Community responses to the Greater Sydney Parklands White Paper.
As well as the group response from the Alliance for Public Parklands posted on 14 July 2021, the Alliance members and others have also expressed concerns in their responses to the white paper. You can download them here:
“The Alliance for Public Parklands has serious objections to the GSP proposal contained in this White Paper and what we perceive as a lack of focus on futureproofing and safeguarding our five iconic parklands.”
Alliance for Public Parklands
The Western Sydney Parklands CEO “has presided over commercial development on land that was, according to the original intent of Western Sydney Parklands, “never to be developed”.”
Blacktown & District Environment Group Inc
“We are disappointed in the blueprint for the future management of Sydney’s iconic parklands, including Callan Park, as outlined in the White Paper ‘Parklands for People’. It falls well short of the Minister’s worthy objectives…”
Friends of Callan Park
“Our greatest concern in the White Paper is the possibility that land in Centennial Parklands could be deemed “low environmental and recreational value” resulting in further alienation via 99 year lease arrangements.”
Centennial Park Residents Association
“A one size fits all approach to managing these five parklands is unworkable. Each park has its own unique site-specific challenges and management issues.”
Friends of Fernhill and Mulgoa Valley Inc.
“We fear that existing legislated Trusts will not be able to operate under a proposed new GSP Trust without existing protections being either diminished or discarded.”
North Parramatta Residents Action Group Inc
“We are concerned that the White Paper concludes that commercialisation is the optimum solution to the funding challenge without any detailed analysis of alternative funding models and indeed any discussion of the expenditure the revenue is intended to fund.”
Saving Moore Park Inc
“There is no confirmation that a new Callan Park Trust would be formed which as a core responsibility, would provide local community representation and advice to the Minister on future management and key priorities.”
Inner West Council
“We do not support any commercialisation of parklands as it is simply not possible to generate all of the funds required from parklands to maintain and enhance the sites without fundamentally undermining the function of the spaces. “
Jamie Parker NSW MP and David Shoebridge NSW MP
“There is broad community concern that under the Greater Sydney Parklands model the Trust appears to operate more like a public sector agency than a custodian of the parklands.”
The National Trust of Australia (New South Wales)
“It is difficult for the NSW Government to gain acceptance and trust on a massive resetting of the parklands management and control based on their previous track record.”
Stephen Bali MP, State Member for Blacktown
“The new agency has already taken actions to negatively impact its reputation with the removal of trees for new carparking in Parramatta Park; and failure to issue a bedrock conservation plan for Fernhill Estate, before inviting a wide range of undoubtedly damaging proposals for the site.”
Total Environment Centre
"Greater Sydney Parklands must operate as a custodian of the parklands and work closely with local communities outside of trustee boards, liaising with community leaders and members.
"Could you please ensure the future parklands management framework has stronger safeguards against commercialisation and alienation of existing and new public open space, has expanding the parklands estate as a key objective, and has stronger connections with community?"
