• Those in support of the proposal said...

    • addressing the housing crisis, especially younger generations and skilled workers.
    • the land is rarely used and there are other nearby open spaces or vacant reserves that serve the community better.
    • repurpose surplus land not actively used by the community.
    • benefit of reducing council maintenance costs, generating funds for local projects, paying down debt.
    • high foot traffic and recommended a footpath if the parcel is to be revoked.
    • parking and road access addressed if housing proceeds.

  • Those not in support the proposal said...

    • irreversible loss of green space, essential for community wellbeing, and wildlife habitat.
    • contributes to broader environmental strategies.
    • development would increase traffic congestion, strain infrastructure, create safety concerns.
    • enhance land for community benefit instead of housing.
    • revocation prioritises short-term financial gain over long-term environmental and social value.
    • limited transparency and community consultation.
    • explore alternatives rather than selling public green space.

  • Those who were unsure said....

    • explore alternative models to retain council ownership and generate long-term value and income.
    • clarity regarding subdivision intentions, future zoning, and whether upgrades to streetscapes, lighting, and footpaths would be completed post sale.
    • Questions raised about whether the proposal would support first homebuyers and what development controls would apply.
    • potential environmental impacts, with conditional support offered if biodiversity or natural value is maintained or enhanced.