Arthur Barton's murals. During the reconstruction, there was vocal opposition from a number of nearby residents and companies, on a variety of issues. The main points of opposition were the noise levels of the park after opening, and the installation of a tall steel roller coaster (to be named the Big Dipper after the original). The Environmental Protection Authority approved the construction of the new Big Dipper, on the condition that the Trust abided by strict noise control guidelines and covered the cost of soundproofing for any residents affected by excessive noise. In addition, North Sydney Council imposed a series of times when the roller coaster could not operate. Luna Park reopened in January 1995. In the months that followed, the park was affected by poor weather conditions, causing lower than predicted attendance. Legal claims against the operation of the park and roller coaster were filed by some local residents, and supported by business figures whose tenders for the redevelopment had not been accepted. The newly elected Carr State Government put the park's long-term viability in doubt; first removing the government guarantee of a $14 million loan to the Trust, then dissolving the Trust's board of directors and appointing an administrator. The park was forced to close again on 14 February 1996. In 1997 the Department of Land & Water Conservation (DLWC) engaged the Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS) to investigate urban design and land use options for the future use of Luna Park. The Luna Park Plan of Management was prepared by the New South Wales government in 1998 to guide the future management of the Luna Park Reserve. The Luna Park Plan of Management identified a preferred option for Luna Park's future use, determined in consultation with residents, the general public and other stakeholders. The preferred option identified by the Luna Park Plan of Management sought to preserve Luna Park's amusement park character while introducing new uses to improve its viability and accordance with the parameters in the Luna Park Site Amendment Act 1997. Metro Edgley involvement Although the government said at the time of closure that submissions to utilise the Luna Park site would not be considered, several groups made public their ideas about how the park could be altered and run to satisfy the majority. There was also 'grass roots support' for the reopening of Luna Park; one example of this was the collection of a