Outrageous reason major events are banned in Clover Moore's Sydney - as push to restore vibrancy to nanny state sensationally fails
Clover Moore's council has sparked outrage after voting to keep a ban on major events being hosted in public parks to prevent damage to the grass.
The City of Sydney voted on Monday to keep tough restrictions that have been in place for almost three years at council-run parks.
The ban was first introduced in October 2022 after the Night Noodle Markets caused serious damage at Prince Alfred Park.
Only a few one-day events are still permitted, like Christmas concerts, the Yabun Festival and Mardi Gras Fair Day.
Labor Councillor Olly Arkins tried to overturn the ban, asking that Victoria Park be allowed to host up to five events a year instead of the current two.
The attempt was shut down as council offered the extraordinary excuse that 'climate change is accelerating severe weather patterns'.
'Increased rainfall in the lead-up to and during outdoor commercial events has resulted in significant damage to large sections of the parks.'
Arkins argued council was not 'recognising the cultural value for our residents and the benefits for the local economy of these live opportunities' by enforcing the ban.
'This is about giving people a reason to stay out. We talk a lot about a vibrant 24-hour city, but this is what it actually looks like in practice,' he said.
Councillor Adam Worling, from Clover Moore's Council team, claimed public parks shouldn't be used for commercial events.
He also recalled the significant damage caused by the Night Noodle Markets.
'I witnessed the calamity of the Night Noodle Markets in 2022,' he said.
'[The bump out] was delayed because of the torrential rain. It was a disaster what they did to our park.'
He added the parks are still soaked after months of rain and warned that damage from large crowds could cost up to $250,000 to fix.
Worling suggested events should be held at other areas like Martin Place or the University of Technology Sydney.
He called on the state government to make venues like The Domain and Tumbalong Park cheaper to hire.
Worling pointed out Victoria Park once hosted major concerts for The Angels, AC/DC, and Cold Chisel, with a stage built on the roof of the pool.
'Why do we need to relegate these great days of live music in Sydney to the past, when there are artists and audiences desperate for a stage here and now?' he said.
NSW Premier Chris Minns supported ending the ban, saying on Tuesday 'we need to be sensible here'.
City of Sydney Liberal Councillor Lyndon Gannon meanwhile told Daily Mail Australia the state government wasn't doing enough.
'Here's a better idea for the Premier: how about we start using the forecourt of the Opera House more?' he said.
'And while we're at it, remove the ridiculous noise restrictions at the Domain. That'll bring back vibrancy instantly.'
'In the past, our local parks have been destroyed by events like the Night Noodle Markets. Residents were furious.'
'But if an operator comes up with a proven plan that won't leave the park closed for months, I'm all ears.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Blow for Rachel Reeves after UK economy shrinks by more than expected
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, UK and US?
A multi-billion dollar submarine deal between long-standing allies - Australia, the UK and the US - has come under the spotlight after the Trump administration said it was reviewing how the deal fits in with its heavily-touted "America First" agenda. The Aukus security pact, Australia's biggest ever defence project, is set to play a key part in the country's ability to replace its ageing Collins-class submarine fleet - and, crucially, its military standing in the region. The 30-day review will be led by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of Aukus. In a speech last year, he questioned why the US would give away "this crown jewel asset when we most need it". A US defence spokesperson said the review is about ensuring "this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda".Fears the review may torpedo the deal have been downplayed by the UK and Australia, with both saying the review is a normal process when a new government takes power. What is Aukus? Billed as a trilateral security partnership, the Aukus deal - worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn) over 30 years - involves two so-called pillars. Pillar 1 is about the supply and delivery of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Australia will buy three second-hand Virginia-class submarines from the US from 2032 with options to purchase two that, the plan is to design and build an entirely new nuclear-powered submarine model for the UK and Australian attack craft will be built in Britain and Australia to a British design, but use technology from all three 2 is about the allies collaborating on their "advanced capabilities". This involves sharing military expertise in areas such as long-range hypersonic missiles, undersea robotics and AI. What's the purpose of the deal? At its core, the deal is believed to be about countering China's growing presence in the Indo-Pacific region, and its role in rising tensions in disputed territories such as the South China none of the allies have directly pointed at China as a reason for the deal, the three countries have spoken about how regional security concerns have "grown significantly" in recent condemned the agreement as "extremely irresponsible" when it was first ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said it "seriously undermines regional peace and stability and intensifies the arms race". Who negotiated it? The deal was unveiled in September 2021 by three former leaders: Australia's Scott Morrison, the UK's Boris Johnson and the US's Joe Biden. The UK reviewed the security pact last year after Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government won the general election. What does Australia get out of it? For Australia, the deal represents a major upgrade to its military capabilities. The country is set to become just the second to receive Washington's elite nuclear propulsion technology, after the submarines will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet. They would also mean Australia would be able to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first the deal, sailors from the Royal Australian Navy are due to be sent to US and UK submarine bases to learn how to use the nuclear-powered submarines. What do the UK and US get out of it? From 2027, the pact will allow both the US and UK to base a small number of nuclear submarines in Perth, Western will also create about 7,000 jobs in Britain, with the design and construction of the new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines set to take place in the UK. The benefits for the US are less obvious - but sharing its defence technology could give the nation an opportunity to grow its presence in Asia-Pacific. Arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in a region that is far from their own.
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Reeves' review shows Labour plans to take on the right over net zero
With a barrage of announcements on home insulation, nuclear power, public transport and green technology, Rachel Reeves set out a clear message in her spending review – Labour will take on the Reform party on net zero. Taken together, the spending package on the green economy adds up to more than £60bn, not counting the £22bn in research and development spending, some of which will go to green ends. The budget for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero alone was boosted by 16%, more than any other department. Ed Matthew, UK director at climate change thinktank E3G, said: 'This is a historic uplift in capital support for building a clean economy. It will turbo-boost investment in clean energy in every part of the country, reducing climate change emissions and bolstering energy security.' That was not a given. Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, whose department emerged as a clear winner on Wednesday, has been vilified for months in sections of the media and heavily briefed against, even by some within government. There were persistent rumours until last week that the £13.2bn pledge on home insulation would be cut, or that the £8.3bn for Great British Energy would be watered down. But those pledges remained intact, and the £15bn boost for public transport outside London will help to tackle one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, from transport. Some of the £22bn announced for research and development will also go to low-carbon ends. Not everyone was happy. Nuclear power, while low-carbon, is opposed by many green campaigners, but the government has decided to press ahead with £15bn for Sizewell C, and £2.3bn for small modular reactors. The latter will come out of the budget for Great British Energy, leaving it less to invest in renewable technology such as offshore wind. Nature campaigners, already furious at the potential for destruction in the planning bill, were further disappointed by the lack of spending on environmental protections, though the budget for flood defences was not cut as feared, receiving instead a 5% increase to £4.2bn to 2029. Deep cuts to the farming budget had been expected but were, in the end, less drastic than feared, with the funds for environment land management schemes, which replace the £2.4bn a year EU farming subsidies, down to £2bn by 2028-29. Full details of the plans of how this will work will be released in the next few days. The spending review will allow Labour to point to its championing of net zero domestically, in stark contrast to the Reform party and the Conservatives, both of which have taken a stance against the policy. After some months of confusion, in April Keir Starmer properly laid his cards on the table, saying that net zero was in the party's DNA. But on the international front, big questions remain unanswered. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has had its budget for overseas aid severely cut, and after the current pledge of £11.6bn in climate finance for developing countries runs out next year, future funding is under threat. It will be hard for Starmer to claim climate leadership on the global stage without helping poor countries cope with the climate breakdown the rich have created. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion And there is the fact that Reeves could also have gone further; many campaigners, and a large majority of the public according to polling, would support taxes on polluters and extreme wealth. Such measures could raise about £20bn a year, according to Oxfam, and could be used to fund further action, such as cutting energy bills, boosting nature restoration and retraining workers in the North Sea. Louise Hutchins, convener of the Make Polluters Pay coalition of civil society groups, said: 'Reeves' plans fell far short of what's needed to keep us safe, both here and abroad. Most people can see what's really going on: oil and gas giants and the super-rich have made billions in profits while driving up household bills and pushing us to the brink of climate breakdown. Letting those most responsible off the hook is a political choice, and an unpopular one.'
