as part of the monitoring regime.

The highest total bird counts from EIM over four years were recorded for both Falls 2015-2016 and SITG 2016. Counts of forest birds and of species increased across the before-during-after period for the Falls Festival 2015-2016. Counts of forest birds declined across the before-during-after period for SITG 2016 as the blossom resource declined however, species counts increased across the same period.

Anabat results were generally similar to previous EIM results with a low overall call count recorded for SITG 2016, but with similar species counts for both events. Call numbers from three threatened bat species increased during both events, possibly preying upon insects attracted to event lighting.

Hair funnel sampling produced similar results to previous monitoring, with Brown Antechinus dominating both event samples.

Overall, the venue and both events have made significant gains in performance outcomes, most notably in the areas of noise management, habitat restoration and ecological monitoring results.

1. Introduction This section describes the purpose and structure of this forth Performance Report issued under Project Approval MP 09-0028 as well as providing a brief summary of the events undertaken during the reporting period.

1.1 Purpose and structure of this report

This performance report covering FFB15/16 and SITG16 fulfils the reporting requirements to the Secretary as required under Approval Condition B7 (Performance Report) of the Project Approval dated 24 April 2012. Pivotal to site and event management is the Parklands Environmental Health and Safety Management Manual (EHSMM), which is based on a plan, do, check, act model. 185 Key performance indicators covering 15 EHSMM Standards are communicated to event operators through the Event Management Manual (EMM), which also includes relevant conditions of consent. The EMM forms part of the Occupation Agreement that events must execute prior to hosting any activities at Parklands. This report addresses the performance of FFB15/16 and SITG16 against the project approval Approval Conditions as well as the EHSMM Standards. To fulfil the reporting requirements of B7 this report has been structured as follows: Section 1 - Provides the introduction, report structure and background to our cultural events; Section 2 – Assesses the performance of FFB15/16 and SITG16 against Parklands’ Standards

listed in its EHSMM; Section 3 – Assesses compliance with event conditions of the Project Approval, evacuation

plans, management plans and other licences, permits and approvals; Section 4 – Provides environmental performance, impacts, trends, targets and strategies; Section 5 – Considers stakeholders, the regulatory working group, complaints management

and offsite response management; and Section 6 – Sets out some short concluding remarks by the performance report author.

2

1.2 Background to events

The seven cultural events that have occurred to-date at Parklands are shown in Table 1 below:

Event Category Event Name Event Capacity Event Dates

1st Large Trial Event SITG 25,000 25th to 28th of July 2013

1st Medium Trial Event FFB 15,000 30th December 2013 to 2nd of January 2014

2nd Large Trial Event SITG 27,500 24th to 27th of July 2014

2nd Medium Trial Event FFB 17,500 30th December 2014 to 2nd of January 2015

3rd Large Trial Event SITG 30,000 24th to 27th of July 2015

3rd Medium Trial Event FFB 20,000 30th December 2015 to 2nd of January 2016

4th Large Trial Event SITG 32,500 21st to 24th July 2016

Table 1. Cultural Events Held to Date

No small trial events have occurred at Parklands to date.

1.2.1 FFB 15/16

The Falls Music & Arts Festival Byron is a camping festival that takes place at Parklands with rolling hills and water lily covered dams, conveniently located 20 minutes north of Byron Bay. The festival catered for 20,000 patrons and operated from 30th December 2015 until 2nd January 2016.

3

1.2.2 SITG16

Unlike the wet weather experienced at SITG15, the SITG16 event was graced with clear skies and unusually warm days for that time of the year.

The sixteenth annual SITG, held for the fourth time at Parklands with a capacity crowd of 32,500 people each day (approximately 17,500 campers and 15,000 day patrons).

4

1.2.3 Parklands site plan

Figure 2. Parklands Site Plan

5

2. Environmental Health and Safety Management Standards This section covers the performance of FFB15/16 and SITG16 with Parklands’ Environmental Health and Safety Management Manual (EHSMM) including the 15 NBP Standards and 185 KPIs contained within these Standards. The EHSMM currently includes the following standards:

1. Safety Management; 2. Transport and Traffic Management; 3. Environmental Management; 4. Water Management; 5. Wastewater Management; 6. Fire Management; 7. Offsite Management; 8. Noise Management; 9. Evacuation Management; 10. First Aid; 11. Camping; 12. Flooding; 13. Temporary Structures; 14. Waste Management; and 15. Community Management.

2.1 Overall EHSMM Compliance

2.1.1 FFB 15/16

FFB15/16 continued its path of continuous improvement achieving a 100% compliance rate with the requirements of Parklands’ EHSMM (up 2% on the previous rating of 98% compliance).

Figure 3. FFB15/16 EHSMM KPIs

179

6

FFB15/16 EHSMM KPIs

Compliant

Opportunity for Improvement

Non-Compliant

Not Applicable

6

2.1.2 SITG16

SITG16 also achieved a high level of compliance with these internal requirements. While a small number of opportunities for improvement arose around the areas of traffic and fire management, SITG16 has been successful in addressing previous issues of non-compliance highlighted in the last reporting period, which is directly reflected in the results below. SITG16 compliance with Parklands’ EHSMM KPIs was 98%, up 2% on the previous performance report.

Figure 4. SITG16 EHSMM KPIs

Compliance tables for each NBP Standard for FFB15/16 and SITG16 have been provided in Appendix A (covering the specific KPIs forming each Standard). The following colour coding has been used:

Complies with the requirements of the NBP Standard

Opportunities for improvement

Does not comply with the requirements of the NBP Standard

Parameter not applicable to the event

177

35

SITG16 EHSMM KPIs

Compliant


Non-Compliant

Not Applicable

7

3. Project Conditions & Other Regulatory Requirements This section of the report assesses compliance with project conditions and applicable management plans, licences, monitoring programs and permits.

3.1 Project Approval Conditions

Assessment of compliance with the Approval Conditions during the reporting period reflects that Parklands and both events were consistent in meeting the requirements of the project approval. However, there were still a number of opportunities for improvements involving traffic. Section 4 looks at traffic in greater detail.

The Project Approval contains 90 event related Approval Conditions with a total of 94 measurable requirements (i.e. some conditions have several discrete requirements).

After discounting the 4 Approval Conditions for FFB15/16 & 5 for SITG16 that were not applicable to these events (e.g. “at times during a red alert level flood event…”, which did not occur at either event, etc.) the following compliance rates were achieved:

100% compliance rate for FFB15/16 (up from 99% in the previous reporting period); and

98% compliance rate for SITG16 (up from the 96% in the previous reporting period).

These compliance rates are graphically represented below:

Figure 5. FFB15/16 Approval Conditions

90

4

FFB15/16 Approval Conditions

Compliant


Non-Compliant

Not Applicable

8

Figure 6. SITG16 Approval Conditions

Appendix D provides a compliance summary of all applicable Approval Conditions relating to event performance for FFB15/16 and SITG16.

3.2 Evacuation Plans

The following plans were developed for any incident requiring evacuation during FFB15/16 and SITG16:

Event Safety Plan and the Emergency Management Plan;

North Byron Parklands Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP); and

Falls Festival 15/16 and Splendour in the Grass 2016 Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan (BEEP).

For FFB15/16 and SITG16 the Event Safety Plan and the Emergency Management Plans were developed to cover a wide range of potential risks and evacuation scenarios. The onsite Emergency Management Centre (EMC) monitored operational aspects during both events and was responsible for coordinating any incidents in conjunction with NSW Police, Rural Fire Service and/or the State Emergency Service.

The Parklands FRMP approved as part of the Project Approval was provided to FFB15/16 and SITG16 prior to each event and formed part of standard operations at the onsite EMC. The two onsite weather stations provided significant real time intelligence covering rainfall and stream gauge data. The Venue Manager monitored the weather stations on a 3 hourly basis in accordance with the FRMP during each event. The FRMP provides a range of colour-coded alert status’ ranging from the lowest alert level being Blue (basic weather monitoring activities) through to Red (a total evacuation of patrons to higher ground). FFB15/16 and SITG16 maintained Blue alert levels throughout the duration of each event.

The BEEP’s for FFB15/16 and SITG16 were prepared in consultation with the RWG and approved by the Local Emergency Management Committee. The onsite weather station system provided both events with real time Fire Danger Rating (FDR) specific to the venue.

No partial or full evacuations of any type occurred at either event.

87

25

SITG16 Approval Conditions

Compliant


Non-Compliant

Not Applicable

9

3.3 Monitoring and Management Plans

A considerable number of monitoring and management plans were prepared at both the venue and event level for FFB15/16 and SITG16, with many of these documents being reviewed and consulted with RWG members and other government agencies and entities as required.

3.3.1 Traffic Monitoring Traffic monitoring was undertaken for both events in accordance with Condition C12 and was reported in the Traffic Evaluation Reports (TER) for FFB15/16 and SITG16. Section 2 and Section 3.1 of this report addresses the compliance status of traffic management for each event, while Section 4.2 identifies trends in traffic performance. The Traffic Evaluation Reports for FFB15/16 and SITG16 are contained within Appendix E1 and E2

3.3.2 Noise Monitoring Noise monitoring undertaken for FFB15/16 and SITG16 as part of each event’s AMP requirements is addressed within Section 4.3. Additional to the requirements of each event’s AMP, a post-event Noise Impact Report (NIR) is also generated detailing event noise analysis and performance based on noise data collected before, during and after the respective festival. The AMP’s for FFB15/16 and SITG16 are contained within Appendix G1 and G2. The NIR’s for both events are contained within Appendix H1 & H2.

3.3.3 Ecological monitoring The approved Flora and Fauna Monitoring Program (FFMP) was undertaken for each event during the reporting period by a suitably qualified ecologist. The FFMP was prepared in consultation with the RWG (including the OEH, NPWS and Community Representatives) and was approved by DP&E on 18th July 2013. The FFMP addressed requirements provided in the Project Approval. The Environmental Performance Report resulting from implementation of the FFMP for each event is provided in Appendix B1 with the detailed statistics and analysis located in Appendix B2. The flora photo point assessments for each event are in Appendix B3 and B4.

3.3.4 Off-site Monitoring Implementation of Parklands Standard 007 – Off-site Management included an audit of neighbouring areas such as South Golden Beach, New Brighton, North Ocean Shores and Wooyung prior to each event covered in this performance report and following each event to assess any event litter impacts. The audits included before and after photos, which were used to prioritise resources to local streets and reserves at future events. During FFB15/6 and SITG16, the off-site response team monitored local areas for incidences of littering and illegal camping, which for both events was very low.

3.3.5 Event Management Plan For FFB15/16 and SITG16, an Event Management Plan (EMP) was submitted to the DP&E as required under Approval Condition C7. Key stakeholders were issued with a draft EMP for comment and operational stakeholders (i.e. NSW Police and RFS) were provided with a copy of

10

the final plan at the pre-event stakeholder briefing and coordination sessions in the week leading up to each event.

Both the FFB15/16 and SITG16 Event Management Plans included an additional section addressing community liaison.

3.3.6 Camping Management Plan During events, patron camping is managed per the requirements of EHSMM Standard 011 – Camping Management in addition to any relevant Approval Conditions. A camping management plan provides details of the camping layout, toilets and shower amenities, camp marshal and fire marshal locations, potable water supplies, waste water storage tanks, firefighting water tanks and fire extinguishers. The plan also limits vehicle speeds in camp areas to 15 km/h. All camping areas are provided with camp marshals for the purposes of monitoring and maintaining camper safety and amenity and any fire safety provisions ancillary to the event firefighting services. All camping areas are provided with camping marshals. Camping marshals are trained and competent in the use of portable fire extinguishers and emergency management procedures. An area of no less that 0.75ha is provided for disabled campers, campers with children (in the case of SITG), the elderly, and less mobile patrons. This area is adjacent to disabled toilets and shower amenities and is in reasonable proximity to, and readily accessible via the Spine Road. Both events covered in this performance report are responsible for appointing a dedicated camping coordinator for the duration of the event. The camping coordinator has overall responsibility for managing the camping ground in accordance with the camping management plan.

3.3.7 Water Management Plan

For FFB15/16 and SITG16 a Water Management Plan (WMP) was prepared and lodged with Byron Shire Council. The aim of the WMP is to develop and implement a potable water supply water management plan that provides an adequate and safe water supply to occupants of the event site during each cultural event.

The objectives of the plan are to:

Detail the key elements comprising the provision, management and quality assurance of the provision of the water supply;

Risk manage any problems that could occur between the water source and the site’s users;

Assess and protect the quality of the source water;

Assess water quantity requirements;

Ensure any treatment processes are appropriate, maintained and working properly; and

Ensure only licenced water carter operators supplied potable water to the event site.

Free potable water to patrons was provided by each event, both within the camping and event areas. There were no water management incidents reported during FFB15/16 or SITG16.

11

3.4 Licenses, Permits and Approvals

This section provides a list of the various ancillary licences and permits attained for FFB15/16 and SITG16 and provides a brief context to each approval.

3.4.1 FFB 15/16 3.4.1.1 S138 Roads Act Traffic Control Plans

For FFB15/16, the required temporary Traffic Control Plans and traffic management plans were prepared in consultation with key stakeholders (RMS and BSC), considered by the Local Advisory Traffic Committee and approved by Byron Shire Council. Refer to Section 4 of this report for discussion on compliance, implementation, monitoring, trends and recommendations.

3.4.1.2 S68 Local Government Act – Transport and Deposit to STP

For FFB15/16, the required approvals were attained from both Byron Shire Council and as an alternate, Tweed Shire Council. A wastewater management plan was lodged with Byron Shire Council.

Event contractors continued to work with Council to ensure appropriate quality of wastewater being delivered to the Sewerage Treatment Works.

3.4.1.3 S68 Local Government Act – Portable toilets and showers

This approval provides for portable toilet and shower usage for each event.

3.4.1.4 S68 Local Government Act – Onsite grey water management

For FFB15/16, 920kL of shower grey water was stored and treated on-site.

3.4.1.5 S68 Local Government Act – Waterless Composting Toilets

The system was operating in accordance with the Approval Conditions with Byron Shire Council.

12

3.4.2 SITG16 3.4.2.1 S138 Roads Act Traffic Control Plans

For SITG16, the required temporary Traffic Control Plans and traffic management plans were prepared in consultation with key stakeholders (RMS and BSC), considered by the Local Advisory Traffic Committee and approved by Byron Shire Council. Refer to Section 4 of this report for discussion on compliance, implementation, monitoring, trends and recommendations.

3.4.2.2 S68 Local Government Act – Transport and Deposit to STP

For SITG16, the required approvals were attained from both Byron Shire Council and as an alternate, Tweed Shire Council. A wastewater management plan was lodged with Byron Shire Council.

Event contractors continued to work with Council to ensure appropriate quality of wastewater being delivered to the Sewerage Treatment Works.

3.4.2.3 S68 Local Government Act – Portable toilets and showers

This approval provides for portable toilet and shower usage for each event.

3.4.2.4 S68 Local Government Act – Onsite grey water management

For SITG16, 920kL of shower grey water was stored and treated on-site.

3.4.2.5 S68 Local Government Act – Waterless Composting Toilets

The system was operating in accordance with the Approval Conditions with Byron Shire Council.

13

4. Environmental Performance & Trends This section of the report identifies and discusses the key event performance parameters that have emerged following the seven events to date. The monitoring of trial events will, with some performance parameters, require a longer monitoring period to establish clearer trends. After seven events over a 42-month period, this fourth performance report builds on the extensive data sets collected during the trial period.

4.1 Key Issues

The following aspects are considered the key issues, which are further canvassed in this section of the report:

1. Traffic; 2. Noise; 3. Flora and Fauna; 4. Community Grants Program.

Past reports have included mobile phone coverage during events, however due to zero calls to the community hotline over the past two events this would indicate that the matter has been resolved as a result of the installation of Telstra Fibre Optics to the venue.

The three key issues above have emerged following the performance assessment undertaken in Section 2 against the Parklands EHSMM standards and the assessment undertaken in Section 3 against project Approval Conditions and associated approvals.

The overall trends demonstrated by FFB15/16 and SITG16 were ones of continuous improvement. The issue of traffic management mentioned in the previous performance report was addressed during FFB15/16 and SITG16 as a result of a range of minor improvements that have been implemented. With seven events having operated at Parklands, systems and processes have been refined on each occasion leading to greater surrounding community amenity as well as an improved patron experience.

Examination of the “before-during-after” patterns of ecological Event Impact Monitoring data in the 2016 monitoring period again reveal no significant adverse impacts as a result of the conduct of FFB15/16 and SITG16 for any of the fauna groups monitored. Further, no significant adverse effects on flora, threatened flora species or Endangered Ecological Communities of the site were detected.

Noise from FFB15/16 was well managed which was reflected in a significant reduction in noise related calls to the community hotline. During this event, only 7 calls regarding noise were received, down from 25 the previous year.

Likewise, SITG16 implemented a range of onsite attenuation and management strategies that also dramatically reduced noise related calls to the community hotline. In 2015 a total of 119 calls were made regarding noise. In 2016 this was reduced by 81% to 22 calls.

The following sections discuss in more detail the environmental performance and trends in these key operational areas.

4.2 Traffic

Both the venue and the events have developed a strong working relationship with the RMS, BSC, the Local Traffic Management Committee and the NSW Police. These stakeholders have provided their expertise, data analysis and guidance over the past seven events in conjunction with event management and traffic staff that has resulted in a continuously improving performance track record.

14

4.2.1 Traffic Improvements

Both FFB15/16 and SITG16 implemented an improved camper parking and registration process that successfully loaded campers and their cars in the camp ground prior to the first event day. This was achieved by allowing campers to park with their vehicles in a predetermined format involving vehicles being parked end to end (allowing a quicker load-in rate) and tent being set up adjacent to the passenger side of the vehicle. An access laneway was provided between each row of cars and tents for pedestrian access and emergency services.

Figure 7. Splendour in the Grass 2016 Camping Group (adjacent to Amenity Block 2)

At FFB15/16 the use of vehicle messaging boards to encourage patrons to exit the Pacific Motorway prior to the Yelgun exit was extremely successful. This traffic improvement ensured that patron vehicles using the Yelgun interchange was greatly reduced. This strategy meant that vehicles travelling from the north and taking the Cudgera Creek turnoff would travel to the site via Mooball and the Tweed Valley Way, turning left into the venue via Gate C and thereby avoiding any conflict with traffic travelling from the south (from the Yelgun interchange).

FFB15/16 achieved all traffic related key performance indicators.

With respect to SITG16, while the load-in of the camping patrons was undertaken as described above and resulted in little or no queueing on site (and therefore no impacts externally), there was an unexpected change in day patron travel modality that resulted in several traffic related issues for this event. Unlike any previous event (SITG or FFB), at SITG16 an unprecedented number of vehicles were observed both by traffic controllers and traffic monitoring cameras entering the site on Friday 22nd of July 2016.

Upon closer analysis, event management determined that the cars entering the site were not campers (as they were not travelling to the camping grounds) and were not day patrons looking to park (because the day patron carparks remained only about 65% full). In fact, the video footage revealed that these vehicles were stopping at guest services and dropping people off before leaving again. The event estimated that some 700-800 vehicles entered the site on Friday afternoon to drop people off and then returned around 11pm onwards to collect these same people. It was noted that many of these vehicles were dropping paying customers off and were most likely Uber taxi service vehicles. This caused significant congestion adjacent to the northern car park and thus impeded the ability of buses to enter and exit the bus turnaround in a timely manner. The delays experienced by patrons waiting for buses led to the movement of some pedestrians offsite.

15

While SITG16 management worked with the NSW Police and traffic controllers to rectify this issue it took an extended period of time to resolve the congestion. The following day (Saturday 23rd of July) the event held a meeting with NSW Police and the RMS to identify opportunities to rectify this issue. It was acknowledged that events normally experience 100-150 cars a day dropping people off, not the 700-800 experienced on Friday and Friday night. As such, a contingent traffic plan was put in place whereby a dedicated patron drop off area was created in the southern car park (adjacent to Tweed Valley Way) for Saturday. This included erecting signage, employing vehicle messaging boards moving lighting towers and relocating the guest services tent, staff and equipment to the southern carpark adjacent to Gate C. The system worked much better but still resulted in limited congestion for short periods of time. With further improvements on the Sunday (i.e. moving all taxis and shuttle buses to the southern carpark), the traffic flows returned to normal, bus services (both in and out) were on schedule and the safe movement of patrons on and off the site was achieved in a manner that did not adversely affect the surrounding local roads.

One of the key performance measures from a community perspective is the number of traffic related calls to the community hotline. During FFB15/16 and SITG16 no traffic specific calls were received via the Community Hotline. The FFB15/16 TER concluded that the external road network would be able to support growth of this event at North Byron Parklands.

The TER report prepared for SITG16 noted that all public roads and intersections performed well with the traffic volumes experienced. However, some queuing on the public roads was observed due to internal traffic impacts. Additional internal traffic flow mechanisms should be investigated for day patron load-in days.

4.2.2 Traffic Trends While full details of the traffic performance of each event can be found in Appendix E1 and E2, the traffic evaluation reports prepared since the first event in July 2013 show a clear path of continuous improvement covering this important aspect of event management. It is acknowledged that while traffic improvements have been achieved from event to event, the traffic performance at SITG16, due to the issues raised above, requires further measures to be implemented to resolve the identified issues. From a community perspective the performance of traffic management is reflected in the decline in calls to the community hotline over the 7 events held to date, which is shown in the following figure:

Figure 8. Traffic Calls to the Community Hotline Over the Past Seven Events

0

5

10

15

20

25

SITG13 FFB13/14 SITG14 FFB14/15 SITG15 FFB15/16 SITG16

22

32

0 0 0 0

Traffic Calls to The Community Hotline Over The Past Seven Events

SITG13

FFB13/14

SITG14

FFB14/15

SITG15

FFB15/16

SITG16

16

4.3 Noise

Improvements in noise management for this reporting period have been dramatic and are without a doubt the most significant area of improvement during 2016. In April 2016, the Planning and Assessment Commission (PAC) approved a modification to the noise criteria as follows:

Noise restrictions

1) During trial events, all stages may operate from 11am but must be shut down at midnight, excluding New Year’s Eve, where stages may operate until 1am.

2) Between 11am and midnight, noise levels at sensitive receivers must not exceed the following noise criteria:

a. For Zone 1 (as shown below in Figure 9):

i. between 11am and midnight amplified entertainment noise from the event at sensitive receivers must not exceed 60dB(A) LAeq, 10-minutes AND 70dB(lin) Leq, 10-minutes in the 63 hertz 1/1 octave band; and

ii. between midnight and 2am, amplified entertainment noise from the event at sensitive receivers must not exceed 45dB(A) LAeq 10-minutes AND 60dB(lin) Leq, 10-minutes in the 63 hertz 1/1 octave band.

b. For Zone 2 (as shown below in Figure 9):

i. between 11am and midnight amplified entertainment noise from the event at sensitive receivers must not exceed 55dB(A) LAeq, 10-minutes AND 65dB(lin) Leq, 10-minutes in the 63 hertz 1/1 octave band; and

ii. between midnight and 2am, amplified entertainment noise from the event at sensitive receivers must not exceed 45dB(A) LAeq 10-minutes AND 55dB(lin) Leq, 10-minutes in the 63 hertz 1/1 octave band.

Figure 9. Parklands Noise Limit Zones

17

In reaching its decision the Commission state that it had:

“made changes to the recommended conditions as outlined in its determination report. The determination refines the existing noise controls applying to the trial period. In particular, the establishment of an additional noise control category (C weighted frequency noise) will limit and mitigate the most invasive bass type noise.

The Commission also considered that the recommended noise limit change from background plus to 60dB(A) LAeq, 10 minutes provides a more appropriate noise compliance restriction.

Importantly, these new restrictions will not allow the proponent to increase the actual noise emanating from the events. These modifications will establish consistent, measurable and enforceable controls, throughout the remainder of the trial period and set clearer expectations amongst the community for each event.”

The commission also noted:

“that the evidence gathered to date illustrates the original trial conditions are not proving effective in controlling certain impacts [noise] from larger events, particularly those held in winter.”

The result of these changes has clearly proven that noise has not increased during events and in fact, noise emissions have been managed in a manner that has improved community amenity and dramatically reduced noise related calls to the community hotline.

4.3.1 Noise Management Plans

Because of the PAC approved modification to the noise criteria as outlined in Section 4.3 above, Parklands has now incorporated several new onsite attenuation improvements and noise monitoring system refinements into a Noise Management Plan (NMP) that covers both events at Parklands. Due to the timing of the PAC approval, FFB15/16 still produced a standalone NMP (refer Appendix F1) while SITG16 developed a revised NMP suitable for covering multiple events as allowed under project approval Approval Condition C16 (refer to Appendix F2).

4.3.2 Acoustic Monitoring Plans

Air Noise Environment (ANE) prepared a separate AMP for FFB15/16 and SITG16, both of which were consulted with the RWG prior to being issued to the DP&E for approval. In both cases the DP&E approved the respective AMP covering each event. Both AMPs were based on the Parklands revised AMP template (prepared in 2014) that more clearly addresses the requirements of C17 and is written in plain English.

Event AMPs are in Appendix G1 and G2.

4.3.3 Compliance with Noise Criteria

A Noise Impact Report (NIR) was prepared by ANE after FFB15/16 and SITG16. The reports were provided to the DP&E and tabled at the RWG for member information and discussion. These NIRs discuss the event’s level of compliance with the former (FFB15/16) and current (SITG16) noise criteria as set by the PAC.

18

4.3.4 FFB15/16 Noise Impact Report

Review of the measured LAeq and LCeq receptor noise levels for each of the five unattended residential noise monitoring positions indicates that noise levels complied with event noise limits for the majority of time. Observed exceedences of these noise limits were typically observed during the period around 8.30pm each day and after midnight. It is noted however that these exceedences were also observed on days where the event was not operating (30 December 2015 and 2 January 2016).

Review of the data suggests that this feature is more prominent at monitoring locations bordering the Billinudgel Nature Reserve. Review of the audio recordings for these periods confirms that the increased noise levels were associated with insect noise with negligible audible event noise observed at these locations. These anomalies highlight the shortcomings of a background “plus” noise criteria.

Across the four days of the event, a total of 7 noise related calls were received by the event community hotline. Review of the calls data confirms that once the influence of wind and/or insect noise is removed from the measurement results (estimated at approximately 3-5 dB(A)), all measurements complied with the event noise limits. It is noted that on more than one occasion, while levels complied with event limits, a request was made to the event sound engineers to reduce low frequency noise to reduce levels at 280 Hulls Road.

Overall, complaints were recorded for a small number of locations to the north of the event (at varying elevations above sea level) with no complaints recorded for the more populated areas to the south. This is expected to be related to the layout of the event and the influence of the moderate to strong southerly winds observed throughout the event. The FFB15/16 NIR is in Appendix H1.

4.3.5 SITG16 Noise Impact Report

The SITG 2016 acoustic monitoring program involved significant resources both prior to, during and after the event including:

continuous unattended noise monitoring at 8 positions prior to, during and following the event (7 days per position) including audio monitoring to allow identification of

sources of noise;

attended monitoring in response to 22 calls made to the Community Hotline, 2 of

which had not requested monitoring;

291 additional attended noise measurements at sensitive receiver positions during the

event;

liaison with the NSW Department of Planning and Parklands management prior to the event to develop innovative acoustic management solutions for implementation at the

SITG 2016 event;

identification and implementation of physical acoustic controls for the stages and

venues prior to the event, and auditing of compliance with these requirements;

installation of a Noise Control Co-ordination Centre to provide: o real time monitoring of noise levels from stages during event by Acoustic Manager; o access to local meteorological data to allow prioritisation of noise management and

monitoring; and o close liaison between Acoustic Manager and Production and Community Hotline

personnel to facilitate rapid adjustment to stage noise levels where appropriate;

extensive program of attended and unattended community noise monitoring during

the event.

19

These innovations were successful in achieving compliance with the acoustic criteria specific for major events at Parklands with the exception of a single ten-minute period, when a marginal non- compliance of 0.4 dB was recorded. Following reduction of stage noise levels, compliance was subsequently achieved.

Furthermore, the number of amplified music related calls to the Community Hotline totalled 26, a substantial reduction when compared to the number of noise related calls received for the same event in 2015 (117 noise related calls). The noise issue raised by two of these callers

was subsequently identified to be non-amplified music related.

The deployment of extensive additional noise management resources for SITG 2016 sets a new benchmark for noise management when compared to the management measures adopted for other festivals and major concerts in Australia. This demonstrates the commitment of Parklands to effective noise management of the activities at this important entertainment venue, and provides a framework for the noise management of future events. The success of these measures is demonstrated by the significant reduction in Community Hotline calls

relating to noise, and the level of compliance achieved throughout the event.

4.4 Flora and Fauna

4.4.1 Background

Since the purchase of Parklands in late 2006 a significant change in land use has occurred. The past predominant activities of intensive sugarcane cultivation and cattle grazing have been replaced with a program of environmental revegetation works. As at 1 December 2016, the venue has been in operation for 1,650 days and to date a total of 28 event days have occurred. For this reporting period a total of 8 event days took place. The two primary environmental activities at Parklands, apart from the event specific environmental projects, field work and educational programs, include:

1. Habitat restoration and preservation (guided by the Vegetation Management and Biodiversity Plan and the Flora and Fauna Management Plan); and

2. Ongoing flora and fauna monitoring to determine any adverse impacts resulting from event activities (guided by the Flora and Fauna Monitoring Program).

Naturally Regenerating Eucalypts

20

The habitat restoration and preservation aspect of the project commenced 9 years ago and has involved the planting of thousands of endemic species in a manner that helps connect currently fragmented forest blocks across the site. To date more than 17,000 trees have been planted in accordance with the venue’s habitat restoration program in addition to tens of thousands of trees which have naturally germinated and grown as a direct result of the removal of cattle and the classification of large parts of the site as habitat only areas.

The flora and fauna monitoring program has been scientifically developed in consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage and other members of the RWG to measure whether the cultural event usage of the site has adverse ecological impacts. Significant resources and time have been assigned to monitoring and collection data both within the site and at external control points before, during and after all events.

Monitoring of flora and fauna in the fourth year of operation of the Parklands site provided over 6,470 records of more than 90 species of birds and 4,981 records of greater than 20 species of microchiropteran bats.

Event impact monitoring results continue to provide evidence of the importance and influence of food resources for birds, especially blossoms, insects and fruit, and of seasonal variation for microchiropteran bats. Large scale fluctuations in overall bird and bat numbers observed over four years of monitoring appear to be resource driven, with key resources fluctuating seasonally

Examination of the Before-During-After patterns of EIM data reveal no significant adverse impacts for any of the fauna groups monitored at North Byron Parklands over the current monitoring period as a consequence of the conduct of the Falls Festival 2015-2016 or of Splendour in the Grass 2016.

Reductions in waterbird numbers during events appears to be a temporary disturbance, contrarily some threatened bat species increased in numbers during events, possibly exploiting insects attracted to light towers.

No significant adverse effects on flora, threatened flora species or Endangered Ecological Communities of the site were detected as a consequence of the two events. Adverse event-related ecological effects observed included littering in the event area during the event periods and trampling of grass within the event areas.

The detailed results of these monitoring programs is located in Appendix B1, B2, B3 and B4.

4.4.2 Impact Predictions and Performance

The following section provides a comparison of the environmental impacts and performance of the project against environmental impacts and performance of the project predicted in the Environmental Assessment (Fitzgerald 2010).

Predicted Impact Performance

Underpass or at grade access construction across Jones Road will require a small area of vegetation removal

Conforms with prediction

Road construction, upgrading and use will produce barrier effects and road kill risks for particular terrestrial fauna

Barrier effect likely to operate in the open central event area for smaller and less mobile terrestrial fauna, particularly by day.

Road kill reported on internal roads included: Cane Toads during FFB15/16 and an adult Eastern Bearded Dragon in between events (i.e. not event related).

Outside event days, function of the Marshall’s Recent camera data records Swamp Wallabies

21


Ridge wildlife corridor will operate under better than previous conditions, because of the increased area of native vegetation present

active in this area.

Surveys of habitat restoration plantings reveal 40 species of birds including threatened White-eared Monarchs and Rose-crowned Fruit-dove in this regenerated area.

Disruption of flying-fox foraging patterns Earlier observations confirmed the validity of this prediction.

Flying-foxes avoided brightly illuminated blossom but exploited this resource soon after lights were switched off, and in the interior of less brightly illuminated trees at variable distances from light towers. However, flying-foxes were heard vocalising but not observed in event areas during the two events monitored.

High levels of human presence on the site with associated lighting and noise are likely to disturb shy fauna species

Evidence from cameras indicates presence of Swamp wallabies in BNR close to Spine road, but not recently seen within event areas.

A risk of arson No fires were observed in the reporting period.

Artificial lighting has the capacity to trap and kill invertebrate fauna

Not observed. Areas around light towers

were inspected, but no insect kill was

recorded.

Artificial lighting has the capacity to attract insectivorous vertebrate fauna (e.g. bats, frogmouths).

Not observed.

Trampling of vegetation through illegal attempts to access the site

Minor disturbance to ground layer vegetation, and littering observed in some areas from illegal attempts to access the site

Unspecified alteration to fauna communities from episodic disturbance

Not observed: See discussion of EIM results in Appendix A

Scavenging bird species may increase in abundance through exploitation of food scraps

Observed after SITG2016 where Torresian Crows raid rubbish bins and flocks of Australian Ibis foraged over disturbed soil.

No evidence of changes in abundance of these species See Appendix A.

Time between events (up to several months) will allow time both for recovery and for ‘normal’ ecological functions to occur at the Parklands site

Forest fauna monitored do not appear to be significantly affected by event processes. Birds within event areas are displaced during events and forage outside the intensively disturbed areas, some remain in marginal and quieter areas. Following bump-out birds return to event areas.

Mobile species such as Swamp Wallabies will leave the vicinity

Swamp Wallabies have not been recorded in event areas, but observations from cameras during SITG 2016 provide evidence of the presence of Swamp Wallabies, within 350m of the event area.

Masked Plovers, White-faced and Pacific Herons, Ibis and Egrets of the pasture habitats will likely leave the car parking, event and camping areas in response to increasing human presence

Largely correct

All bird species mentioned were noted to be absent from event areas during the event, but returned soon after.

Butcherbirds, Crows, Ibis and Magpies will likely exploit the availability of food scraps

Torresian Crows Observed after SITG2016 raiding rubbish bins.

22


Patrons handling wildlife Not observed

Alienation of habitats may operate for frugivorous and nectivorous birds, wherever human presence, vehicle movements or amplified music produce disturbance effects. Effects are likely to operate for the central swamp sclerophyll forests and adjacent sub-coastal floodplain forest habitats

At the most exposed transect in the central event area (transect IM3B) slightly lower than average numbers of species and birds were recorded during Falls, but much higher than average bird and species counts were recorded during monitoring for SITG 2016

Birds attempting to nest close to the event areas may abandon their nests, eggs or fledglings, or may persist regardless.

Not observed

Movements of herbivorous Swamp Wallabies in pasture will be affected by the security fencing.

Swamp Wallabies have not been recently observed in the Parklands event areas but camera data and scats in Yelgun Creek plantings indicate they are present nearby. No evidence of fencing affecting movement, but increased wariness may explain paucity of observations of this species in grassland areas, where scats indicate they are at times present.

Impacts on Threatened fauna species No impacts on threatened fauna species were detected. See discussion of EIM results in Appendix A.

Table 2. Environmental Impacts & Performance

A number of environmental performance goals, which were not met or have since been addressed post events include:

Environmental Performance Goals Not Met

Reasons Action Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence

Sediment movement into internal drains and off-site

January 1st 2016

Flash flooding damaged sediment interception structures

Sediment interception structures re-installed

Poor placement and direction of Light towers

Inadequate implementation of lighting principles, by event operator. Poor maintenance by supplier.

Light tower spill was addressed before and during both festival events.

Inappropriate illumination of foraging resource for Flying-foxes

Oversight Generally corrected during both Festival events

Full habitat plantings north of Jones Road may present an increased bushfire risk to a neighbouring landholder.

Community safety and welfare Install firebreak in this area. Design suitable fire retardant plantings and dedicate another equivalent area to full habitat plantings.

Table 3. Environmental Performance Goals

23

4.4.3 Habitat Restoration Program

As part of the Vegetation Management and Biodiversity Plan a habitat restoration plan was prepared in consultation with the RWG. This plan spanning ten years is now in its fourth year of operation. The Habitat Restoration Report covering 2015/16 is provided in Appendix B5.

Figure 10 below shows details of the revised Ecological Structure Plan.

Figure 10. Revised Ecological Structure Plan

24

A total of 2,450 trees, shrubs and understory seedlings were planted this year in new areas. During the SITG 2016 event, 1,000 plants were placed adjacent to the Spine Road in the most northern part of the venue.

As part of the Falls Festival, organisers facilitated the planting of 1,000 trees in Area 42 to expand on the swamp sclerophyll area bordering Billinudgel Nature Reserve. These plantings are doing extremely well and provide connectivity to past plantings and the most eastern part of the Billinudgel Nature Reserve, effectively helping to reduce the edge effect associated with historical agricultural land clearing.

Bush regeneration activities have occurred in many areas of the property. This included primary (initial) weed control works as well as maintenance. The table below documents the extent of completion of all habitat restoration activities.

H = Habitat R = Regeneration

MP = Managed Parklands I = Improved

P = Plantings E = Existing

Po

lygo

n

Typ

e

Trea

tmen

t

% C

om

ple

te

Are

a (H

a)

Actions

1 MP R 100 0.809 Complete – Now in maintenance phase

2 H P 100 0.582 Complete – Now in maintenance phase

3 H R 100 1.370 Complete – Now in maintenance phase

4 MP P 75 5.321 60 native trees to be planted along northern boundary and road D (20m apart) Scheduled winter 2017

5 MP P 0 0.551 20 native trees along northern boundary (every 20m and 20m off fence) Scheduled winter 2017

6 H R 100 1.461 complete


8 MP R 100 0.721 complete

9 MP P 0 0.975 25 native trees along northern boundary (every 20m and 20m off fence) Scheduled winter 2017

10 H R 100 1.726 Complete

11 H R 100 0.436 Complete – Now in maintenance phase

12 MP P 50 0.687 8 native trees Scheduled winter 2017



15 MP P 0 0.802 15 native trees along access road Scheduled winter 2017

25


17 MP P 75 1.495 15 native trees along drainage line Scheduled spring 2016

18 H P 0 0.092 200 native trees Scheduled spring 2016

19 MP P 0 0.353 8 native trees along access road Scheduled spring 2016


21 MP P 0 0.883 15 native trees along drainage line Scheduled winter 2017


23 MP P 0 0.091 8 native trees along access road Scheduled winter 2017

24 MP R 100 0.259 Complete

25 H P 100 0.315 Complete - Now in maintenance phase

26 H P 0 1.929 100 native trees west of treed hill Scheduled winter 2017


28 H P 75 0.560 In-fill existing plantings- 100 native trees Scheduled winter 2017

29 MP P 100 0.355 Complete - Now in maintenance phase

30 MP R 100 0.306 Complete - Now in maintenance phase


32 MP P 0 0.279 30 native trees north of forest block Scheduled winter 2017

33 H P 0 1.252 1,000 native trees – completed July 2016




37 H P 0 0.248 100 native trees south of RMS drain Scheduled autumn 2017

38 H P 75 2.118 100 native trees to supplement existing plantings Scheduled autumn 2017

39 H P 0 2.471

350 native trees planted in clusters plus slash grasses in strips and rip and expose topsoil to promote regrowth Scheduled autumn 2017

40 H P 0 5.524


41 H P 0 1.835


42 H I Ongoing 0.270 As part of the ongoing habitat restoration program


44 H E Ongoing 1.531 As part of the ongoing habitat restoration program


26




















Table 4. Year 4 Habitat Restoration Results

4.4.4 Summary of Monitoring Results - Event Impact Monitoring (EIM)

FFB15/16 Birds

Event Impact Monitoring (EIM) for the reporting period began in early December 2015, with hot and dry conditions coinciding with significant cicada noise at most bird transects over the entire Falls sampling period, with cicadas often calling loudly before first light. The combination of cicada noise, noise from freeway traffic and ocean noise affected call detection: by masking bird calls in coastal Control transects, and by deterring birds from these locations. Lowest bird counts since the EIM began were recorded before the event in some coastal control transects due to intense cicada noise.

Despite this, total bird counts recorded in monitoring for Falls 2015-2016 were the highest in three years of monitoring. Bird counts increased across the before-during-after sampling period. Rose-crowned Fruit-dove was the only threatened species recorded.

Large scale herbicide application by NPWS staff in the BNR affected one Control transect, killing most ground layer vegetation over an 80m section of the 200 m transect. Bird counts at this site were similar to the 3 nearest coastal Control transects and thus were apparently unaffected.

SITG16 Birds

Bird counts recorded in monitoring for SITG16 were also the highest over four years of monitoring Splendour in the Grass events at Parklands. This was due to an abundant blossom resource with Broad-leaved Paperbark, Swamp Mahogany and Blackbutt heavily in flower at

27

the same time across the sampling area, and correspondingly high numbers of nectivorous birds observed exploiting this resource. Bird counts decreased across the before-during-after sampling period as the blossom resource declined. No threatened bird species was recorded.

FFB15/16 Bats

Total bat call counts for Falls were median values for the three years of monitoring with five threatened species recorded. Large-footed Myotis and Little Bent-wing Bat call numbers increased during the event, possibly exploiting insects attracted to event lighting.

SITG16 Bats

Total bat call counts for SITG16 were the lowest in three years of monitoring, while the species numbers were similar to previous years. Anabat equipment was interfered with at two of three monitoring sites, but this is likely to have had a minor effect on total call count numbers. Four threatened species were recorded, with the Large-footed Myotis and Eastern Bent-wing Bat call numbers increasing during the event, possibly exploiting insects attracted to event lighting.

Hair Funnel Data Falls and SITG

Hair funnel sampling produced similar results to previous monitoring, with Brown Antechinus dominating both event samples, and similar values before, during and after each event.

Other monitoring

Baseline Transect IM3B

Monitoring of transect IM3B in the most exposed forest block in the central event area recorded slightly below average values in Falls monitoring, to well above average bird and species counts in SITG 2016 monitoring, compared to average baseline (pre-2012) values.

Cameras

Evidence from cameras showing Swamp Wallabies active within the Marshall’s Ridges area also reveal patrons entering NBP through a culvert beneath the Tweed Valley Way.

Birds of the Plantings

Five opportunistically timed counts of birds in two planting areas during the reporting period increased the number of species recorded in these areas from 31 to 40 and included single records of the threatened Rose-crowned Fruit-dove and White-eared Monarch.

Opportunistic Observations Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail

The incidental discovery during bird surveys (by Graeme Lloyd) of a second shell of the endangered Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail Thersites mitchellae in Billinudgel Nature Reserve appears to be the third record for this species in the reserve. Threatened bird and bat species continue to be recorded from monitoring in Parklands and in Billinudgel Nature Reserve. The long history of forest clearing, fragmentation and trampling by cattle militates against the likelihood of MRS being found in the event areas. Repeated sampling of the IM3B transect since 2007, for example, has not resulted in detection of MRS. Threatened bird and bat species continue to be recorded from monitoring in Parklands and in Billinudgel Nature Reserve.

28

Dam Birds

Monitoring during Falls displayed the usual pattern of reduced numbers of waterbirds on the large dam during the event which returned to above average values in the second after count. Late after counts for SITG 2016 recorded lower than average counts.

Eastern Grass Owl

A pair of Eastern Grass Owls responded to call playback in tall grassland in the south of the site in July 2016, but no Eastern Grass Owls were detected in the central event area.

Impacts on vegetation: Photopoint Monitoring

Results of Photopoint Monitoring include trampling of grassland, but record no impacts on native vegetation.

Threatened flora or Endangered Ecological Communities

No evidence of damage to threatened flora or Endangered Ecological Communities beyond littering in the margins of central swamp sclerophyll blocks, largely bottles and cans. All Threatened plants are in good condition, with the exception of one planted Rough-shelled Bush-nut which needs further maintenance to reduce completion from grass, Lantana and wattles.

4.4.5 Flora and Fauna Trends

While Falls15/16 experienced a normal summer rainfall pattern, drier conditions were experienced later in the year, with the exception of a heavy rainfall event in June 2016 which caused localised flooding at the Parklands site and wider Northern Rivers region.

Event Area Characteristics

In the monitoring period reported, the event area was dominated by closely mown grass, gravel roads and regularly spaced built infrastructure: toilets and sheds. Species of tall rank grassland habitats such as Tawny Grassbird, Golden-headed Cisticolas, finches and Fairy-wrens have been replaced in these areas by species adapted to more open conditions such as Australasian Pipit, White-necked Heron, Straw-necked and Australian White Ibis, Masked Lapwing and Australian Magpies. Fairy Martens are roosting under a major drain crossing. Torresian Crows have been observed raiding rubbish bins immediately after events, and appear to have recognised the episodic presence of food resources at the site.

Outside Event Areas

Areas of vigorous eucalypt forest regeneration are developing around the margins of existing forest in the west of the site, north of Jones Road.

South of Jones Road, plantings and maintenance along Yelgun Creek are gradually restoring riparian habitats in an area surrounded by a large tract of closed grassland, recently occupied by threatened Eastern Grass Owls.

Transformation of previously variable pasture conditions has altered the structure of grassland habitats. Where a previous regime of cattle grazing produced temporally alternating variations from closely grazed to tall closed grassland habitats, recent management treatment has resulted in closely mown low open habitats, and habitats partially hardened by the deposition of sand and fill for roads and parking areas. Species of tall rank grassland habitats such as Tawny Grassbird, Golden-headed Cisticolas, finches and Fairy-wrens have been replaced in these areas by species adapted to more open conditions such as Australasian Pipit, White-necked Heron, Straw-necked and Australian White Ibis and Masked Lapwing.

29

Regional scale changes in Grey-headed Flying-fox abundance, and local fluctuations/declines in Koala, Swamp Wallaby and Bandicoot abundance are important background influences to be considered in evaluating monitoring data.

4.5 Community Grants Program

During the reporting period FFB15/16 contributed $12,000 to the Parklands Community Grants Fund. This year the following organisations received grant funding:

Byron Bay Community Centre ($15,000); and

Brunswick Heads Visitor Centre ($10,000)

More than $35,000 worth of tickets were provided to local community groups to for fundraising and raffles.

SITG16 also contributed $31,750 to the Parklands Community Grants Fund by way of a mutually agreed event ticket levy for distribution to a range of community, social, environmental and welfare projects within the local community. This year the following organisations were successful in receiving grant funding:

Mullumbimby & District Neighbourhood Centre (Mullumbimby & Byron Shire) - $8000;

Pottsville & District Men’s Shed (Pottsville) - $5000;

Mullumbimby Showground Trust (Mullumbimby) - $4750;

Brunswick Valley Meals on Wheels Service Inc. (Byron Shire) - $3500;

Crabbes Creek Primary School P&C Association (Crabbes Creek) - $2500;

Brunswick Nippers, Junior Surf life Saving Club (Brunswick Heads) - $2000;

Byron Youth Theatre (Ewingsdale) - $1000; and

Ocean Shores Primary School (Ocean Shores) - $5000. In addition to these contributions, tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of tickets were provided to charitable organisations and public schools to raise much needed funds through raffles and prizes. To date, since its inception in 2001, SITG has donated over $527,500 to community groups in the Northern Rivers & FFB over $47,500 since 2013.

5. Stakeholders This Section discusses the important interrelationships with various government, non-government and community stakeholders in addition to a briefing of the role and operations of the Regulatory Working Group and reports on complaint management.

5.1 Key Stakeholders

The success of the venue and the continued operation of cultural events rely heavily on initiating, nurturing and managing a range of diverse and important stakeholder relationships. Both Parklands and the events held at this venue have a wide variety of stakeholders who are interested in the management and operation of the venue. Figure 11 provides some of these key stakeholders:

30

Figure 11. Key Stakeholders

5.2 Regulatory Working Group (RWG)

5.2.1 Background

This section of the Performance Report has been prepared in consultation with the Chairman of the Regulatory Working Group. The RWG is constituted pursuant to Approval Conditions C2 and C3.

The Project Approval is complex, dealing with a trial-only approval that has wide-ranging technical aspects for an activity that is not a continuous operation, occurring, rather, several times each year. This is compounded by the overprinting of additional, and sometimes modified, Planning Assessment Commission conditions of approval (in response to public hearings) over the originally recommended conditions of approval by DP&E.

The RWG comprises a total of approximately 15 representatives nominated from its member groups, which include the proponent, State government organisations, Byron Shire Council, and community representatives. A chairman approved by DP&E coordinates the RWG.

31

In the period relevant to this Performance Report, two events (FFB15/16 and SITG16) were held at the site. These festivals represented the 4th large event (32,500 patrons) & the 3rd medium (20,000 patrons) event as defined in the Approval.

5.2.2 RWG Approval Conditions

Details of the RWG’s functions are provided in the Project Approval under Approval Conditions C2 and C3 listed below.

C2 Regulatory Working Group – constitution and role

The proponent must establish a Regulatory Working Group (RWG) to oversee the environmental performance of events during the trial period. The RWG must:

(a) comprise at least one (1) representative of the proponent, Office of Environment and Heritage, Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW Police, State Emergency Services, Rural Fire Service and Council, where these parties agree to be part of the RWG, or as otherwise agreed to by the Secretary;

(b) comprise at least two (2) representatives of the local community nominated by the Council. Community representatives are appointed on a rotational basis with a representative not exceeding two (2) years;

(c) be chaired by a chairperson, whose appointments approved by the Secretary;

(d) meet at least once prior to the first trial event to review the proposed management in relation to:

the Habitat Restoration Program;

the Marshalls Ridge wildlife corridor,

impacts on threatened species and endangered ecological communities;

monitoring protocols for preconstruction ecological surveying;

illegal camping;

litter;

provision of security services;

noise;

event traffic and car parking;

flooding;

bushfires; and,

evacuation procedures.

(e) meet to review the proponent’s performance with respect to environmental management and community relations for events held during a reporting period and where appropriate, make recommendations to the Secretary on measures or strategies to improve performance for future trial events;

(f) undertake periodic inspections of the site; and,

(g) review community concerns or complaints with respect to environmental management and community relations.

Note: The RWG is an advisory committee. The Department and other relevant agencies are responsible for ensuring that the proponent complies with this approval.

In summary, the RWG exists to assess specific aspects of trial events (e.g. acoustics, bushfire and traffic), to provide a forum for issues discussion, and to provide feedback where or if required to DP&E on aspects for improvement of events and their impacts in specified areas. A Terms of Reference exists for the operation of the RWG (refer Appendix J).

32

5.2.3 Meetings

During this reporting period a total of 2 meeting of the RWG were held on the following dates:

4th May 2016 (pre-SITG16 and post FFB15/16); and

28th September 2016 (pre-FFB16/17 and post SITG16)

RWG meetings have been well attended and given the long path to trial approval (which represented the level of community input and, in some cases, objection), the diversity of representatives and their specific areas of interest, meetings have proceeded in a constructive manner.

This input, and the well-attended meetings, have gradually improved the function and effectiveness of the RWG as acceptance of respective members’ roles and familiarity with the complexities of this evolving trial project have been built.

It is a firm objective of the proponent and the chairman to keep improving the effectiveness of the RWG by building community ownership, trust, and encouraging matters to be brought quickly to the RWG for attention.

Both the Terms of Reference (refer Appendix J) and the RWG minutes, once revised, are sent to DP&E and posted on Parklands website for interested stakeholders.

5.2.4 RWG Community Issues and Highlights

As discussed in earlier sections, the RWG meetings have been well attended by a broad range of stakeholders from State and local government, event operators, Parklands management, and community representatives.

In accordance with the trial approval, two community representatives are nominated by Council and appointed by Parklands to the RWG for a period of two years. These members of the local community have grasped the trial approval details and reports, and the community issues of external concern. Feedback on reports, dissemination of information, and the raising of community issues to the RWG via the Chair has been regular, detailed and useful. The involvement by the community representatives in the resolution of issues of relevance to them and those they seek to represent is an important function.

In many cases the recommendations of the community representatives have been adopted by Parklands and event managers, to the betterment of both report clarity and accuracy, and the management of event impacts.

The RWG met twice during this reporting period, in May and September 2016. As in previous years, the meetings were well attended and it was gratifying to note the Group continued to work constructively, and to the overall benefit of both the improved performance of events and several community issues. Feedback on draft reports and community concerns were given by the Community Representatives, which led to improvements in reporting and issue resolution on several matters. Noise impacts were significantly addressed, and remain the primary local community issue on which to focus improvements. The Project also enacted the modified conditions of Approval issued in April 2016 by the Planning Assessment Commission following the lodgement of a modification in 2015. Following a public process and substantial input from the Department of Planning and Environment and the proponent and the public, these modified conditions of Approval dealt, amongst other matters, with revised noise conditions and a two-zone system of noise limits surrounding the Parklands event site.

33

The revised approval conditions were enacted for Splendour in the Grass 2016, and where relevant, will apply to all subsequent events during the trial approval period. The RWG members, most relevantly, the two Community Representatives, integrated the modified approval conditions and all subsequent reports, especially noise and ecological reports pertaining to SITG16 and FFB15/6, into their representations on behalf of the community. SITG16 was held in July 2016, and recorded a significant reduction in noise complaints. The revised noise conditions, the presence of an acoustic engineer working alongside the community hotline staff and with direct communication to each stage, favourable weather conditions and significant efforts on behalf of the event operators were the primary reasons for this improvement. The efforts of the Parklands Community Manager in consulting with the local community and achieving tangible outcomes was evident and has been acknowledged by the RWG members. The RWG has evolved and continues to evolve as a useful forum for community issues to be raised and for improvements in events to be suggested and realised. Whilst not all recommendations and suggestions are accepted by the operators, many are, and an effective mechanism for the continuation of the RWG has been established due to the input of its members.

5.2.5 RWG Performance Report Review

This performance report was provided to RWG members in mid-December 2016 for comment. The report was delivered to the DP&E on 30th of December 2016.

5.3 Community Hotline

For FFB15/16 and SITG16 the Community Hotline was operated using the 02 6680 4049 telephone number which has remained the same for all 7 events to date. This hotline number was advertised by way of full-page advertisements in local papers 2 weeks prior to each event and for SITG16 was also included in a letterbox drop to approximately 3,000 residents in the north of Byron and south Tweed Shires. Additional to the wider resident letterbox drop, a local resident letterbox drop also took place to approximately 60 neighbouring properties communicating the Community Hotline number along with other event relevant information. The hotline number was also placed on the FFB, SITG and NBP websites.

In addition to the above communications with surrounding residents, complimentary tickets to FFB15/16 & SITG16 were provided to neighbours within close proximity to the venue (per the requirements of the NBP Community Management Standard). A total of 326 x three day festival passes were issued for FFB15/16 and 370 x three day passes for SITG16.

5.3.1 Community Hotline Analysis

Both events operated the dedicated community hotline during the event and included:

(a) a 24-hour telephone number on which complaints about events may be registered; (b) a postal address to which written complaints may be sent; and (c) an email address to which electronic complaints may be transmitted.

A Complaints Register was maintained and included the following details:

34

(a) the date and time of the complaint; (b) the means by which the complaint was made (eg. telephone, mail or email); (c) any personal details of the complainant that were provided; (d) the nature of the complaint; (e) any action(s) taken in relation to the complaint, including any follow-up contact made; (f) the date and time any action was taken in response to the complaint; and, (g) if no action was taken in relation to the complaint, the reason(s) why no action was taken.

5.3.1.1 FFB15/16

A total of 10 complaints were logged with the community hotline between Wednesday 30th of December 2015 and Sunday 3rd of January 2016. The total number of individual callers was 6 with 2 callers lodging 5 or 50% of the calls to the Community Hotline.

Of the 10 logged communications from residents, 1 of these was via email with the remaining 9 being made by phone. Of the total number of calls lodged with the community hotline for Falls Festival 2015/16 the following breakdown by type is provided in Figure 12 below:

Figure 12. FFB15/16 Community Hotline Calls By Type

For FFB14/15 a total of 48 calls were lodged by a total of 34 callers reflecting a significant reduction in calls or emails to the community hotline covering FFB15/16. Three reported illegal camping calls on the 2nd of January 2016 covering two separate locations were investigated by the Community Manager and identified as being clearly not festival related. The following chart in Figure 13 provides details of the number of complaints lodged each day.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Noise Internet Lighting Security Parking IllegalCamping

Fireworks Smoking

Calls to the Community Hotline for FFB15/16

2015/16

2014/15

35

Figure 13. FFB15/16 Community Hotline Calls By Day

Throughout the event a total of 7 noise related complaints were received by the Community Hotline with more calls being recorded on New Year’s Day (Friday Night) as seen in the chart above.

The significant reduction in calls to the community hotline demonstrates an improved track

record in noise management by the event. Over the past three events, FFB has continued a

strong continuous improvement pathway covering noise and the management team should be

commended. The FFB15/16 Community Hotline Register is located in Appendix J1.

5.3.1.2 SITG16

A total of 33 calls were logged with the community hotline between Wednesday 20th and Monday 25th of July 2016. Of the calls made, two calls were to provide information only (i.e. as advised by the caller).

The total number of callers was 23 with 6 residents lodging more than one call or email (ranging from 2 to 3 calls).

For SITG15 a total of 127 calls were lodged by a total of 98 callers reflecting an 81% reduction for SITG16 in calls or emails to the community hotline.

Of the total number of calls/emails lodged with the hotline for Splendour 2016 the following breakdown by type of issue is provided in Figure 14:

1

4

5

FFB15/16 Community Hotline Calls By Day

Wed 30th

Thu 31st

Fri 1st

Sat 2nd

Sun 3rd

36

Call/Email Issue by Type

SITG 2014

SITG 2015

SITG 2016

Figure 14. SITG16 Community Hotline Calls By Type

Figure 15 provides details of the number of calls/emails lodged each day.

Figure 15. SITG16 Community Hotline Calls By Day

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

TVre

cep

tio

n

No

ise

Inte

rnet

Ho

tlin

eac

cess

Mo

bile

rece

pti

on

Ru

bb

ish

Illeg

alP

arki

ng

Illeg

alC

amp

ing

12

12

5

SITG16 CommunityHotline Calls By Day

Thur 21st

Fri 22nd

Sat 23rd

Sun 24th

Mon 25th

37

A total of 20 requests for noise monitoring were made to the Community Hotline during

SITG16. In addition, a further 6 calls to the Community Hotline mentioned concerns about

amplified music from the event, although monitoring was not requested (even when offered).

The following outcomes for noise management were achieved during SITG16:

Day 1, 21 July 2016 – no calls to the Community Hotline;

Day 2, 22 July 2016 – 11 calls to the community hotline requesting noise monitoring; 1

result marginally exceeded the 63 Hz criteria (by 0.4 dB(A); after immediate

adjustment of front of house noise levels, the noise levels complied with the criterion.

All other results complied with the relevant criteria;

Day 3, 23 July 2016 – 2 calls to the Community Hotline requesting monitoring; all

results complied with the relevant criteria;

Day 4, 24 July 2016 – 3 calls to the Community Hotline requesting monitoring; all

results complied with the relevant criteria.

6 additional calls made to the Community Hotline, where amplified noise from the

event was mentioned as an issue, but monitoring was not requested (even when

offered):

o monitoring was completed at 2 positions as a result of these calls;

o for one of the calls a non-amplified noise source was identified as the cause of

the noise concern that had been raised.

An important outcome of the placement of an Acoustic Manager at the Venue Office in

conjunction with the Community Hotline Team, was the ability to provide live commentary to

callers to the Hotline about stage noise levels and any adjustments that were being made. This

information was provided by the Hotline personnel, and in some instances the caller

acknowledged that noise levels had just reduced and were more acceptable prior to finishing

the call.

The SITG16 Community Hotline Register is located in Appendix J2.

5.4 Immediate Neighbours

During the reporting period Parklands continued to work with immediate neighbours to identify opportunities to operate the venue in a manner that reduces unintended impacts. Communications have included pre and post event meetings, property visits (by Parklands) and contact via the Parklands Community Manager, emails and telephone calls.

Pleasingly agreements have been made with each adjoining neighbour to the venue except one. Such agreements have provided certainty to both the resident and Parklands and in the most part relationships with these neighbours continues to strengthen.

38

5.4.1 FFB15/16 Security

The following security measures were employed for immediate neighbours during FFB15/16:

DAY DATE LOCATION STAFF START FINISH

WED 30-Dec External roving in vehicle security – Tweed Valley Way & surrounding

1 1000 2230

Jones Road (Static position) – Soft Road Closure 1 0700 2200

Jones Road – Roving in vehicle 1 1000 2200

Northern Venue Boundary 5 1000 0230

THU 31-Dec Spine road south of tunnel 2 2200 0230

Jones Road south of house –end of Jones Road near trail 1 0800 0030

Jones Road (Static Position) – Soft road closure 1 0700 1800

Jones Road (Static Position) – 14 Jones Road / Slip Road 1 0800 1800

Jones Road (Static Position) – 14 Jones Road / Slip Road 1 1800 0800

North Jones Road 1 1000 1800


NPWS track 1 1000 1800


Dept. of Lands track 1 1000 1800


Top of Easy Street 1 1000 1800




Jones Road – Roving in Vehicle 1 0800 1800

Jones Road – Roving in Vehicle 1 1800 0030

Jones Road (Static Position) – 269 Jones Road 1 0800 1800

Jones Road (Static Position) – 269 Jones Road 1 1800 0800

FRI 1-Jan Spine road south of tunnel 1 2200 0000

Spine road south of tunnel 1 0000 0230

Jones road south of house – positioned end of Jones Rd near trail 1 0700 0000

Jones road south of house – positioned end of Jones Rd near trail 1 0000 0200

Jones Road (Static position) – Soft road closure 1 0800 0000

39


Jones Road (Static position) – Soft road closure 1 0000 0900

Jones Road (static position) – 14 Jones Rd / Slip road 1 0800 0000

Jones Road (static position) – 14 Jones Rd / Slip road 1 0000 0800





Top of easy street 1 1000 2200

Northern Venue boundary 5 0800 0000


Jones Rd – Roving in vehicle 1 0800 0000

Jones Rd – Roving in vehicle 1 0000 0230

Jones Rd (Static position) – 269 Jones Road 1 0800 0000

Jones Rd (Static position) –269 Jones Road 1 0000 0800

SAT 2-Jan Spine Road south of tunnel 1 0200 0230

Jones Road south of house –end of Jones Road near trail 1 0800 0230

Jones Road (static position) – Soft road closure 1 0700 2200

Jones Road (static position) – 14 Jones Road / Slip Road 1 0800 0800


NPWS Track 1 1000 2200


Top of Easy St. 1 0100 2200



Jones Road (static position) – 269 Jones Road 1 0800 0800

SUN 3-Jan External roving in vehicle security – Tweed Valley Way & surrounding

1 0900 1300


Jones Road (static position) – Soft road closure 1 0800 1400

Table 5. FFB15/16 External Security

40

5.4.2 SITG16 Security

The following security measures were employed for immediate neighbours during SITG16:


WED 20-Jul Jones Road – Roving in vehicle 1 1000 2200

Jones Road (Static position) – 269 Jones Road 1 1000 0700

Jones Road (Static position) –14 Jones Road 1 0900 0000

Jones Road – Quarry Trail (Static position) 1 0900 0000

THU 21-Jul Jones Road Cane Pad (Static position) 1 0700 0030




TVW Entry to cole tunnel 1 1000 2200

Wooyung Road entry to Foster house 1 1000 2200


Dept of Lands Track 1 1000 2200



Jones Road – Quarry trail (Static position) 1 1000 2200

FRI 22-Jul Jones Road Cane Pad (Static position) 1 0700 0230











SAT 23-Jul Jones Road Cane Pad (Static position) 1 0700 0230



41






Dept of Lands Track (Bev’s house) 1 1000 2200




SUN 24-Jul Jones Road Cane Pad (Static position) 1 0700 0230











MON 25-Jul Jones Road Cane Pad (Static position) 1 0700 1430


Jones Road (Static position) – 269 Jones Road 1 0700 1700

Table 6. SITG16 Security

42

6.0 Conclusion Performance results by both events during the reporting period clearly reflects the willingness of each event to implement changes, refinements and entirely new management processes to improve outcomes across a range of key performance indicators.

Most notably, are the control regimes surrounding noise management which have resulted in a spectacular reduction in calls by community members to the community hotline. As the primary externality, this is an important achievement and one which the community no doubt has strong expectations will carry forward with all future events. ANE, the acoustic monitoring firm for both events commented in SITG16’s noise impact report that “The deployment of extensive additional noise management resources for SITG16 sets a new benchmark for noise management when compared to the management measures adopted for other festivals and major concerts in Australia. This demonstrates the commitment of Parklands to effective noise management of the activities at this important entertainment venue, and provides a framework for the noise management of future events.”

Monitoring of flora and fauna in the fourth year of operation at Parklands provided more than 6,470 records of greater than 90 species of birds and 4,981 records of more than 20 species of microchiropteran bats. Bird counts during monitoring for both events were the highest recorded in 4 years of monitoring.

Monitoring of events has once again concluded that no significant adverse effects on flora, threatened flora species or Endangered Ecological Communities of the site were detected as a consequence of the two events.

A number of changes to traffic management plans as a result of an increasing trend of local patrons being dropped off and collected at events, coupled with the rise in popularity of Uber transport services have been implemented and provided effective (i.e. congestion experienced at SITG16 was resolved by the Sunday of this event). Such lessons will be permanently carried forward to all future events.

It should be clearly stated that the performance achieved by events to date has been done so using venue infrastructure built for the trial period. Parklands is working with Byron Shire Council, the Department of Planning and Environment and other regulatory agencies to secure permanent approval and it is planned that once such approval is granted, Parklands will be better positioned to construct and install world-class facilities above and beyond what has already been established.

Parklands will continue to work with the broad cross section of stakeholders that it regularly engages with to ensure that all future events continue to operate at the highest level.

43

This page has intentionally been left blank

44

Appendix A - EHSMM Compliance Tables

45

Appendix B1 - Environmental Performance Report

46

Appendix B2 - Results and Analyses of Event Impact Monitoring Data

47

Appendix B3 – FFB15/16 Permanent Photo Point Vegetation Assessment

48

Appendix B4 – SITG16 Permanent Photo Point Vegetation Assessment

49

Appendix B5 – Habitat Restoration Report 2015/16

50

Appendix C1 – FFB15/16 Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan

51

Appendix C2 - SITG16 Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan

52

Appendix D - Event Approval Condition

53

Appendix E1 – FFB15/16 Traffic Evaluation Report

Appendix E2 – SITG16 Traffic Evaluation Report

55

Appendix F1 – FFB15/16 Noise Management Plan

56

Appendix F2 – SITG16 Noise Management Plan

57

Appendix G1 – FFB15/16 Acoustic Monitoring Program

58

Appendix G2 – SITG16 Acoustic Monitoring Program

59

Appendix H1 – FFB15/16 Noise Impact Report

60

Appendix H2 – SITG16 Noise Impact Report

61

Appendix I – RWG Terms of Reference

62

Appendix J1 – FFB15/16 Community Hotline Register

63

Appendix J2 – SITG16 Community Hotline Register

performance report #4ipcn.nsw.gov.au/resources/pac/media/files/pac/projects... · 2017. 8. 21. ·...

Documents