Luna Park Sydney's expansion

[BringADecentParkToSydney]

2 hours ago, 19Michael96 said:

Any chance of accessing this story or is it long gone now? If not, I usually go down to the park on Saturdays and take photos of the progress so I'll try and do that again this week; I've been posting the updates done to the Rotor on the Old Sydney Album Facebook page.

Yeah I checked earlier and had no luck (Sorry!)

It was only one pic of it, but from what I remember, it was basically just a 3D version of whatever the 2D facade was. None the less I still think it looked snazzy but I’ll let you be the judge haha.

[19Michael96]

2 hours ago, Nimble said:

The one thing I want the park to do though, is remove the Big Top. It takes up most of the park, and that means there are not many rides. It looks like there is enough room for a smaller concert hall in Maloney's corner. The area that the Big Top takes up will fit those rides and more!

 

Ohhhhhhh.... Oh I'm afraid that's not happening. Oh at all.

[jjuttp]

2 hours ago, Nimble said:

The one thing I want the park to do though, is remove the Big Top.

Yeah. Nah. Not happening for a long time. It brings in too much business to fill 1 fanboys need for more HUSS contraptions.

[BringADecentParkToSydney]

2 hours ago, 19Michael96 said:

Any chance of accessing this story or is it long gone now? If not, I usually go down to the park on Saturdays and take photos of the progress so I'll try and do that again this week; I've been posting the updates done to the Rotor on the Old Sydney Album Facebook page.

Actually I take that back - I just searched around hashtags on Instagram and was able to find a shot of it. (I'll attach the image here)

The first two photos are the BEFORE and the third photo is what it looks like now.

Enjoy

 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

12 hours ago, Nimble said:

The one thing I want the park to do though, is remove the Big Top. It takes up most of the park, and that means there are not many rides. It looks like there is enough room for a smaller concert hall in Maloney's corner. The area that the Big Top takes up will fit those rides and more!

As has been said, big top won't go anywhere. As both an event space, and a licensed venue, I daresay provided it receives regular usage, it would make more money in a night (for less cost) than a typical weekend of rides.

I used to work for a company that had the in-house contract for AV in that space, and the value of JUST the AV component of the events they hosted there told me everything I need to know about how important that space is to the park.

[ParkerJ]

I've been watching the refurbishments at Luna for the past few years. I love the level of detail they're going to with their work. Very well considered and are developing their own unique style and keeping it all spot on brand. In a time where many parks are losing focus on their identity and franticly following brief trends and creating patchwork themes, Luna is probably the shining light from what i've seen.

 

[19Michael96]

18 hours ago, BringADecentParkToSydney said:

Actually I take that back - I just searched around hashtags on Instagram and was able to find a shot of it. (I'll attach the image here)

The first two photos are the BEFORE and the third photo is what it looks like now.

Enjoy

 

HOLY SHIT!! WOW!! THAT IS AMAZING!! I didn't know they were doing that work this week!! GORGEOUS!! I HAVE to check this out in person!! Just... DAMN!! Hope they make the rest of the murals 3D for consistency.

[Nimble]

11 hours ago, AlexB said:

As has been said, big top won't go anywhere. As both an event space, and a licensed venue, I daresay provided it receives regular usage, it would make more money in a night (for less cost) than a typical weekend of rides.

I used to work for a company that had the in-house contract for AV in that space, and the value of JUST the AV component of the events they hosted there told me everything I need to know about how important that space is to the park.

Yeah, it was only a wish.. Another thing that could be done is remove the picnic area at Maloney's Coner. I doubt that will happen though, since there are many charity venues there. Anyway, there is still the Chrystal Palace.

 

21 hours ago, BringADecentParkToSydney said:

 

Woah! The things they can do in just 2 months is amazing!

[Jobe]

3 hours ago, Nimble said:

Yeah, it was only a wish.. Another thing that could be done is remove the picnic area at Maloney's Coner. I doubt that will happen though, since there are many charity venues there. Anyway, there is still the Chrystal Palace

Whoa!!! You are not suggesting that they remove the Crystal Palace  are you??

[Nimble]

8 hours ago, Jobe said:

Whoa!!! You are not suggesting that they remove the Crystal Palace  are you??

No! I know that the Palace is Heritage Listed! What I mean is they can just use the building for functions, leaving the picnic area for more rides.

[19Michael96]

Here's something that might be of interest:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/north-shore-luna-park-fairground-rides-20180906-p5027d.html

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Honestly i'm getting  a little sick of LPS's position on this. Every other theme park needs a DA for construction and relocation of major installs. Why should they be exempt?

The courts have ruled on the noise issues, so it should be a simple matter that any objection to the development on the basis of noise or lighting should be promptly disregarded provided the developer has submitted the relevant studies showing that no increase beyond that covered by the case law exists.

There are other reasons to object, but likewise - the approving body should have as much regard to them as is relevant based on the previous decisions. As a large property developer, Brookfield should have the knowledge, the expertise, and the cash to go through the process that everyone else does.

[19Michael96]

11 hours ago, AlexB said:

Honestly i'm getting  a little sick of LPS's position on this. Every other theme park needs a DA for construction and relocation of major installs. Why should they be exempt?

The courts have ruled on the noise issues, so it should be a simple matter that any objection to the development on the basis of noise or lighting should be promptly disregarded provided the developer has submitted the relevant studies showing that no increase beyond that covered by the case law exists.

There are other reasons to object, but likewise - the approving body should have as much regard to them as is relevant based on the previous decisions. As a large property developer, Brookfield should have the knowledge, the expertise, and the cash to go through the process that everyone else does.

Previously I would've agreed with you but @Jobe brought up these points to me on Facebook:

 I personally think that AlexB is incorrect. This is a totally different situation than what has occurred in other theme parks. It’s unique. As long as the park complies with the noise levels within their operating envelope then this does amount to a restriction of trade. It’s another mountain that the park has to climb that they should NOT have to.

the legislation was put in place to protect the park from this sort of nuisance claims. This interpretation is a new view and goes against the spirit of what it was originally put in the first place. The park has complied with everything that has been asked of them and now they want to invest in $20’million worth of new attractions and this occurs. It’s not equitable.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Legislation? ok. First the Luna act:

Quote

6F Planning Act not affected

This Part does not limit or otherwise affect the operation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or any instrument under that Act in its application to land comprising any part of the Luna Park site.

 

Quote

19A Legal proceedings and other noise abatement action

(1) No criminal proceedings, no civil proceedings (whether at law or in equity) and no noise abatement action may be taken against any person with respect to the emission of noise from the Luna Park site.

(2) The emission of noise from the Luna Park site does not constitute a public or private nuisance.

(3) This section does not apply to or in respect of noise that exceeds the maximum permissible noise level at the closest residential facade.

(4) This section does not limit or otherwise affect the operation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (other than section 121B) or any instrument under that Act in its application to land comprising any part of the Luna Park site.

Quote

(1) Any use of land within the Luna Park site that was an authorised use or dedicated use at any time during the relevant period is taken to have been such a use:

(a) regardless of the noise arising from the use, or the combined noise arising from all or any such uses, at that time, and

(b) regardless of any maximum noise level to which the use was subject, pursuant to the conditions of any development consent, at that time.

And from the EPAA 1979:

Quote

."development application" means an application for consent under Part 4 to carry out development but does not include an application for a complying development certificate."development area" means land constituted as a development area in accordance with Division 7.3."development consent" means consent under Part 4 to carry out development and includes, unless expressly excluded, a complying development certificate.

Quote

."building" includes part of a building, and also includes any structure or part of a structure (including any temporary structure or part of a temporary structure), but does not include a manufactured home, moveable dwelling or associated structure within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993.

Quote

Meaning of "development"

(cf previous s 4)

 

(1) For the purposes of this Act, "development" is any of the following:

(a) the use of land,

(b) the subdivision of land,

(c) the erection of a building,

(d) the carrying out of a work,

(e) the demolition of a building or work,

(f) any other act, matter or thing that may be controlled by an environmental planning instrument.

I'll leave it there.

My understanding of Brookfield's argument was that they built Hair Raiser without a DA because they claimed it didn't meet the definition of a 'building' - however the last two quotes above from the EPAA show clearly that it includes 'any structure', and a development includes the 'erection of a building' - ergo - 'the erection of any structure' - for which hair raiser was.

I'm quite happy for you to counter with any legislation you believe is contrary to these points above.

 

Among other things, the EPAA's objects include:

• to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage (including Aboriginal cultural heritage),
• to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants,
• to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land,

I could go on but I won't.

The point is - ANYONE wishing to build something of the nature of a ride SHOULD be required to submit a DA. It is NOT the purpose of a DA to give a platform to NIMBY residents. The legislation on noise, and noise abatement, and the regulations that Luna is required to operate within is clear, as is the legislation specifically stating that complaints about noise within the limits of the development consent cannot be made.

But if an attraction, ride, structure or other development within Luna was built without development consent, there would be no baseline on what noise is permissible, what light pollution is permissible. Without the development consent, there is no protection from complaint.

So in order to continue to have the protection of the legislation, Luna must submit to a development application, like EVERY OTHER FUCKING PERSON WANTING TO BUILD SOMETHING within the definitions of the EPAA legislation.

 

I want LPS to succeed. I want them to build new things to keep people interested in the park and to keep the park profitable. But I do not want them to be free to install whatever they want - the installations need to conform with the historic nature of the park. Can you imagine if they constructed a ToT style ride, with a giant monstrosity of a tower in Maloney's corner, and a track running the length of the boardwalk? The noise of which (that we know from DW) would be unbearable for all, and ruin the amenity of the park.

If your view stands, that a DA isn't required, nothing would prevent them from installing ToT and GD. Nobody wants that.

[Jobe]

On 20/09/2018 at 8:36 AM, AlexB said:

Legislation? ok. First the Luna act:

 

And from the EPAA 1979:

I'll leave it there.

My understanding of Brookfield's argument was that they built Hair Raiser without a DA because they claimed it didn't meet the definition of a 'building' - however the last two quotes above from the EPAA show clearly that it includes 'any structure', and a development includes the 'erection of a building' - ergo - 'the erection of any structure' - for which hair raiser was.

I'm quite happy for you to counter with any legislation you believe is contrary to these points above.

 

Among other things, the EPAA's objects include:

• to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage (including Aboriginal cultural heritage),
• to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants,
• to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land,

I could go on but I won't.

The point is - ANYONE wishing to build something of the nature of a ride SHOULD be required to submit a DA. It is NOT the purpose of a DA to give a platform to NIMBY residents. The legislation on noise, and noise abatement, and the regulations that Luna is required to operate within is clear, as is the legislation specifically stating that complaints about noise within the limits of the development consent cannot be made.

But if an attraction, ride, structure or other development within Luna was built without development consent, there would be no baseline on what noise is permissible, what light pollution is permissible. Without the development consent, there is no protection from complaint.

So in order to continue to have the protection of the legislation, Luna must submit to a development application, like EVERY OTHER FUCKING PERSON WANTING TO BUILD SOMETHING within the definitions of the EPAA legislation.

 

I want LPS to succeed. I want them to build new things to keep people interested in the park and to keep the park profitable. But I do not want them to be free to install whatever they want - the installations need to conform with the historic nature of the park. Can you imagine if they constructed a ToT style ride, with a giant monstrosity of a tower in Maloney's corner, and a track running the length of the boardwalk? The noise of which (that we know from DW) would be unbearable for all, and ruin the amenity of the park.

If your view stands, that a DA isn't required, nothing would prevent them from installing ToT and GD. Nobody wants that.

Well. Its unfortunate that a view of mine that was aired in another forum was posted here but it is what it is.  Your posting, is as always, fairly thorough , in explaining your view. Its one perception and an interpretation from what you posted  but that's not where it ends.  However , for mine, and of course for the management and owners Luna Park Sydney, there is another , differing viewpoint.

Luna Park has operated since 1935 and during all that time (apart from the time the Park was closed in the 1980’s and 90’s); rides have been brought in, moved around and taken away. 

In 1990 the first Plan of Management, after extensive public consultation, confirmed Luna Park should continue as an amusement park. A number of development approvals were granted by North Sydney Council in the early 1990’s including the ability to bring rides in from time to time.

In 1996 after the Park closed, a new Plan of Management was finalised in 1998 after extensive public consultation. Once again it confirmed the site should remain as a viable amusement park.

In early 2000 a number of staged development approvals were granted, covering noise, light, hours of operation and ability to introduce new rides, move rides around and remove rides, excluding heritage rides

The recent court decision found that approval had been granted to deal with rides but due to poor drafting further development approval is still required every time a ride (including even inflatables!) are brought into the Park.

This was not what the operators of the Park nor the original Development Approvals granted in 2000 had been agreed upon. The problem lies in the current interpretation of the Development Approvals covering the ability to bring in new rides. Luna Park understands that any new ride must comply with the rules and restrictions set out in the 2000 Development Approvals, and have strictly adhered to this as stated in their accords. However, the the poor drafting and ambiguous text of the last Development Approvals has led to the issue we currently have and the differing interpretations ( right or wrong). Luna Park certainly has history showing that they can introduce new rides into the park, or move them around, without the need for a Development application in each case. Case in point is every seasonal ride that is erected and brought into the park for up to 6-8 weeks of the year since the 2004 reopening.

Now I am not a lawyer, and neither are you, so we can all have our viewpoints on this same situation. However , until a definitive ruling is handed down, it just becomes a matter of clarification.

One thing that I can definitively say is incorrect is your analysis that the park are free to install whatever they want. The historic rides and their locations are protected and are unable to be touched in the manner that you intimate. The park operators run the park on the knowledge that these attractions must be  maintained to a set high standard and they cannot be removed or displaced in any way.

The park also will not build anything that is out of character with the rest of the park. Every ride they install must fit into their overall vision of what the park stands for. Examples of this are the latest improvements to the Rotor, the awesome 3D facades under the Wild Mouse ( as pictured above) and the refurbishment of the Light House Cafe into the brilliant looking Helter Skelter Tower. Yes the park is in dire need of new rides and attractions  but they also know that they have very finicky and troublesome neighbours to deal with. Sadly the days of large coasters coming to LPS  ( as much as I would love to see one) are a dead dream. Plus this also goes against the DA's that were set down as mentioned above, as a ride of this nature would operate outside of the operating park envelope as set out in the conditions.  This is the reason that the Hair Raiser is as tall as it is- LPS know and understand that while they have the ability to introduce new rides and attractions, they also understand they need to be reasonable neighbours to the nearby residents and NOT install anything that would be considered controversial. So the fear of LPS installing a Tower of Terror ride with a huge Giant Drop are definitely unfounded.

LPS are campaigning to the state government to review this decision. Until then, this has delayed the $20 million ride investment as announced in March 2017.

Luna Park certainly has strong support from the public on this issue ( a petition of over 5,000 signatures is being readied to present to the state govt) and on their recent tours, Pink and Katy Perry offered messages of support for the park, eliciting their love and fondness for the "place with the big face" across the harbour. 

A Sydney poll conducted for the park by YouGov Galaxy showed 85 per cent of those surveyed think it's important for the park to continue to operate viably.

A further 89 per cent supported the previous planning laws and 63 per cent thought the new rules are "unfair".

Of course , this is only public support and nothing is legally binding, but it is encouraging to see that generally , the park is seen in a positive light by the people of Sydney.

I am sure this setback will sort itself out, and one way or another, the park will continue to grow and to thrive. Its just my opinion, that this is a setback the park does not really need. I am sure they will over come this latest challenge.

 

 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Thanks Jobe for the well reasoned and thought out response.

Firstly, i'm curious as to what external forum has raised my thoughts as a discussion point? care to share?

As for the park's history of rides in, out and moved around, if it is a mobile (trailer mounted) ride, or an inflatable, it shouldn't require it - it shouldn't meet the definition of a 'structure' in that context. Luna should be free to engage temporary rides so long as they retain that character - temporary.

Unfortunately, historic approvals don't get to stand in ad infinitem. Later revisions, legislative changes, and even the administering body can change. If I recall (and i'm not the LPS buff you are) the North Sydney Council don't exist, and even so, the park now falls under state approval... please correct me if i'm wrong.

If that is accurate, then the previous approvals granted by the former council don't have to be upheld or enforced by the current administering bodies where their own policies or legislation say otherwise.

The fact that public opinion, studies or polls indicate the park should remain viable as an amusement park doesn't mean the normal rules don't apply. The public wants it to stay - great - that should ensure the park is profitable due to the number of people who wish to visit it. Public opinion doesn't exempt them from following the same rules everyone else does.

It's an interesting point you make regarding 'poor drafting'. It happens a lot more than you realise, where legislators don't envisage a particular mischief when writing the law - and this is why courts are relied upon to make determinations on how the legislation should be read.

Where a court determines legislation should be interpreted in a way that the government does not want, they then can use that court's guidance to amend the legislation to correct it... but we should not be bemoaning a poorly drafted document and stomping our foot that it's been interpreted wrongly - if it has in fact been interpreted incorrectly, then the government who enacted the legislation should step in and change it. If they don't, its indicative that the government accepts the court's interpretation - even if it means that the legislation isn't operating how people thought it would.

As for my statement that the park could install 'whatever they want' - to be clear I had meant that conditional to the knowledge that they couldn't hurt the current heritage requirements. If the position is correct, that a DA is not required, there is technically nothing preventing them from installing a ToT ride down the boardwalk, provided it doesn't interfere with the heritage aspects of the park. It could IN THEORY be done if the park required no oversight to bring a ride in.

Yes, they do a lot to try and keep the park's aesthetic, and do the right thing, but protections need to be in place to ensure oversight is present, as an unscrupulous operator COULD theoretically install anything they wanted if nobody was watching over them. Just because they wouldn't, doesn't mean that they couldn't.

It's not surprising that the park has been able to bring temporary attractions in for over a decade, and its interesting that the recent decisions have indicated that they require a DA for these temporary attractions - as clearly nobody else thought that was an issue for more than 10 years - including the NIMBY neighbours... otherwise its an issue that would have been pulled up much earlier.

 

I fully support the park operator campaigning to have the decision overturned either by elevation to a higher court, or by enacting amended legislation to permit them to continue their good work with as little red tape as possible - however the park has had notice for a long time now that they would need to apply for a DA for the new ride, and nothing has stopped them from submitted a DA application in the interim, whilst they fight the decision. If the DA were approved, they could be building now in conformance with the current views, whilst campaigning to change those views for future attractions. The delayed ride at this point is all their own doing.

As for 63 percent of people thinking the current decision is 'unfair' - this is likely because they don't understand why the law stands as it has been interpreted. Every person who gets a speeding ticket thinks its unfair. That doesn't mean that their view is the correct one. In general it just means the public at large aren't educated enough on the reasons why.

[19Michael96]

https://www.facebook.com/7newssydney/videos/328781931261952/

Oh wow.....  This is..... (dramatic pause).....    this is not good.

Edited September 28, 2018 by 19Michael96

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 28/09/2018 at 7:27 PM, 19Michael96 said:

https://www.facebook.com/7newssydney/videos/328781931261952/

Oh wow.....  This is..... (dramatic pause).....    this is not good.

The final line is the important one - planning officials are in talks for future operations...

[19Michael96]

Renovation updates: Went down to the park again today to check out some of the progress they've made on the Wild Mouse Structure.

As you can see, it's a MASSIVE improvement to what it looked like before.

 

The awning near the cafe has also been redecorated in order to fit with the circus tent theming.

 

\

In addition, after months of repair, the Tango Train is once again up and running. But something bugged me about it; they never took the opportunity to finish off painting the office! I was told a year ago that painting would be finished once the TT went into maintenance:

Come a year later and jack shit has happened. How come?

 

Anyway, that's all that's been happening so far, can't really do much more atm but it's better than nothing.

[HussRainbow87]

What a load of junk that SBF Matterhorn is... honestly, they should have spent money keeping the Mack ride running!

Interesting to see what will happen with bringing in temporary rides. A major travelling ride was supposed to go in for a while, but with all the drama going on, Luna Park put a stop to that. Kinda glad to be honest.

[19Michael96]

On 08/10/2018 at 10:19 PM, HussRainbow87 said:

What a load of junk that SBF Matterhorn is... honestly, they should have spent money keeping the Mack ride running!

I............................     I got nothin'; this pic sums up my response.

[HussRainbow87]

Sorry but it’s true. They’re never going to get the lifespan out of that SBF that they did with the Mack model. It’s not even that old and having issues. Ok. Great investment. And that image... even Aja knows the ride is junk. 

Edited October 11, 2018 by HussRainbow87

[Nimble]

I recently went to the park, and during the TT maintenance, they never got around to CLEANING the ride, since I saw some gum stuck to the edge of the seat. (It could be new though) I also noticed some dust on the middle "sheet" part of the ride, and it seemed bumpier than usual (I do not know if it was only for that one ride..)

[Wil_i_am_not]

I've only ridden the SBF  Tango Train once, and although I thought it was a fun ride with some nice forces, it seemed a hell of a lot rougher than the Mack Tango that I had ridden probably the year before. Granted, maybe I had a bad ride on the thing? But at the time for a 6-month old ride, it seemed way too bumpy. 

I also think they should have invested on refurbishing the Mack model, however there could have been some external factors that resulted in us getting a new Tango Train, maybe it was deemed too expensive and simply buying a new one (keep in mind from a relatively cheap manufacturer) would be more viable?

[19Michael96]

On 12/10/2018 at 9:23 PM, Wil_i_am_not said:

Maybe it was deemed too expensive and simply buying a new one (keep in mind from a relatively cheap manufacturer) would be more viable?

Ding ding ding points for everybody.