Luna Park Sydney's expansion

[Nimble]

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

 

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

I heard that the original ride was getting too old, since it opened in the 1980s as "The Love Express". 

 

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?

But this is what LPS is doing now. Look at the carousel. It went from being a beautiful hand-crafted steam-powered carousel to being a fibreglass, factory-made one with digital speakers as it's "organs".

[XxMrYoshixX]

3 hours ago, Nimble said:

I heard that the original ride was getting too old, since it opened in the 1980s as "The Love Express". 

Yes, the original ride was more than 30 years old and did break down a lot in its last years, but there are many Mack Music expresses of similar ages to Luna Park's example that are still running. The reason the original ride closed was because it boiled down to maintenance costs - it cost too much to repair a ride that broke down often, which could instead be spent on buying a cheap factory new example. Unfortunately the park didn't do much research before purchasing as it doesn't take a lot to realise that crappy Italian built rides aren't exactly all that reliable, they're not going to get 30 years out of it compared to the Mack model.

[Jamberoo Fan]

From The Sydney Morning Herald:

Quote

Luna Park secured after planning changes ensure rides for Christmas

The future of Luna Park seems to have been secured after the state government said it would amend planning laws to make it easier for operators to install new rides and amusements.

The operators of the historic Milsons Point amusement park had warned the business may not survive, after a Land and Environment Court decision that determined they must lodge a development application each time they moved or replaced a ride.

But state authorities have proposed planning changes that would allow the operators to make adjustments to rides using streamlined processes that do not require development applications.

The changes should mean that Luna Park can add more rides ahead of the Christmas holidays.

Alison Frame, a deputy secretary at the Department of Planning and Environment, said the Land and Environment Court ruling had clarified how the Park should operate, but that clarification “may have come too late to allow for any new rides to be in place by Christmas”.

The proposed new policy “would ensure families and visitors can have a great time at Luna Park this Christmas whilst not changing existing considerations regarding safety, noise, lighting and heritage protections,” she said.

The Court ruling had the effect of making it difficult to install temporary rides and amusements, as the operators of the park had done more than 200 times over the past 12 years.

But the government’s policy, which will be on exhibition until November 9, also aims to strike a balance with the concerns of locals in Milsons Point, where the amusement park has operated since 1935.

The changes would amend the State Environmental Planning Policy on state significant developments. It would introduce categories of exempt and complying development within parts of Luna Park land.

Exempt development does not require development approval. Complying development can be undertaken after a determination by an accredited certifier.

“Exempt and complying development will need to meet standards that set out height, operational and location-specific parameters, and any development will also need to continue to comply with broader heritage, noise and lighting controls that already apply to the site,” Ms Frame said.

A spokesman for Luna Park Sydney said the company welcomed the proposals.

“The future of the park, which first opened its doors in the 1930s and attracts more than 1 million local and overseas visitors a year, has been under a cloud following the NSW Land and Environment Court’s decision in July,” the spokesman said.

“If approved, the proposed amendments to the SEPP will help ensure the long-term survival of Luna Park as a viable business – and as one of Australia’s most loved destinations,” he said.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said park operators had installed temporary rides and amusements more than 200 times over the past 12 weeks, not years.

The exhibition of the new NSW Government policy can be found here.

The big question is how will other New South Wales theme parks react? Luna Park Sydney is being treated differently from the rest of New South Wales' theme parks even if Luna Park Sydney is the most attended and iconic theme park in New South Wales.

Jamberoo's Kangaroo Island expansion had a lengthy development application process lasting about 5 years and a few court cases mainly due to nearby residents being unhappy with the colours of the waterslides. Should Jamberoo be allowed to receive 'exempt development' on temporary rides as well?

Edited October 14, 2018 by Jamberoo Fan

[19Michael96]

8 hours ago, Nimble said:

I heard that the original ride was getting too old, since it opened in the 1980s as "The Love Express".

That was a different model. But yeah, the MACK ride was also built in the 1980's. Travelled the country before settling into Darling Harbour from 1988-1994, then LPS from 1995-2016. 

4 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

Should Jamberoo be allowed to receive 'exempt development' on temporary rides as well?

They could. But I didn't think Jamberoo did temporary rides.

[Nimble]

4 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

The big question is how will other New South Wales theme parks react? Luna Park Sydney is being treated differently from the rest of New South Wales' theme parks even if Luna Park Sydney is the most attended and iconic theme park in New South Wales.

I think it's just being treated like this because of it's heritage, and people are sometimes idiots

[BringADecentParkToSydney]

9 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

The changes should mean that Luna Park can add more rides ahead of the Christmas holidays.

 

Is this referring to temporary rides, or could this be the possibility of the chair swing ride being open by then?

[Mc coaster]

Just now, BringADecentParkToSydney said:

Is this referring to temporary rides, or could this be the possibility of the chair swing ride being open by then?

Well I assume temporary rides.

[19Michael96]

1 hour ago, BringADecentParkToSydney said:

Is this referring to temporary rides, or could this be the possibility of the chair swing ride being open by then?

Well I was at the park on Saturday and I did see some tents on the old Flying Saucer site where the Flying Carousel is proposed to be. Could be for something completely different though. I also noticed they were beginning to pack up their "Save Luna Park" tent.

[BringADecentParkToSydney]

4 minutes ago, 19Michael96 said:

Well I was at the park on Saturday and I did see some tents on the old Flying Saucer site where the Flying Carousel is proposed to be. Could be for something completely different though. I also noticed they were beginning to pack up their "Save Luna Park" tent.

Oh the tent on the flying saucer area would be for the Halloscream event (it’s one of the houses)

 

They had one there last year too. 

Edited October 14, 2018 by BringADecentParkToSydney

[19Michael96]

2 hours ago, BringADecentParkToSydney said:

Oh the tent on the flying saucer area would be for the Halloscream event (it’s one of the houses)

 

They had one there last year too. 

Oh yeah forgot about that.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

20 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

The big question is how will other New South Wales theme parks react? Luna Park Sydney is being treated differently from the rest of New South Wales' theme parks even if Luna Park Sydney is the most attended and iconic theme park in New South Wales.

Jamberoo's Kangaroo Island expansion had a lengthy development application process lasting about 5 years and a few court cases mainly due to nearby residents being unhappy with the colours of the waterslides. Should Jamberoo be allowed to receive 'exempt development' on temporary rides as well?

It's not a big question at all. This is a park that is over 80 years old, it is as much part of sydney's heritage as the opera house or the harbour bridge.

It's a reason for them to be treated differently. In addition, the resident noise complaints that shut down the park previously have already been ruled on and overcome, and the resulting policy was designed to prevent that from shutting the park down in the future. An adverse ruling has caused a minor blip due to technical interpretation of said policy, and that will be rectified with amendments, to ensure the policy is carried out how it was intended.

In 40 years, if Jamberoo is surrounded by Skyscrapers and those residents are complaining about noise, or ride colours, maybe the state government will step in and help them too.

[Jamberoo Fan]

On 14/10/2018 at 1:08 PM, Jamberoo Fan said:

Should Jamberoo be allowed to receive 'exempt development' on temporary rides as well?

For all those who responded to this question, I had intended that question to be a rhetorical question. It was given as an example as Jamberoo's owners were more angry 5 years ago about the DA process than Luna Park Sydney has been in the past few months even though the latter threatened closure and started a petition. Luna Park Sydney, being historic & iconic, has more political influence (particularly after the Big Dipper drama in the mid-1990's) hence why they threatened closure.

I don't know about most people but I don't travel to Luna Park Sydney for temporary rides. To me, if Luna Park Sydney had no temporary rides, it would be no big loss, the attendance would not have dramatically changed to the point of closure plus valuable resources would have been saved, which could be added to a future permanent expansion program. If Luna Park Sydney says temporary rides are the reason it is currently still operating then they are (assuming accidentally) implying that the historic and iconic aspects of Luna Park Sydney like the entrance, Coney Island and the Ferris Wheel aren't the reason why people go to the park, which would then (assuming inadvertently) mean the reason that the park is important to Sydney's heritage is completely irrelevant. 

Jamberoo may not be as iconic & historic or as well attended as Luna Park Sydney but this issue isn't about long-term heritage protection, it's about DA processes for temporary rides. After all, where is the heritage value in temporary rides???

You can argue that the heritage value of Luna Park Sydney overall justifies them having exempt development for temporary rides but, whilst not a theme park, what about the Sydney Royal Easter Show? (I'm not 100% sure if the Sydney Royal Easter Show needs to put in DA's every year for their Carnivals though) Unlike Luna Park Sydney, I'm sure if the Sydney Royal Easter Show didn't have temporary rides there would be a huge drop in attendance. 

I'm all for heritage protections and streamlined DA processes for Luna Park Sydney but when other theme parks have complained about the lengthy DA process for very similar reasons, why can't they be allowed similar streamlined DA processes as well? The theme park industry of NSW as a whole would then benefit and not just Luna Park Sydney, who in my opinion, doesn't need temporary rides (or exemption from DA's for temporary rides) to survive. After all, it's just temporary rides.

If the DA exemption for temporary rides at Luna Park Sydney was broadened to all theme parks in New South Wales, it wouldn't affect much so why not broaden it? There aren't that many theme parks in New South Wales anyway let along any that would utilise the DA exemption on a constant basis like Luna Park Sydney seemingly needs to do. After all, excluding Luna Park Sydney, how many theme parks are there in the entire world that rely on temporary rides for business? Temporary rides are only best for community events not theme parks. Plus, temporary rides have to be hired - no guarantee every single NSW theme park can hire one due to either availability, cost or distance required to travel to deliver and pick up the ride to/from the theme park.

Also, the noise of Luna Park Sydney is irrelevant in this case.

22 hours ago, 19Michael96 said:

...I didn't think Jamberoo did temporary rides.

They haven't done temporary rides in nearly 2 decades I believe.

17 hours ago, BringADecentParkToSydney said:

Is this referring to temporary rides, or could this be the possibility of the chair swing ride being open by then?

It is referring to temporary rides.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Jamberoo Fan

[XxMrYoshixX]

I'm fine with LPS having relaxed regulations on temporary rides, but my 2c I'll give is that LPS should rethink the temporary rides strategy. They've spent plenty of money in the last 15 years on them and by now I wouldn't be surprised if the costs added up to a flat ride or two. There's a serious opportunity cost in spending money on temporary flat rides and LPS need to adopt a long term strategy for future survival that omits the temporary rides, they've only just gotten around to thinking long term 3-4 years ago.

The money the park keeps spending on temporary flats should instead have been spent on replacing their 35+ year old World Expo veteran rides and building good quality flats, not crap imported from third-tier Italian manufacturers, and refurbishing their quickly aging Big Top facility that is the big money maker for the park (but has lost a lot of business after the ICC facility opened in Darling Harbour next door- but that discussion is for another time). 15 years of doing that over and over eventually adds up.

Edited October 15, 2018 by XxMrYoshixX

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

1 hour ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

this issue isn't about long-term heritage protection, it's about DA processes for temporary rides.

Not quite JF.

The whole hoo-hah arose after Hair Raiser, with LPS seeking to clarify their position on the need for DAs moving forward. On ALL moves, adds and changes for rides - be they new, heritage, or temporary.

The subsequent judgment handed down provided clarification, but it was not what LPS had expected, and also - it went a step further stating DAs were required for temporary rides as well.

Given that LPS has been doing that already for years, it is the more immediately relevant issue at hand - especially since they made a very media-public point of saying they wouldn't have temporary attractions in the corner for the school holidays - it was a very immediately noticeable issue, which has of course lead the state government to recognise action was needed.

 

Should Jamberoo be allowed to host temporary attractions without a DA? since they are not governed by the state legislation and the state department of heritage and conservation, you should direct your question to (i think) the Kiama Municipal Council. Not all councils would require a DA for a temporary attraction (especially one that was trailer mounted), so you are perhaps barking up a tree that hasn't even been planted yet.

 

Finally, if your post was only meant to discuss temporary rides, why then did you immediately refer to Kangaroo Island, an undoubtedly un-temporary attraction?

[Jobe]

On 24/09/2018 at 9:00 AM, AlexB said:

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?

Sorry mate forgot to answer your question! Yeah it came up on a Facebook post but there is certainly nothing untoward about it- @19Michael96 mentioned your name in regards to your post and I just replied to it as you saw was posted here.

Quote

f 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.

They certainly appear to still function- please visit https://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/Home

Quote

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.

Yeah fair point and I understand where you are coming from. If this was another operator then I would most certainly be apprehensive but the fact that the current managing director Peter Hearne , is on record as saying that this is something they would not do, this does alleviate those concerns somewhat. Plus, as has been shown, the legislation protecting the historical aspects of the park ( buildings, rides and amusements) are separate to any new developments and , in my understanding,take precedent over these.

On 24/09/2018 at 9:00 AM, AlexB said:

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.

Interesting considering now that the NSW State government is looking to amend their interpretation of this process- 200 temporary rides and attractions over 12 years does demonstrate a fairly large precedent.

 

On 24/09/2018 at 9:00 AM, AlexB said:

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.

Agree 100% here. 

 

On 24/09/2018 at 9:00 AM, AlexB said:

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.

Perhaps although I feel that it is reasonable to think that once the general public at large have read an article on the issue that would then be enough to educate them to form a reasonable opinion on the matter.

 

Thanks for the excellent discussion AlexB, as always good value!

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!

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.

What a particularly negative and absurd statement!!

Just an observation- every post you submit on Luna Park seems to be very negative or overly criticising- it certainly appears that you have a unhealthy bias or ulterior motive against the park.

Discussion and constructive criticism are certainly welcome. However, in my mind, blatant negativity and a particular bias are really not. Just my opinion.

" Kinda glad to be honest..." Wow!!! Its like you just want to see the park fail- that statement certainly does nothing to detract from anyone gathering that opinion!

On 12/10/2018 at 2:14 AM, 19Michael96 said:

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

Could not agree more mate.....

The SBF Tango Train , in my opinion, is a well presented and well themed ride. It has an excellent lighting suite and it looks brilliant in its place along the midway. I certainly concede that it does not present as  great a ride as the Mack model but lets give Luna Park a little kudos here. They replaced an old ride that was maintenance heavy and was likely costing money with extensive downtime. Instead of just ripping it out, they gave the ride its due and turned its leaving into a positive and then replaced it with a BRAND NEW ride that replicates the ride it replaces. It is this commitment to new investment in the park that should be celebrated here.

[HussRainbow87]

Quite the opposite actually, I guess I should have worded my reply a bit better, so I do apologise for that.

MASSIVE props to LPS for keeping their HUSS rides running, the only other models running are the Pirate at Funfields, Enterprise at LPM, Wittingslow's travelling Pirate and Shot N Drop in Perth. It's a real shame to not see as many Huss rides around in Australia as there should and could be. But like I said, i love LPS for keeping the three former Wittingslow rides running to this day!

In regards to the SBF model, I have heard from several people that the ride has had quite a few issues. Any ride is going to cost money and upkeep, but I think it was a bit of a shock for the park to have problems with a ride that was put in to replace a labour intensive machine that was costing more money as the years went on.

With a bit of luck the HUSS rides will stay, and given some much needed love, especially the Break Dance. If only the owners of the park would experience some European Breakers, they'd see what gem they really have on their hands.

Anyway, sorry for the negative posts. I will try check myself before I rant.

Edited October 15, 2018 by HussRainbow87

[Jobe]

On 14/10/2018 at 8:21 AM, Nimble said:

I heard that the original ride was getting too old, since it opened in the 1980s as "The Love Express". 

 

But this is what LPS is doing now. Look at the carousel. It went from being a beautiful hand-crafted steam-powered carousel to being a fibreglass, factory-made one with digital speakers as it's "organs".

Nimble that was my thought as well- I thought that Luna Park's Love Express was purchased by a travelling showman that toured then went to Darling Harbour and back to Luna Park in 1994. Happy to be proven wrong if you have alternative info @19Michael96?

2 hours ago, XxMrYoshixX said:

I'm fine with LPS having relaxed regulations on temporary rides, but my 2c I'll give is that LPS should rethink the temporary rides strategy. They've spent plenty of money in the last 15 years on them and by now I wouldn't be surprised if the costs added up to a flat ride or two. There's a serious opportunity cost in spending money on temporary flat rides and LPS need to adopt a long term strategy for future survival that omits the temporary rides, they've only just gotten around to thinking long term 3-4 years ago.

The money the park keeps spending on temporary flats should instead have been spent on replacing their 35+ year old World Expo veteran rides and building good quality flats, not crap imported from third-tier Italian manufacturers, and refurbishing their quickly aging Big Top facility that is the big money maker for the park (but has lost a lot of business after the ICC facility opened in Darling Harbour next door- but that discussion is for another time). 15 years of doing that over and over eventually adds up.

To be clear here, the temporary ride strategy is only for peak and seasonal times . It is not an unusual strategy and is designed to provide buzz to the park in offering 2 or 3 extra attractions. Whilst they may not be everyone's cup of tea, they certainly provide  the park with a good strategy to attract more visitors to the park at these times. I know my kids and their friends love to see what is coming over summer for the January school holidays, so do not discount the broad appeal that they have. Luna Park Melbourne is also operating on a similar strategy to great success. Rides such as Crazy Coaster, Pirates Revenge, The Avenger, Hard Rock , Freak Out and Disk O are all major travelling rides and very popular. Who wouldnt want to reride these again and again in the unique environment of Luna Park, covered under the one park pass at the time?

The expense for hiring these rides is quite cost effective and is a  factor in helping the park get to the stage where they are ready to pump $20 million in new rides and attractions for the future. Luna Park Melbourne is embarking on a similar strategy so that they can get themselves into the same financial situation where they can invest in new attractions. The costs for keeping the Scenic Railway , Carousel and Ghost train are quite large.

This strategy of temporary rides is due to cease once the $20 million investment plan and a full ride compliment has been reached.

Its certainly a positive step that the government has recognised that the interpretation of the DA process was onerous for the operators of Luna Park, especially given the numerous precedents over the last 12 years. Hopefully, this leads to an accommodation whereby they can resume the plans for the $20 million investment and continue on the important job of  revitalising the park.

11 minutes ago, HussRainbow87 said:

Quite the opposite actually, I guess I should have worded my reply a bit better, so I do apologise for that.

MASSIVE props to LPS for keeping their HUSS rides running, the only other models running are the Pirate at Funfields, Enterprise at LPM, Wittingslow's travelling Pirate and Shot N Drop in Perth. It's a real shame to not see as many Huss rides around in Australia as there should and could be. But like I said, i love LPS for keeping the three former Wittingslow rides running to this day!

In regards to the SBF model, I have heard from several people that the ride has had quite a few issues. Any ride is going to cost money and upkeep, but I think it was a bit of a shock for the park to have problems with a ride that was put in to replace a labour intensive machine that was costing more money as the years went on.

With a bit of luck the HUSS rides will stay, and given some much needed love, especially the Break Dance. If only the owners of the park would experience some European Breakers, they'd see what gem they really have on their hands.

Anyway, sorry for the negative posts. I will try check myself before I rant.

Thanks for clarifying @HussRainbow87

 

I would certainly love for a Huss Rainbow unit to reside at LPS......it was in the original plans for the 1995 incarnation you know........love that ride!! It would have been iconic looking out over the harbour to see a Huss Rainbow in full swing!! What a view it could have been!!

Edited October 15, 2018 by Jobe

[HussRainbow87]

9 minutes ago, Jobe said:

Thanks for clarifying @HussRainbow87

 

I would certainly love for a Huss Rainbow unit to reside at LPS......it was in the original plans for the 1995 incarnation you know........love that ride!! It would have been iconic looking out over the harbour to see a Huss Rainbow in full swing!! What a view it could have been!!

Don't even get me started on having a HUSS Rainbow back running in Australia. We have TWO units here and neither are running, shame to say, OCS ran Wittingslow's once great model into the absolute ground!

These days I have to travel to Paris just to ride one! (Even though its totally worth it riding and seeing the Eiffel Tower as you reach the top!)

It always did interest me how Rainbow was in the original plans, but with the success it brought by being on the showgrounds and travelling, it was a far more successful decision to have the Rainbow travelling and the Ranger go into the park, especially when Wittingslow had a Fabbri Ranger travelling on the circuit also.

Edited October 15, 2018 by HussRainbow87

[19Michael96]

1 hour ago, Jobe said:

Nimble that was my thought as well- I thought that Luna Park's Love Express was purchased by a travelling showman that toured then went to Darling Harbour and back to Luna Park in 1994. Happy to be proven wrong if you have alternative info @19Michael96?

I did mention before that the former MACK ride was built in the 80's, which then made it's way to Darling Harbour before settling to Luna Park in 1994. I think it might have been called the "Disco Express" or "Disco Train" in it's LPS days; don't know. However, LPS had a completely different model not built by called the "Love Express" from 1982-1988, which has been previously been brought up before on these forums but I can't remember where.

[Jamberoo Fan]

@AlexB, I read the whole judgement on The Flying Carousel court case a while ago. This whole current situation wasn't initiated out of a need for clarification after Hair Raiser. Even though Luna Park Sydney built Hair Raiser without a development consent and subsequently were told to apply for one by the NSW Planning Department, they still went ahead and tried building The Flying Carousel without one, which has caused the current events. 

The issue regarding temporary rides wasn't also sudden -  to "install or operate amusement devices" requires approval from local government. There are exemptions for some temporary uses and structures under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 but "amusement devices" are excluded as that is not listed in the policy. Since 2001, approval shifted to the Planning Minister for Luna Park Sydney only and when they approved Luna Park Sydney's masterplan back in 2002, they only approved the park's future 'use' (like zoning) rather than the park's future 'development' (like construction). The latter the Planning Minister put a condition on the approval for as requiring subsequent DA's.

The Court even found Luna Park Sydney was aware that they needed DA's for every new ride as early as May 2002, a few months after they were notified of that decision from the Planning Minister of the time (You may need to read the whole judgement to get the quote's full context though) :

Quote

...in the first paragraph on the second page of the Stage D SEE (EB, p 912), it is unambiguously stated: “Part 2 of Staged Development Consent 154-06-01 is referred to herein as the ‘Stage 1 DA’. Separate DAs are required in relation to the detailed design of the development approved as part of the Stage 1 DA”. This is just one instance of where the Applicant, in its own documentation, did not envisage or argue at that point in time that the Stage 1 Consent embraced consent for both the ‘use’ and the ‘development works’ of subsequent phases – such as rides and amusements – accepting, indeed proposing, that detailed design for development would be the subject of further or subsequent DAs.

Also, the most noticeable issue in the media wasn't the potential lack of temporary rides in the future, it was the threat of closure. The State Government only reacted because of the threat of closure not because of the lack of temporary rides. In any case, I don't think Luna Park Sydney would've closed because of a lack of temporary rides.

Lastly - Yes, Kangaroo Island is not temporary but the issue at the heart of the matter is similar (the DA process). Here is a quote from Jim Eddy, Jamberoo's managing director, which was in the Kiama Independent news article I linked to earlier:

Quote

...it isn't sustainable to go through this process every time you've got to do something...

Doesn't that sound like what Luna Park Sydney have been saying recently? Particularly when you add this quote:

Quote

But not only how it's developed, how it's operated and that's unrealistic. 

That's definitely akin to Luna Park Sydney (like operating hours, noise, lighting etc.). Jamberoo may have been referring to permanent rides but the DA process is the same. I just was trying to say if Luna Park Sydney could get an exemption for temporary rides by complaining about the DA process, why can't Jamberoo get the temporary ride exemption as well? Imagine if Jamberoo suddenly wanted to install a temporary giant inflatable waterslide, that would require local government approval but like Luna Park Sydney, it might drag out for months or years because residents are complaining about the colours etc. Luna Park Sydney may have heritage value (which is why it has political influence) but the heritage & operation of the park isn't reliant on temporary rides otherwise like pointed out earlier, it defeats all heritage arguments.

After all, despite the amendments, they will still need some sort form of approval for permanent rides and park refurbishments and that is what keeps Luna Park Sydney relevant and part of Sydney's heritage into the future: Rides & attractions themed around the 1930's (like Hair Raiser with development approval) - not temporary rides hidden behind Coney Island. If the DA exemptions were purely because it affected Luna Park's long-term heritage (like Coney Island), then I would be 100% for a Luna Park Sydney-only exemption. I'm still 100% for temporary ride DA exemptions but only if it was for all theme parks & community events in NSW - not just Luna Park Sydney - as the temporary rides individually don't form part of the long-term heritage of Luna Park Sydney.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Jamberoo Fan

[Wil_i_am_not]

The Mack Tango Train was indeed called the Disco Train when it operated at Darling Harbour throughout the late 1980's and early 90's. Previously to being put in Darling Harbour, the ride travelled the show circuit with Wittinsglows, who also owned most rides at that were on the site. The picture shows the original ride during its stay in Darling Harbour.

Was the Love express a Mack Music Express? There IS a Music Express style ride called the Love Express owned by OCS Fun (same company that owns the Rainbow) that toured around Sydney during the early 2000's, and also made a rare appearance at the 2012 Fishers Ghost Festival in Campbelltown, however it isn't manufactured by Mack. The ride hasn't been seen for many years now , and is probably sitting out in someones paddock rusting away.

[Jobe]

1 hour ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

After all, despite the amendments, they will still need some sort form of approval for permanent rides and park refurbishments and that is what keeps Luna Park Sydney relevant and part of Sydney's heritage into the future: Rides & attractions themed around the 1930's (like Hair Raiser with development approval) - not temporary rides hidden behind Coney Island. If the DA exemptions were purely because it affected Luna Park's long-term heritage (like Coney Island), then I would be 100% for a Luna Park Sydney-only exemption. I'm still 100% for temporary ride DA exemptions but only if it was for all theme parks & community events in NSW - not just Luna Park Sydney - as the temporary rides individually don't form part of the long-term heritage of Luna Park Sydney.

Interesting points Jamberoo Fan.

Just to clarify to your point- Luna Park ARE claiming that the DA exemptions affect Luna Park's long term heritage. If they cannot get the DA process clarified  so that they can ADD new attractions and rides and refresh the park, they are then saying that the parks viability  and its future is at risk. Since the owners of Luna Park are tasked with maintaining and keeping the historical aspects of Luna Park's heritage ( such as the towers, Wild Mouse, Coney Island and Crystal Palace and indeed the overall precinct) this then affects the future of such attractions. This is the basis of their claim and , going by what you have stated, you would appear to agree with this assessment.

Furthermore, they are now seeking clarification regarding the installation of temporary rides and attractions at peak and seasonal times.  ( and  to which the NSW government  has now seen to amend in LPS favour) This is a function of the way that the process has been interpreted NOW. As stated before , Luna Park does have a significant precedent to this as they have operated and installed over 200 temporary attractions over the past 12 years WITHOUT issue. Why is there now an onerous and ill conceived interpretation of the said process when this has been normal practice for the past 12 years?

The temporary rides and attractions that Luna Park have installed over the past 12 years have in part, enabled them to be in the financial position they are now in for them to make a $20 million investment back into new attractions and refresh the park. In other words, keeping the park relevant. True these rides themselves do not form part of the long term heritage of the park, however, they significantly add to  the  function and cash flow that KEEPS these heritage attractions alive, maintained and open to the public. I think that is a pretty strong reason and claim for Luna Park to move forward in seeking exemption from the DA process for the installation of temporary attractions.

Your claim that this should apply to all theme parks across NSW is  , in my mind, flawed. As with anything, each case must be met on its own merits. Jamberoo is not a heritage listed precinct last time I looked, it is not surrounded by volatile residents in high rise apartment towers directly adjacent to the park nor does it , by your own words, ever have installed a temporary attraction in "20 years" Its long term viability is not at risk if it cannot add temporary attractions at seasonal times like at Luna Park. The comparison , in my opinion , is really chalk and cheese.

 

[Jamberoo Fan]

3 hours ago, Jobe said:

Just to clarify to your point- Luna Park ARE claiming that the DA exemptions affect Luna Park's long term heritage. If they cannot get the DA process clarified  so that they can ADD new attractions and rides and refresh the park, they are then saying that the parks viability  and its future is at risk. Since the owners of Luna Park are tasked with maintaining and keeping the historical aspects of Luna Park's heritage ( such as the towers, Wild Mouse, Coney Island and Crystal Palace and indeed the overall precinct) this then affects the future of such attractions. This is the basis of their claim and , going by what you have stated, you would appear to agree with this assessment.

To avoid any confusion, what I meant when I wrote:

5 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

If the DA exemptions were purely because it affected Luna Park's long-term heritage (like Coney Island), then I would be 100% for a Luna Park Sydney-only exemption.

I meant if the DA exemptions weren't for temporary rides but to allow a replacement but identical Ferris Wheel on the site or a reconstruction of Coney Island etc. "long-term" as in the past, not in the future. For example, Coney Island is "long-term" heritage as it's been there since 1935 but Hair Raiser isn't as it's only been there since 2013. The Court clarified the DA process easily earlier this year - they need a DA for every single new ride, permanent or not. The NSW Government's proposal though would allow some permanent rides to skip the DA process by just being granted a certificate if they 'comply' with certain conditions

There are 3 essential conditions to just need the certificate: No more than 6 permanent rides can be higher than about 25 metres (including existing permanent rides) at any 1 time and no new permanent ride can be higher than 36 metres except on Lavender Green, where it can be no higher than 16 metres. All heights are from ground level. All new permanent rides cannot be indoors. If they are indoors or don't meet the height limits, then a DA is required (unless there is an existing height limit at Luna Park, of course).

Simiraly, temporary (that is, at the park for no longer than 4 months during a 6 month period) rides that are outdoors, no higher than 16 metres & not located on the Midway don't need any certification or approval. The Midway has similar but different conditions regarding temporary rides (maximum 3 months duration; no bigger than 100 square metres in size; emergency vehicle access maintained and Midway to remain at least 8 metres wide except between the Ferris Wheel & Carousel). If they fail to meet any of those conditions, see the 'complying' development conditions above. As I don't know the rest of Luna Park Sydney's future permanent rides, all I can say is I think The Flying Carousel can be built if it is no higher than 36 metres from ground level to the top of the ride & the certificate thus is granted by an accredited certifier. So it likely will solve The Flying Carousel issue at least but won't solve issues with all future proposed new permanent rides.

3 hours ago, Jobe said:

Why is there now an onerous and ill conceived interpretation of the said process when this has been normal practice for the past 12 years?

Going back to the court case judgement, sometime after May 2002 until Hair Raiser was built Luna Park Sydney thought they had DA exemption for all new rides including temporary rides. Simply, no one from outside the park's management noticed the temporary rides were added without approval (surprisingly not even the Milsons Point residents). Temporary attractions are difficult to notice particularly if they were there on opening day in 2004. They blend in. Someone in the NSW Planning Department obviously noticed Hair Raiser was built without approval (particularly as it was the 1st major attraction since 2004). Then this year, a private certifier noticed it again when considering a construction certificate when Luna Park Sydney tried to build The Flying Carousel without approval.

Why the conflicting opinion between planners/certifers & Luna Park Sydney? Because Luna Park Sydney applied in 2002 to have new rides built with & without DA's (a drafting error - the correct draft is anyone's guess now). The Planning Department, however, decided to make it with a DA by placing a condition on the approval, which the Court ruled took precedent. Luna Park Sydney thought because they had DA approval, their "without DA" drafting error could count regardless of the conditions placed on the approval. However, as I pointed out earlier, Luna Park Sydney was aware of the correct interpretation back in May 2002, a few months after approval was granted. Someone forget, misunderstood or decided the conditions don't count sometime after May 2002.

There isn't suddenly an "onerous and ill conceived interpretation" as, like I pointed out earlier, approvals from local government are required to "install or operate amusement devices" even if they are temporary from as far back as 1993 at least. The only incorrect interpretation was from Luna Park Sydney or a manager/employee of theirs who accidentally misunderstood the approval & it's conditions sometime after May 2002.

3 hours ago, Jobe said:

The temporary rides and attractions that Luna Park have installed over the past 12 years have in part, enabled them to be in the financial position they are now in for them to make a $20 million investment back into new attractions and refresh the park. In other words, keeping the park relevant. True these rides themselves do not form part of the long term heritage of the park, however, they significantly add to  the  function and cash flow that KEEPS these heritage attractions alive, maintained and open to the public. I think that is a pretty strong reason and claim for Luna Park to move forward in seeking exemption from the DA process for the installation of temporary attractions.

I wouldn't mind the DA exemptions for temporary rides at all if it only applied until they don't need to 'rely' on temporary rides anymore. Under the current proposal, it is permanent. After all, this issue only arose because their next permanent ride 'suddenly' needed a DA. If they were ready to build The Flying Carousel then they are ready for new permanent rides (well, at least 1 as far as I know) and thus don't need to 'rely' on temporary rides anymore. Either way, as much as I believe that people wouldn't visit Luna Park Sydney for the temporary rides and thus not receive most of their revenue from those rides, again if that is really their main revenue stream, like I pointed out before, it would then mean people don't visit the park for it's heritage.

3 hours ago, Jobe said:

Jamberoo...is not surrounded by volatile residents in high rise apartment towers directly adjacent to the park.

There are, as you say, "volatile" residents - they just don't live in high rise apartment towers. At least Jamberoo has no issue with noise though.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Jamberoo Fan

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

14 hours ago, Jobe said:

Interesting considering now that the NSW State government is looking to amend their interpretation of this process- 200 temporary rides and attractions over 12 years does demonstrate a fairly large precedent.

I think though the point is that precedent doesn't stand for anything if the interpretation is the first time it's been clarified. If nobody has challenged it before, that doesn't mean that what they were doing was ok.

I think, like most people - that a temporary, trailer-based attraction moving in for two months over summer, for example, isn't something anyone would think would need development approval.

I think back to the days of school fetes, where carnival rides would truck in onto the school oval, set up, run for an afternoon, and then pack up and leave. Surely, this doesn't require council DA approval? So where does it change? Do Easter Show rides need a DA? does the Ekka? I should think not.

So why then would Extreme Speed need a DA when it parks up behind Coney Island? It's absurd... and I think why none of the residents would have challenged it on a 'planning' front....

6 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

If they were ready to build The Flying Carousel then they are ready for new permanent rides (well, at least 1 as far as I know) and thus don't need to 'rely' on temporary rides anymore. Either way, as much as I believe that people wouldn't visit Luna Park Sydney for the temporary rides and thus not receive most of their revenue from those rides, again if that is really their main revenue stream, like I pointed out before, it would then mean people don't visit the park for it's heritage.

Do kids like to visit dusty museums? No. Does that mean we shouldn't preserve the exhibits they house? not at all.

"Come on kids, let's go and ride the Rotor and other things you've been on a million times"

The heritage is worth preserving, but - not every one appreciates it - so in order to keep the park viable, you need to offer something new.

Installing ONE new ride doesn't immediately mean the park can survive without temporary attractions. The temporary rides add both additional capacity during peak times, AND provide something new to bring the locals back to ride it.

I don't think there will ever be a time when LPS is completely devoid of temporary attraction space. I think they'd be smart to reserve a plot suitable for most trailers so that they can 'change it up' without massive investment on a regular basis, to keep things fresh in between their major installs.

[Nimble]

20 hours ago, HussRainbow87 said:

Don't even get me started on having a HUSS Rainbow back running in Australia. We have TWO units here and neither are running, shame to say, OCS ran Wittingslow's once great model into the absolute ground!

At the knock-off Easter show at Fox Studios in sydney (I forgot the real name, sorry) I saw an "Ali Baba" ride, which looks like a Rainbow, but with different themeing. There was once one in LPS one holiday, too...