Expressions of interest have been called for the future of the former Burwood Bowling Club site.
The Awabakal Aboriginal Land Council acquired the picturesque 894 square metres site at 70 Burwood Road, Whitebridge following a successful land claim last year.
Awabakal chief executive Rob Russell said the Land Council board had a open mind about the how the site could be used.
"We are keen to see what ideas are out there. Maybe it could be a child care or an aged care centre," Mr Russel said.
"We are not interested in selling it."
Michael Chapman from Colliers International predicted the site would attract broad interest from groups including bowling club operators, function centres, restaurants, childcare operators, markets and religious groups.
The current zoning includes RE1, RE2 private and public recreation as well as RU6 Transition.
Prior to the land council's successful claim, the Burwood Commons group had been fighting to keep the former Burwood Colliery site from being developed since the bowling club collapsed in 2015.
The future of the former King Edward Park Bowling Club site, which Awabakal also acquired last year is less clear.
Mr Russell said the State Heritage Council was yet to indicate how much the 0.6 hectare site would be listed on the state's heritage register.
The Awabakal Land Council made the claims on the two pacels of land in 2017 under the 1983 Land Rights Act.
Lands and Forestry minister Paul Toole said the Lands Department considered both claims and determined them to be lawfully claimable under the act, which recognises the spiritual, social, cultural and economic importance of land that was traditionally owned and occupied by Aboriginal people.
Both parcels of land were transferred as freehold land to the Awabakal Land Council, which is responsible for the future management of the sites.
The Friends of King Edward Park fought for more than a decade to prevent a function centre being built on the iconic parcel of land.
Spokesman Dr Kim Ostinga told the Herald at the time that the site was steeped in history significant to both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.
“It is noted that a previous land claim was rejected in 2011 because the minister decided that the land was lawfully occupied and was needed for essential public purposes of public recreation. As yet, we do not understand what might have changed in the meantime to allow the claim to be granted on this occasion,” Dr Ostinga said.