Liverpool parks sell-off shot down

Photo of author

parks sell-off
Argument: Bigge Park is 20 per cent bigger following the demolition of the bowling club but that didn’t impress councillors opposed to parks sell-off plan.

A majority of Liverpool councillors last night shot down plans for a sell-off of some council owned parks.

A compromise proposal by the deputy mayor and an impassioned call by the mayor weren’t enough to sway the opponents to the plan.

Most councillors voted at the November monthly meeting of Liverpool Council to leave all parks alone for the time being.

Deputy mayor Tony Hadchiti proposed that only some of the parks on the list be rezoned or reclassified and sold off.

He also suggested some of the parks on the hit list be rezoned to allow for affordable housing – “for which there is a great need in Liverpool,’’ he said.

And Mayor Ned Mannoun told council that previous park sell offs had resulted in a great result for Liverpool, either through successful investments or much needed spending on other council facilities.

And he reminded opponents of the plan that some of the parks in question “were so small or of such irregular shape they could not be used as parks by residents’’.

[social_quote duplicate=”no” align=”default”]“One of the things we have done in the past 12 months is increase the size of Bigge Park by 20 per cent,’’ Mr Mannoun said.[/social_quote]

“This is part of our strategy to devote our resources towards the best possible facilities for our residents, including the best possible parks,’’ he said.

The process to rezone some Liverpool parks from community land to operational land – which means they can then be sold off – started more than a year ago on September 2014.

When council this year exhibited a proposal to rezone and/or reclassify a number of small parks, 324 written submissions were received and 25 residents attended public hearings.

After removing a couple of parks from the final list, the proposed reclassification and rezoning involved the following parks:

• McCarthy Park,  Wonga Road, Lurnea

• Part of Stante Reserve, Qantas Boulevard, Middleton Grange

• Ferrington Park, Ferrington Crescent, Liverpool

• Baker Park , Frazer Avenue and Hanna Avenue, Lurnea

• St Andrews Park, St Andrews Boulevard, Casula

• Wendlebury Park, Wendlebury Road, Chipping Norton

• Hazel Bradshaw Park, Deerwood Avenue, Liverpool

· Mimosa Park, Box Road, Casula

• Acacia Park, Grevillea Crescent, Prestons

• Part of Thawaral Park, Gunsynd Avenue and Ajudy Close, Casula

• Part of Regan Park, Newbridge Road, Moorebank

• Part of Pearce Park, Rose Street, Liverpool

• Hannan Park, Brain Avenue, Lurnea.

A number of residents addressed the council and spoke against the move, including Liverpool Greens member Signe Westerberg.

“Say no to all of the parks on the list,’’ Westerberg told the council.

“We have an expanding city and as we grow even small pocket parks will be of value to the community.

[social_quote duplicate=”no” align=”default”]“Once they’re gone, they’re gone, so let’s stop their sale right now.’’[/social_quote]

Her words were echoed by independent councillor Peter Harle during the ensuing debate.

“We need to look into the future and not to just what we want to do now,’’ Cr Harle said.

“Let’s get our priorities right by retaining all of these parks.

“Even pocket parks are useful.’’

Mayor Mannoun urged councillors to look at the “bigger picture’’ in deciding how to vote.

“Liverpool should have the best parks and only through a strategy of selling ones which are not suitable because of size or shape can we spend money to make other parks even better,’’ the mayor said.

 

2 thoughts on “Liverpool parks sell-off shot down”

  1. We need to look at the amount of people moving into our area and keep what we have, at the moment we are losing all our heritage very quickly it seems. Council is in a good financial state so they say so I see no rush to sell what we have. Bigge park Shell should have been moved not demolished but council no best. I do agree we need to keep parks in good order etc, but that is par for course yes as a rate payer I expect nothing less. Just my opinion.

    Reply

Leave a Comment