Look, I actually support the fact that they need to undergo a DA process. Given the debacle that was hair-raiser, and the risk it could have been pulled down if the approvals didn't come through, not because of the complaints but simply because it didn't follow the process.
Going through the DA \ BA (as appropriate) process is the same for anyone building \ developing something new - as we've seen with such mundane constructions as 'new food outlet' and 'new multipurpose shed' on the gold coast parks.
Clearly, given the previous court rulings on noise, residents can't object to noise (they can, but they won't get very far). However the park has the protection it has because of the historic and heritage nature of the park. If they were to suddenly install something unsuited to the amenity of the park and the area, and unsuited to the heritage nature of the park - what or who would stop them?
What's to stop Brookfield slowly replacing each attraction with something modern, completely different and worth a fortune in revenue? They built hair raiser without going through any process - what could they have done instead, and then had to pull it all down later?
the developer is having a cry because they thought they had carte blanche, and they don't. they thought they'd been given the golden key to the city to bypass all those balances, and now they're finding out that they don't. I don't know about you, but I'm quite happy that such an icon will continue to have a few checks in place when it is completely controlled by a developer (who, I'm quite certain, once built some of the high rises that house their loudest opponents).