Over the last 30 years, the council has fenced off a section of the land, leased it to farmers for stock grazing, planted seven trees and put in a walkway.
In its long term plan and annual plan, the council has identified five portions of land, including 86 per cent of Haylock Park, that it wants to sell to developers to raise funds for the new Bulls Community Centre.
Members of the community, including Platt and Bruce Dear, have fought over the last few months to have the sale proposal overturned.
Dear said Clifton School's roll had increased from 140 in 2015 to 220 currently.
"With the young people of today spending more time on their devices and obesity a major health concern, we have to provide a venue to encourage them to get out in the fresh air and become more active," Dear said.
"If they get $200,000 [for the land sale] it's a small amount in $5.6 million [for the new Community Centre], but the social price can't be measured in dollars and cents."
Dear created a petition and a residential survey, asking the community if they were for or against the sale of the park.
Nineteen respondents supported the sale and 376 opposed it.
Platt, who recently sought advice from two lawyers on whether the council could sell the gifted land, presented the legal advice at the council meeting.
Platt told the meeting former council chief executive Ross McNeil said he had legal advice on the sale of endowment property but this had not been provided to the council. Platt also claimed the council had breached clauses 77, 78 and 82 of the Local Government Act.
Clause 78 stipulated that in the course of decision making the views of persons likely to be affected, or who have an interest in the matter, must be considered.
"In law, when you consider something it must be documented and we have the clear letter from the Haylock family that shows they not only oppose [the sale of Haylock Park], they would be distressed if it were to happen," Platt said.
Platt said clause 77 meant council must identify all reasonable practical options and the advantages and disadvantages of the options.
"If we were selling a public park, surely the advantages and disadvantages are immense and we owe it to our people to discuss those and we haven't done those, therefore, haven't complied with the act."
Platt argued the council did not comply with clause 82 as it had not provided reasonable access to relevant information.
He said he did not agree the consultation under the long term plan and the annual plan had been satisfactory for the people of Bulls.
Mayor Andy Watson said he could not think of an issue the council consulted on more than the funding for the Bulls Community Centre and the properties identified to provide funding.
"At that time information was put into shop windows, there were a series of public meetings and I sat numerous days in libraries and other people did so that was reinforced throughout the annual plan process."
Watson accepted there may be confusion about the potential sale of the park but Owen Haylock was not the only funder of the land as council had also contributed to it.
"Fundamentally, I don't know how we could have engaged in consultation better. I think there's always lessons to be learned but I think we engaged as well as we could with the community."
Dear said it had not been publicised that the public meetings about the new community centre would include discussion on the potential sale of Haylock Park.
"I never went along to that. I was not interested in the new centre. If they had said they would have one on Haylock Park, I would have gone along years ago."
Platt put forward a motion that council begins a process to revoke the resolution concerning the sale of Haylock Park but the motion was lost in a voting deadlock.
Councillor Jane Dunn moved to have a flyer summarising the potential sale of Haylock Park distributed "to the old Bulls ward".
"Despite the work councillor Platt and Bruce Dear have done, there is still confusion about the whole case around what is going to be sold and what's not," Dunn said.
"I would like to have the pros, cons and consequences, and why we came to this decision as council, put out in a much wider, clearer information."
The motion was passed unanimously.
