Jamberoo Fan

So what ride is everyone looking forward to this summer? SkyFlyer or SkyVoyager? 😜 I wonder how many people will forget which ride name relates to which Gold Coast theme park and/or what ride type. It makes me wonder if VRTP just tried to make SW's new ride as similar to DW's new ride as possible without actually being the same ride. Maybe also Wet 'n' Wild Gold Coast will get an expansion with a revamped Calypso Beach and/or Whirlpool and/or Giant Wave Pool and MW a new dark ride?😉 Strange how the joke I made a fortnight ago nearly became true:

The coronial inquest into the Thunder River Rapids incident resumes in Southport on Monday the 12th of November. It will be held everyday (presumably excluding weekends), starting at 10am, until Friday the 23rd of November where it will presumably adjourn again until the 17th of December, when an extra, originally unscheduled 5 days of coronial inquest hearings will be held due to Ardent Leisure delivering requested documents late earlier in the coronial inquest.

To add to @themagician's post, Dreamworld had also released another sneak peek to the media earlier today, 48 seconds in duration. It can only be accessed through the link above. It's very similar to the previous 2 videos posted.

The contradiction in these 2 statements...

I'm hoping it will be like Thrillseeker/Wild Wave Rollercoaster - a transportable ride in a 'permanent' mode. It sounds too odd for SW otherwise. A transportable model would cost less to 'build' than a permanent model after all but if the "Star Flyer" is going to be removed in, say, March, the demolition of Rescue Point Lighthouse hopefully would have had a better reason (like the brick structure was no longer sound etc.). If they demolished it just for a temporary ride, that's a silly reason as they could have just placed the temporary ride on the former Sea Viper site. Reading Funtime's Mobile StarFlyer webpage, there are 3 possible heights: 38 metres 54 metres 80 metres (in production at the time of the webpage's publication, which might have been 2015) The 38 & 54 metre versions can be set up within 8 hours so maybe expect a Mobile StarFlyer, if that is the "Star Flyer", to appear suddenly particularly if the 80 metre version can also be set up within a day if production of it has finished. I'm guessing it will be set-up in mid-December for operation from Boxing Day if approved from Gold Coast City Council. Maybe they plan to still have a lighthouse - just not where it is currently? Maybe it will be utilised as part of the "Star Flyer"'s theming? Like I said before, maybe also the brick structure of the Lighthouse is unsound hence the need to demolish it and they've kept the non-brick top for future use.

Yes & none. Australia technically has 2 wooden coasters still. One is Luna Park Sydney's Wild Mouse though that isn't a 'traditional' wooden coaster as most people know them due to it's track layout. The other is the Scenic Railway of Luna Park Melbourne. However, that also isn't like the 'traditional' wooden coasters as most people know them as it requires a brakeman. After all, it is the oldest continually operating rollercoaster in the world but it is still a very good contender to be considered as Australia's only remaining 'true' wooden coaster. However, there is nothing stopping Sea World from building the biggest wooden coaster in Australia since Wonderland Sydney's Bush Beast, which closed in 2004 - only 14 years ago. In any case, if they did build a wooden coaster, it would be the first to be built in Australia since 1985.

Well I'd doubt the Gold Coast would be lucky enough to get a full-circuit coaster higher than DC Rivals HyperCoaster so soon after it opened but one can hope. It might just be possible to get a full-circuit coaster of equal height though if they have the funds. I'm pretty sure that the definition of a 'wooden coaster' is that it just has to have a mostly wooden track at a minimum. I'm pretty sure that any attendance drop at the Gold Coast theme parks that occurred after the Thunder River Rapids incident is from the local Gold Coast-Tweed Heads market only as other theme parks in Australia are maintaining/increasing their attendance trends as they were prior to 2016: The local Gold Coast-Tweed Heads market is the dominant market at the Gold Coast theme parks too. Given the Gold Coast-Tweed Heads market might be interested in theme parks in general due to the prominence of them in the city's culture, most of that market might already know what a wooden coaster is.

I'm thinking higher - Storm Coaster is a similar height (28 metres) to Mystic Timbers (30 metres) and already 'intimidates' a lot of guests with it's perceived height. A higher coaster would allow Storm Coaster to be seen as less 'intimidating' as it should have been when it first opened in 2013. @Brad2912 referred to a "very large investment" in SW's next coaster so I'd doubt something of similar size to Wooden Warrior (14 metres high) will be built which, regardless of Wooden Warrior's quality, is the last thing SW needs coaster-wise: SW has 3 full-circuit rollercoasters currently - all below 30 metres in height. 2 of which are lower than 5 metres in height. SW ideally needs a coaster noticeably higher than 30 metres in height to bring SW, as a 'theme park', back to people's attention. If they can't do that, then a coaster 30 metres in height would be best but it needs to be designed to make Storm Coaster look less 'intimidating' (maybe by adding several airtime hills, inversions etc. just like with a 30+ metre high coaster). In any case, SW shouldn't install something "worse than a Wooden Warrior clone". And lastly, like I initially said, there is no guarantee the coaster type, if any coaster is being built, will be wooden. It may have just been the personal preference of the 'manager'. At this stage, SW is more likely to get a steel coaster. I do think though that if a 40+ metre coaster is being built at SW, that will be that "...1 new thrill ride..." that "...can fit in at SW..." that I referred to earlier this year. After all, a very tall (40+ metre) full-circuit rollercoaster is a drawcard in itself to a theme park. Well that's great to hear! Maybe the attraction does live up to it's name after all!

Pretty much everyone can confirm that. It is public knowledge. Quote from VRTP CEO Clark Kirby: Whilst, apart from the "Star Flyer" & the Sea Jellies Illuminated opening delay, I'll treat what @Brad2912 said as 'unconfirmed', I think it's all very likely true though it's hard to tell if the wooden coaster direction was just the preference of the 'manager' rather than an actual strategic business opinion. I'm sure if a lot of people on here 'had their way' B&Ms would be built even if they might not be a viable choice right now for Australian theme parks. Given SW already has Storm Coaster, I could only imagine a wooden coaster being part of SW if it was themed as part of a new 'seaside resort boardwalk pier'-themed area (maybe the "Star Flyer" is the 1st stage in such an area?). The boardwalk would have to run from the former Sea World Train Station site to Dockside Tavern, around the "Star Flyer" (if built on Rescue Point) to the reclaimed land edging the ski show lake near Sea World Drive. That way everything between there & the former Sea Viper site can be included as part of the 'seaside resort boardwalk pier'. However, the other boundary of such an area (Ray Reef to Jet Rescue) would have to be appropriately themed to keep the 'seaside resort boardwalk pier' effect. Regardless if it is a steel or wooden coaster, the highest portions of the coaster would also likely be restricted to the former Sea Viper/Pirate Ship site and/or the reclaimed land as it will block all views of Storm Coaster otherwise. However, a coaster could wander though the former Viking's Revenge Flume Ride station, splash zone & castle if SW wanted that. If there is a new coaster coming in 2020 to Sea World, with no height restrictions for theme park rides at SW anymore, how high would this full-circuit rollercoaster go? Will it be in that 50-60 metre height range that all but 1 rollercoaster haven't ever achieved in Australian history? Would it be as high as (or higher than) DC Rivals HyperCoaster? The thought of 2 hypercoasters on the Gold Coast sounds seemingly possible. With DW's tallest full-circuit rollercoaster being an Arrow Dynamics coaster of 40 metres height from 1995, in 2020, the park would be really lagging behind and with the difficulties the park already faces, it would a massive hurdle to overcome. Lastly, if the lighting issue at Sea Jellies Illuminated that @Brad2912 referred to is true, the ironic thing about Sea Jellies Illuminated now is that currently it is neither 'Illuminated' nor full of many 'Sea Jellies', the two essential criteria to meet in naming an animal attraction Sea Jellies Illuminated.

It seems based on the options that SW's entry buildings will get a facelift as you suggested but it doesn't specifically say that it will be SW's main entry anymore. It seems the new buildings will mainly contain accommodation in the 1st set of options: "provides additional short-term accommodation linked to Sea World" whilst "low-rise mixed use development" will be the new buildings in the 2nd set of options, which would indicate just a refurbished entry building. Given a 3.7 kilometre boardwalk running the length of SW is proposed in the 1st set of options, I'd say SW would operate like Luna Park Sydney under that option set (as Luna Park Sydney also has a boardwalk running the length of the park) with other entries near Seal Detectives, between Polar Bear Shores and Shark Bay, at Castaway Bay & at the Resort as I'd doubt many people would walk down a boardwalk of that length with not much to do at the other end, which is also a dead end, or along it. The boardwalk's only useful purpose would be as a good jogging route. The view is mostly the same the whole length of the boardwalk after all. This would allow paid parking in the multi-level car park like you said as well as a 'pay per ride'-model to be implemented at SW, meaning their whole future ticketing model may already be under review. Also, the boardwalk between Seal Detectives & Polar Bear Shores may allow SW's Research & Rescue Foundation to have it's own building front onto the boardwalk, further emphasizing VRTP's plans to bring SW's marine research & rescue work to the public's attention. Under the 2nd set of options, I'd say SW would operate as it does now with 1 main entry in the south (but now with an upgraded entry building) and another (insignificant) entry in the north at the Resort unless the Monorail is still operating, which would make it a more significant entry way as it is now.

A small error @Skeeta, this isn't the "Master Plan" but "Master Plan options": You've shown 1 set of options for SW. There is another set of options: Another option also mentioned (the park referred to at the quote's start is Muriel Henchman Park):

I didn't notice it initially but the article above (and another article) stated that the Dreamworld Exhibition Centre will, apart from being an event space, be home to "pop-up attractions", which mostly likely will refer to temporary exhibitions like the Brickman Awesome exhibition held last September. This would allow DW to always promote something new without spending a lot on capital expenditure. However, these are only suited to local audiences unless it's a major exhibition with (inter)national interest, which would require a lengthy marketing campaign prior to the exhibition's opening. So, assuming these temporary exhibitions will be held quarterly, what temporary exhibition could arrive in December particularly to compete with the confirmed future exhibition at MW? (Quote from VRTP CEO Clark Kirby) : The next temporary exhibition after Brickman Awesome might not be in December. It could be every 6 months (meaning next March) or yearly (so next September). The frequency might also depend on the success of the Exhibition Centre as an event space. Either way, I think it's highly likely that another intellectual property-based exhibition will be held next at DW. In my opinion, to keep in with the theme of the 'area' the Centre is in, a Hotwheels exhibition would suit best. I'd doubt a Supercars exhibition would work given the permanent exhibition prior to the building being renamed was about Peter Brock. It wouldn't feel different or new (but might make some of DW's signage somewhat a bit more accurate). Or maybe to tie-in with the opening of the i-Ride, an exhibition on aviation or Australian culture would be more likely? Otherwise, an exhibition generally relating to either motorsports, coasts or the ocean would next work best after Hotwheels as all other intellectual properties licensed to DW are located too far away from the Centre (...but that won't stop Ardent).

@pushbutton, I know. It was a joke. In any case, SkyVoyager sounds like a good name for Sea World's future "Star Flyer" too, huh? 😜

Brock's Garage was officially renamed as Dreamworld Exhibition Centre today. Thought that would be the name of that building being built where the Dreamworld Cinema used to be? 😜:

Thanks @Skeeta. I think you are correct. I wasn't even aware that the height restrictions were altered given their significance of them on The Spit. Theme park rides are now exempt from height restrictions which are, on Sea World's land, currently a maximum of 15 metres or 3 storeys. However, depending on the height of the "Star Flyer", this doesn't mean the community won't argue against the development (I realise they can't submit a submission due to the private certifier process though). I wonder how high the "Star Flyer" will go? 122 metres? Impressive if they did and serious competition for DW but maybe too high due to The Spit's nature. 50 metres might be the most realistic height now that height restrictions have been amended. That is, to keep the ride from affecting The Spit's nature as best as possible. However, according to Funtime, a standard StarFlyer is about 70 metres high. Regardless of the final height, I now believe it's very likely this will be Sea World's tallest permanent ride ever. Rescue Point isn't exactly a "far flung corner". It's highly visible particularly if a ride is now going to occupy the space. Castaway Bay is in a "far flung corner"; Dolphin Beach/Affinity is too. Seal Harbour can be considered as also being in a similar corner. If a "Star Flyer" is to be located on Rescue Point, I'd expect the Point will suddenly become a high pedestrian traffic area very quickly and might give them an attendance boost depending on how much promotion they give this ride. Rescue Point has only been a low pedestrian area over time because firstly, there is not much to see there and secondly, the alternative route of going past the Dolphin Nursery was always the main walkway around Sea World. It can't fit "practically anywhere". The tower can but when in operation, the ride swings with a radius of about 20 metres so it needs to be 20 metres away of any structure. Stationary, the ride requires a 10 metre radius. Depending on what height the ride starts rotating fast enough to extend the radius to 20 metres, any structures surrounding the ride must not be the same height. But, in case the ride lowers without slowing down, a 20 metre radius would probably be the safest to apply. The only locations that fit this radius are: The Viking Castle (if they decide to close the 4D Theatre permanently when they remove Viking's Revenge Flume Ride so they can also demolish the Castle and re-arrange the area), The former Sea Viper site and Creatures Of The Deep outdoor section including Rescue Point Lighthouse (if the area is being re-arranged apart from the Lighthouse's demolition) In relation to your latter statement, there is a flaw in that location for the "Star Flyer" compared to the Lighthouse. The Lighthouse is only about 15 metres high and entering Sea World involves walking in an undercover area until you reach the former Skyway station. The ceiling was just high enough to allow you to see the Lighthouse. If the "Star Flyer" is built in this location for this reason, when you walk into the park during the ride's operation, all you would see is a tower as most of the ride will be very high in the air.

Sea World is to demolish shortly the iconic Rescue Point Lighthouse, which has been a feature of Sea World and it's lake since 1972, the year Sea World opened (or more precisely, got renamed from 'Surfers Paradise Ski Gardens'). It's one of the first things you see after entering the park, immediately across the lake, and gives an immediate sense of the park's maritime theme even though over the years, the Lighthouse has been a low-key attraction at the park featuring mainly exhibitions such as to promote Sea World's Research & Rescue Foundation and their work. It's most recent usage would've been to form part of the outdoor section of the Creatures Of The Deep attraction. In other news, a "Star Flyer" will be built at Sea World - probably the well-noted 2019 attraction publicised when the park's Viking's Revenge Flume Ride was closed shortly after the Thunder River Rapids incident at Dreamworld in late 2016. All of this is described in a recent application made to Gold Coast City Council (not a link to the application - see the paragraph after the embedded YouTube video) in late September: Whilst the application doesn't state it, this highly likely means the outdoor section of Creatures Of The Deep will be removed as well. Currently, according to Sea World's Maintenance Schedule webpage, that attraction is "closed for maintenance until further notice". If it is being removed, that's not exactly 'maintaining' it. However, they could be actually 'maintaining' it with "Star Flyer" being located elsewhere in the park. The application also doesn't specifically state that the "Star Flyer" will replace Rescue Point Lighthouse but it is highly likely. Likewise, it doesn't specifically state that this is the attraction replacing Viking's Revenge Flume Ride, which was promoted as the ride being replaced by the '2019 attraction'. For those who don't know, this is Rescue Point Lighthouse: And here it is in conjunction with the outdoor section of Creatures Of The Deep: The "Star Flyer" is highly likely referring to a StarFlyer, a ride manufactured by local company Funtime, who operate an amusement park in central Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast. For those who don't know, details about this ride can be found below. These types of rides are known to be tall. Thus, the height of this ride will be interesting given Sea World has strict height restrictions. However, the simplistic look of the ride may allow them an exemption. Sea World's tallest ever ride was a temporary 60 metre high ferris wheel called the Sea World Eye which was installed in the late 2000's. All of Sea World's permanent rides have never gone higher than 30 metres though. Funtime's website's section on StarFlyer is very detailed but here are some quotes from the 'About' section of the ride for a quick summary: Here is a YouTube video of one of their tallest installations so far, reaching 122 metres high. If Sea World somehow reaches this height, Dreamworld's The Giant Drop may have some competition, even if there are 2 completely different rides, as the latter reaches a height of 119 metres. It's most likely though that the "Star Flyer" will be about 30 metres high to meet with the height restrictions. But given these types of rides are known to be tall, is 30 metres an acceptable height for it or is it too low? I'd add a link to the relevant Gold Coast City Council application but from previous attempts to link applications from there in recent months, I've found it will just lead to an error message for you all due to the recent information technology system upgrade the Council implemented. Regardless of how you feel about Sea World's plans, it's nice to see 2 Australian companies in the amusement park industry working together particularly during the effects on the industry from the Thunder River Rapids incident. As far as I am aware, Sea World's plans have not yet been approved by a private certifier but according to Gold Coast City Council they are "in progress" of being assessed by the private certifier. So let the theming guessing game begin!

In relation to today's news, which saw the word 'divestment' appear prominently, the booklet did refer to 'divestment' once in a similar quote to the third quote in my previous post in this topic however this quote (below) doesn't specifically refer to theme parks: The "future corporate arrangements", in the above quote, also, without specifically mentioning theme parks, refer to "mergers and acquisitions" but not (mentioning) "future capital expenditure". It also refers to "financing arrangements" (which, according to the booklet, will be more reliant on Main Event revenue because that is Ardent's major (50%+) revenue/profit stream). The question is what scenarios did Ardent find to be optimally flexible under the proposed new structure?

Ardent issued a booklet on their "alternative structure" back on the 10th of October. Below are some quotes of note. Following on from the quote I posted on the 23rd of August stating Ardent is now receiving civil claims due to the Thunder River Rapids incident, there is just this new quote relating to those civil claims: Other quotes of note include this one below: Their tax classification/status is, in the current structure, "flow through", which is mentioned elsewhere in the booklet. So according to that quote above, development of excess DW land is being held back due to taxation laws. Can someone explain to me how? After all, their last major expansion in 2006 was for a whole new park. And also, what types of development are limited under the current tax classification/status? This last quote: Possible mergers of DW or the whole of Ardent's Australian Theme Parks division with another company might be on their mind. Regarding acquisitions, whilst that also might be on their mind, I really hope they aren't thinking of acquiring more theme parks... Finally, here is a diagram of the proposed new structure ("alternative structure") compared to the previous one, which was slightly incorrect in the diagram I posted back on the 23rd of August (DW wasn't linked to Ardent Leisure Limited in that diagram) :

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

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

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. They haven't done temporary rides in nearly 2 decades I believe. It is referring to temporary rides.

From The Sydney Morning Herald: 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?

Here is a bit of that ASX announcement that I edited out of the quote:

The latest Google Earth satellite image of Jamberoo Action Park does contain The Perfect Storm. It is from the 8th of April 2017. However, that image contains a fair amount of cloud even though you can still Jamberoo's rides and attractions in the image. Try the 'Historical Imagery' function on Google Earth to get satellite images of Jamberoo from the 24th of February 2016 onwards.

The coronial inquest into the Thunder River Rapids incident resumes in Southport on Monday the 8th of October. It will be held everyday (presumably excluding weekends), starting at 10am, until Friday the 19th of October where it will presumably adjourn again until the 12th of November. The Australian Associated Press via 7 News reported today: