A delegation from the Friends met Paul Scully, the Minister for Planning & Pblic Places, on March 3 ostensibly to get a “briefing” on the Minister’s proposed (and damgerous) amendments to the Callan Park (Special Povisions) Act. Instead, the Minister kicked off by asking us what our objections were. Here’s the summary of our objections that we sent to him after that meeting (along with some observations on his points of reply) …
Thank you for “the briefing” on Tuesday, 3 March. It was useful for us to understand the thinking of the Minister and the GSP Trust management.
We trust it will be useful to you to understand the basic objections of the Friends of Callan Park to the proposed amendments to the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act 2002.
- The objects of the Callan Park Act should be retained
In our view these objects are stronger than those in the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Act and include matters that are lacking in the objects of that Act. We value in particular the commitment to public ownership and control, the protection against alienation of open space particularly on the foreshore, and the emphasis on maintaining universal access to the open space (see Section 4 a, b, and c of the Callan Park Act).
As we pointed out, the complete deletion of the objects of the Callan Park Act goes beyond the recommendation from the Joint Select Committee which recommended ensuring there was no inconsistency between the objects of both Acts (Recommendation 1). There are other amendments that also go beyond the select comittee’s recommendations.
An alternative approach to deletion would be to add the objects from the GSPT Act to those of the Callan Park Act.
2. The privileging of not-for-profit tenants should continue
This requirement that facilities at Callan Park be provided to not-for-profit entities (Section 7 (3)) honours the motivation for the site’s original acquisition by the NSW government and provides leases on buildings at below market rents, thereby facilitating the work of NGOs and charities in providing mental health services in particular. If these bodies have to compete with for-profit entities, they would be at a disadvantage, and even if they were successful, it would be at a cost to their operations.
The continuing use of Callan Park grounds and buildings for mental health support services is what makes Callan Park different to other ‘parks’. The high heritage significance of Callan Park concerns how this important relationship between the buildings and landscape was used in therapeutic healing and the treatment of mental health issues. The need for support mental health services is higher than ever right now.
It should be noted that arts and entertainment events can be held at Callan Park on a for-profit basis (Section 6 (5A)).
- 3. The protections against development on green open space should be preserved
The current requirements (Section 7 (5)) for development to stay within the footprint and envelope of existing buildings – which reinforces Object 4(b) – is a protection of existing green open space at Callan Park and should not be abolished. There are a number of reasons why this protection should remain. Callan Park is listed on the State Heritage Register for its distinctive and in-tact landscape – that should not be overlooked. Callan Park is also smaller than the other metropolitan parks in the Greater Sydney Parklands portfolio and is in a local government area with the second lowest provision of public open space in the state.
The abolition of this landscape protection is not part of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. It would also appear to run counter to Recommendation 12 of the Joint Select Committee that there be “no reduction of extent of the net existing natural environment of the GSPT estate”.
It should also be noted that there is already some flexibility in this control – building of amenities blocks can be erected outside existing footprints, as can safety or accessibility structures. (See Section 7 (5A))
- 4. The list of permissible uses should be retained
At present there is a list of permissible uses in the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act ( See
Section 7 (3)):
- arts and culture
- community facilities
- education facilities
- food and drink premises
- health facilities
The amendments propose to abolish this list (though the Minister seemed to be unsure of whether this list was to be abolished) and open the door to almost any commercial use, with the exception of residential, hotels, and function centres. This compounds the disadvantages that not-for-profit organisations devoted to mental health and other social welfare purposes would now face.
This “open door” is being justified on the grounds that it will draw much needed investment into Callan Park. That is dubious. The government has embarked on a process of demolishing almost all buildings on Callan Park with the exception of those classified as highly significant in the Conservation Management Plan 2011. Those retained buildings require considerable investment and this may deter commercial interest. For practical purposes, only public investment can save most of these high-value heritage buildings from their current demolition by neglect.
The Minister’s Second Reading Speech correctly described parks such as Callan Park as “essential public infrastructure”. As such, it must surely be essential or core government business and be adequately funded.
- 5. Parliamentary oversight of longer leases should continue
Leases as long in duration as 50 years, which is among the provisions of this set of proposed amendments, amount to de facto privatisation of public assets. Even if you agree with such measures, surely parliamentary oversight of the disposal of precious public assets (see Section 6 (3)) should be retained. It is the ultimate safeguard of the public interest.
Nor are we convinced that transparency and public input should be abolished for leases and licences shorter than 5 years. Such leases can still have a deleterious impact on the amenity and heritage aspects of Callan Park.
- 6. The CBTs and their powers
We also discussed our position that the Community Trust Boards should retain their current powers. We recognise that there are arguments on both sides of this debate. Your point that appointed citizens on these boards should not have more power than ordinary members of the public is valid, but it does raise the question of making these boards more representative and accountable as an alternative to stripping them of all powers. The reverse side of ensuring that CBTs are purely advisory is removing a constraint on the appointed board and management of the GSPT.
Response to issues raised by you
We note that you argued that we can trust the forthcoming Callan Park Plan of Management to protect Callan Park. We have yet to see that Plan. We note that its interpretation would be very much up to the Trust itself. There are dangrs in this which will be increased by your amendments. For instance, the current requirement for shorter-term leases and licences granted under that Plan to be transparent, and subject to public consultation, is to be eliminated by the proposed amendments. The Trust’s recent discrete, and unnecessary, submission largely in favour of two plastic grass football fields at Callan Park is scarcely encouragement to trust the Trust to protect Callan Park’s heritage-listed and natural landscape. It also seems a long way from the first object of the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Act 2022 which concerns ensuring “the parklands estate is effectively managed and operated to deliver world class and ecologically sustainable parklands for the public’”(Section 3 (a)).
We also note that such Plans of Management are subordinate to the requirements of laws such as the Callan Park Act (Special Provisions) which underlines the importance of the provisions of that Act.
It was useful to learn that your model for commercialisation is the 25-year lease on the gatehouse at the Royal Botanic Gardens for conversion into a cafe/restaurant. This is very much a work in progress and it is difficult to see how that model is relevant to Callan Park which is a much less busy location. Moreover, as we pointed out, its introduction into Callan Park would require only a minor amendment rather than the wholesale changes being proposed. (See Section 6 (5A) for the provision allowing for-profit arts and culture events.)
9 March 2026