Luna Park future in doubt after court ruling on new ride, says owner

The long-term future of Sydney's historic Luna Park is again in doubt after a court ruled the fun park did not have the right to install a new ride called the "Flying Carousel" without seeking development approval.

The Land and Environment Court judgment means Luna Park must instead submit to a development application process every time it moves or replaces rides, managing director Peter Hearne said.

Local residents concerned about noise would most likely be able to have their objections considered as part of any application.

Luna Park's owners are fuming over the decision.Credit: Tamara Dean

"We are deeply disappointed by this decision, which places a big question mark over the long-term viability of one of Sydney's best-known and most-loved destinations," Mr Hearne said. "This is a terrible outcome not just for Luna Park but for Sydney."

Luna Park, opened in 1935, announced six new rides last year as part of a $20 million major overhaul to the harbourside attraction visited by 1 million patrons a year.

Planning Minister Anthony Roberts won the case.Credit: Dean Osland

It lodged a construction certificate in March 2017 for the "Flying Carousel" but it was rejected four days later by the certifying authority "as the works cannot be demonstrated as not inconsistent with the development consents as it was unclear whether the development consents authorise the installation of new rides".

Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd, now controlled by developer Brookfield, took NSW Planning Minister Anthony Roberts to court, arguing the first of three phases of planning regulations governing Luna Park provided consent for installing new rides.

In submissions, Mr Roberts accepted that the stage-one regulation had proposed that "new open rides and amusements may also be provided within the zone from time to time".

However, he sided with the certifier's rejection of the application, rejecting Luna Park's contention that the consent extended to the introduction of new rides, such as open, non-heritage rides.

A "Flying Carousel" amusement park ride.Credit: Zamperla website

Mr Roberts acknowledged residents' concern over noise from Luna Park when detailing objections to the original park master plan, which included an acoustics management plan.

The minister argued that plan was not consistent with Luna Park's position that it could replace non-heritage rides without submitting a development application and comprehensive acoustic plan of management.

Luna Park argued that fixing the hours of operation was consistent with authorising the installation of rides and amusements without the need for a further development consent.

Acting Justice Simon Molesworth acknowledged that "the Court is aware that determining the legal position with respect to the Flying Carousel proposal is likely to concurrently provide guidance with respect to future new open ride proposals".

But siding with the minister, he found the "flaw" in Luna Park's argument "was a failure to understand that the Stage 1 Consent could, or did, permit land uses without approving the works enabling those uses".

"Yes, permission was given for the location in specific building envelopes so as to facilitate the operation of, inter alia, rides and amusements, but not for the actual building of them without further development applications and consents."

Mr Roberts was unavailable for comment. The Department of Planning and Environment said it would "review" the court decision and "consider its implications for other planning decisions".

Mr Hearne said: "We have always played by the rules only to find that, now, those rules are being interpreted in a way that will place the long-term future of the park in doubt."