We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Plan of Management (PoM) and the Access, Movement and Parking Strategy (Access Strategy).
We start by congratulating the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust staff for reflecting the community’s respect for the natural, social and cultural character of Callan Park in both documents. As you recognise, Callan Park is not a green-fields site but one steeped in heritage and an already much valued green sanctuary in the heart of a densely developed part of our city. In addition, it is on Sydney Harbour, arguably the most beautiful harbour on the planet.
While there is considerable support among our members for the definite positives in both documents, there are concerns that certain provisions do not meet the worthwhile objectives of these plans. The Friends accordingly offer some possible amendments – particularly to the Access Strategy.
These potential amendments do not of course exhaust the possible changes, and we are heartened by the widespread community interest and participation in this planning exercise. Better solutions may emerge from this process. We believe that the Access Strategy, in particular, would benefit from being the subject of community workshops to further refine the details. In fact, it could be argued that from a strategic planning perspective, the proper process would have been to finalise the PoM and the uses of the site before drafting, exhibiting and finalising the Access Strategy.
The Friends are also encouraged by the significant community concern for the future of Callan Park – and support for the protections afforded by the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act 2002.
Positive elements in the Plan of Management
The emphasis in the PoM on the protection and enhancement of the natural, social, heritage and cultural values of Callan Park is very welcome and the Friends strongly endorse this orientation which is repeated multiple times in the Plan. It is embodied very strongly in Strategic Direction 2, Key priorities and in Management Priority 7 (see PoM pages 11, 47 and 51).
The emphasis on protection of sites of First Nations presence is particularly supported. We are heartened by the fact that it leads the list of Key Priorities – see page 11.
We are also delighted that the PoM recognises the health functions – both general and specific – of Callan Park. (See “Support the ongoing provision of health-related services”, PoM p45, Strategic directions 1). The Friends believe there is scope for mental health services to be located in still vacant buildings such as the cottage wards built in the 1990s.
We support too the PoM’s commitment to put pedestrians first as far as traffic in the parklands is concerned (Strategic Direction 3), the removal of foreshore parking, the 20kph speed limit and the ending of on-grass parking. These are measures that require little or no extra funding to implement – and the sooner the better.
Likewise the creation of four distinct “management zones” appears to be a sensible approach to the continuing management of the site.
Shortcomings in the Plan of Management
We are concerned that there are no listing of priorities in the PoM and no funding commitments from the NSW state government.
We definitely oppose the proposal to extend filming into the parklands (PoM pp57-58). We note the assurance that this will be ‘balanced’ against other park uses, but the point is that filming must remain a tangential, occasional use and not on the same level as other uses.
This tentative proposal appears to be linked to the PoM’s aim of raising more funding for the park. On the contrary, it should be foundational that the proper maintenance and continued improvements in Callan Park (and all other regional parks) are fully funded by state and federal governments.
Friends were disappointed by the vagueness of the commitment to public access to Kirkbride (pictured above). It is not enough to “investigate” public access. It should be a matter of “ensuring” it. Kirkbride is, after all, a jewel in the national estate and the largest suite of 19th century sandstone buildings in the country. It should not be locked away from public access. Nor should it be, as it is currently, a storage site for film sets.
On the other hand, we note the commitment to “resolve the future” of Kirkbride and hope that can be honoured by more transparency around negotiations with the consortium organised by WHOS to take over the lease on Kirkbride.
We comment below on the case against the proposed maze of shared pathways that criss-cross the central green – and the heritage bowling green.
Finally, the Friends remain concerned at Inner West Council plans to install plastic grass playing fields at Waterfront Drive oval and the Balmain road field. The PoM’s emphasis on protecting and strengthening the natural qualities of Callan Park, and its respect for the evidence of First Nations’ prior occupation, implicitly rule out such fields. Nor does the ‘management priority’ for the Callan Point and Foreshore area – “pursue industry best practice in sporting ground management and operational maintenance and balance community utilisation with quality” – undermine our confidence in what is implied in this PoM. Natural grass fields with proper foundations as far as soil, cultivars and drainage, and careful maintenance, can qualify as “industry best practice”. Our hope is GSP stands firm on the principles enunciated in the PoM.
A quandary: the single management authority
The PoM’s advocacy of a single management authority for the whole site does make administrative sense. The problem is that the two obvious candidates for the role – Greater Sydney Parklands and NSW Health – have obvious drawbacks as far as satisfactorily filling the role. Greater Sydney Parklands lacks the expertise and experience in health services management, and NSW Health lacks the requisite skills in park management. Friends have always advocated for a specialised, site-specific agency to manage this complex, working, heritage parklands site – a stand-alone Callan Park Trust. The case for it remains unanswerable.
Another consideration, is the site more likely to attract funding if there are multiple agency budgets to access? A good example is accessing the Department of Transport’s budget for the proposed parking lot at the end of Wharf Road.
Missed opportunities in the Plan of Management
- ‘Blue plaque’ heritage signage – the extraordinary history of the site should be discreetly indicated with informative plaques as part of the upgrading of signage.
- Onsite museum of Callan Park.
- The future of what has been the Ambulance Service HQ is absent from the plan’s agenda.
Access, Movement & Parking Strategy
The Access, Movement and Parking Strategy: a mixed bag
As with the Plan of Management we note that there is no timetable or funding commitments, although this strategy does nominate certain definite priorities.
The first of these is the removal of parking and motor traffic conflict along the foreshore. This is long overdue. We consider this a high priority which should not await until the provision of new parking areas elsewhere as there is already adequate parking in Callan Park. Besides this is Harbour foreshore. We would not tolerate parking on the foreshore of the Botanical Gardens. Likewise we should not at Callan Park. The case for the immediate removal of this parking is further reinforced by the aim of the GSP to make Callan Park a world-class, iconic regional park.
The second of the short-term commitments – the institution of a one-way, clock-wise traffic system for cars in Callan Park – is not supported. Traffic should not be directed either through the centre of the park or around the frontage of Kirkbride. Traffic directed along the front of Kirkbride is not appropriate for such a heritage asset and it additionally would degrade the connection with the former pleasure gardens. This route would also lead to even more congestion at the Cecily Street traffic lights (Gate A) which is already going to be impacted by the anticipated 6 storey residential and commercial development opposite Callan Park at this intersection.
A longer-term aim of the Access Strategy is the welcome removal of tar roads in the centre of the site. However, the maze of shared pathways for pedestrians and bike riders is not supported. The paths seem to have been sketched in haphazardly as they run through the central parkland and through the old bowling green. We will not be surprised if dog-walkers are also critical of this aspect of the Access Strategy.
The Friends are particularly concerned by the proposed major access point from Glover Street on the northern border of Broughton Hall (near the community gardens). This appears to be inimical to the success of the work of We Help Ourselves (WHOS) and Foundation House, particularly as the Leichhardt Oval $30mil renovation will increase foot traffic traversing Callan Park.
Shortcomings of the Access Strategy – the remedies
Traffic
A major part of the remedy for the channelling of traffic along the front of Kirkbride as a result of the one-way loop, would be the maintenance of two-way traffic on Wharf Road with a turning circle and drop-off point at the end of Wharf Road or in the vicinity of Waterfront Drive Oval. Another part of the remedy would be to direct traffic to the right coming up Military Drive, taking it past the Kirkbride parking area and then west to Wharf Road.
A preponderance of the traffic going into the site (up to 1,000 cars per day) goes to the playing fields down Wharf Road. To minimise the traffic travelling through the site, it is imperative to get the cars off the site as quickly and efficiently as possible e.g. up Wharf Road which argues for Wharf Road being two ways. Otherwise there is unnecessary traffic travelling through the site and as mentioned creating a major problem exiting the site at GATE A.
Traffic flow plans definitely require more study and consultation with the over-riding aim of minimising or eliminating traffic in the central parts of Callan Park.
We note some conflict between the Plan of Management and the Access Strategy when it comes to traffic in Callan Park. The PoM talks of “prioritising pedestrians” – see Strategic Direction 3. Yet in the Access Strategy, reduction, or even limiting, of motor traffic in the park is not a definite objective (Access Strategy page 8). This is despite community opinion and even principles outlined in the Access strategy itself (page 17).
While we note the paucity of reported accidents due to cars in Callan Park, we believe this conflict should be resolved in favour of the PoM and car traffic minimised (or even eliminated) inside Callan Park.
It will significantly improve the safety, enjoyment and aesthetics of the parklands if traffic and parking are progressively eliminated from the centre of Callan Park.
Parking: keep it to the perimeter of the site
Parking in our view should be confined to the perimeter of Callan Park which would include a new parking area at the end of Wharf Road. We do not support parking along the internal roads which only encourages cars having to drive through the site.
Better use of the existing parking areas in Callan Park such as the Ambulance Parking lot would be helpful thus eliminating the need for parking on the internal roads. Many universities such as UNSW do not allow parking on site but in parking lots on their perimeters.
We note the Access Strategy’s revelation that there is already more parking per hectare in Callan Park than at Centennial Park or Parramatta Park. Furthermore, there is twice as much parking space available per hectare than at Sydney Bicentennial Park. All these parks are significantly larger than Callan Park.
Separate bike and pedestrian paths
We strongly support the extension of separated bike and pedestrian paths along the Bay Run in Callan Park. We also see no reason why this should not be the rule for any paths elsewhere in Callan Park and would favour keeping bike access to the perimeter of Callan Park and not though the centre of the parklands. We note community support for separated pathways. (Access Strategy page 9 and pp14-15, 20). Making all roads shared zones (see Access Strategy page 24) appears a worthwhile objective to consider in the further consultation process we recommend.
Conclusion
We trust these observations and suggested remedies are accepted in the spirit they are intended – to further fulfil or complement the worthwhile objectives of both documents.
Yours for Callan Park
Hall Greenland
President
on behalf of the Executive of Friends of Callan Park