Community engagement outcomes report · 2016-03-16 · Stage 1 community engagement Community engagement was identified as a crucial element of the precinct planning process. In June

Community engagement outcomes report

Modbury Heights Precinct Plan – Stage 2 November/December 2015 Report prepared by: Sarah McDougall Community Engagement Officer February 2016

Contents

Background ...................................................................................................... 1

Overview of community engagement activities ................................................ 2

Community engagement outcomes ................................................................. 3

High level summary of feedback received ....................................................... 4

Feedback on the overall precinct plan .......................................................... 4

Views on the proposed funding approach .................................................... 5

Feedback on concept plan for Lot 50 Golden Grove Road .......................... 6

Feedback on concept plan for Hargrave Reserve ........................................ 7

Feedback on concept plan for Maxlay Reserve............................................ 8

Feedback on concept plan for Vulcan Reserve ............................................ 9

Feedback on concept plan for Chelsea Reserve ........................................ 10

Feedback on concept plan for Johinke Reserve......................................... 11

Levels of support and opposition to partial land sales ................................ 12

Summary of additional attachments/emails to feedback forms .................. 13

Summary of email submissions .................................................................. 13

Results ........................................................................................................... 14

Feedback on Modbury Heights Precinct Plan overall ................................. 14

Feedback on proposal for funding local area (precinct) upgrades via land sales of under-used reserves ..................................................................... 17

Feedback on reserves identified for total upgrade ...................................... 21

Lot 50 Golden Grove Road (adjacent Kingfisher Reserve) ..................... 21

Hargrave Reserve ................................................................................... 24

Feedback on reserves identified for upgrade and partial sale .................... 27

Maxlay Reserve ...................................................................................... 27

Vulcan Reserve ...................................................................................... 34

Chelsea Reserve .................................................................................... 40

Johinke Reserve ..................................................................................... 47

Evaluation of Community Engagement Strategy objectives ........................... 52

Next steps ...................................................................................................... 53

Verbatim comments ....................................................................................... 54

Appendix 1: Extra submissions (attachments to feedback form or emails) .. 225

Appendix 2: Email submissions ................................................................... 241

Appendix 3: Information Booklet for consultation ......................................... 248

Appendix 4: Feedback form ......................................................................... 265

Modbury Heights Precinct Plan – Stage 2 community engagement outcomes report 1

Background

Council’s City Master Plan 2011-2040 identifies Modbury Heights as an area of urban renewal and a locality to undergo detailed precinct planning. The boundaries of the precinct, as resolved by Council in July 2012 are Milne Road, Golden Grove Road, Grenfell Road, The Golden Way and McIntyre Road.

Urban renewal areas are concentrated around activity centres that serve the population and offer opportunities to make public realm improvements (eg how the area looks). The objectives of the precinct plan include: • improvements of the local amenity (public realm) • creating destinations for recreation and leisure • linking destinations within and outside the precinct • achieving a co-ordinated approach to delivery of capital programs • identifying funding/resource opportunities • developing short/medium/long term implementation plans to enable the delivery

of projects as part of Council’s budget process Stage 1 community engagement Community engagement was identified as a crucial element of the precinct planning process. In June 2014 Modbury Heights precinct residents and other stakeholders were invited to provide feedback on what their vision for the area was and their wants and needs in terms of infrastructure, facilities and services. This feedback was collated and used to guide the development of an overall precinct plan, as well as draft concept plans for a number of reserves in the precinct.


Stage 2 community engagement In this next stage of community engagement we wanted to confirm the direction and priority of the concepts and ideas with the Modbury Heights precinct community, as well as understand the community’s support or otherwise of the option of ‘self funding’ the more significant upgrades by way of partial sale of under-used community land (reserves). This involved commencing the community land classification revocation process for four reserves: • Maxlay Reserve • Vulcan Reserve • Chelsea Reserve • Johinke Reserve These reserves were also identified for partial upgrade, along with significant improvements to Lot 50 Golden Grove Road (adjacent Kingfisher Reserve) and Hargrave Reserve. A Community Engagement Strategy was developed by the Community Development & Engagement Department in line with the requirements outlined in Council’s Community Engagement (Public Consultation) Policy and endorsed by Council on 13 October 2015.

Overview of community engagement activities

From 4 November to 4 December 2015, the community was invited to provide their feedback on the draft Modbury Heights Precinct Plan. Letters were sent to approximately 2300 owners and/or residents in the Modbury Heights precinct, along with an information booklet (see Appendix 3) a feedback form (see Appendix 4) and reply paid envelope. The map on page 1 shows the targeted area. Information was accessible from Council’s website, including Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), as well as an online survey option for providing feedback.

A Public Notice was published in the Leader Messenger advising of the commencement of the community land revocation process for four reserves. Notices promoting the opportunity for providing feedback were published in the Gully Views in the Leader Messenger and on Council’s Facebook and Twitter accounts during the community engagement period. Signage was installed on six reserves in the precinct advising users of community engagement occurring in relation to proposed changes for the reserves. Three Open Houses were held at the Civic Centre where residents could ‘drop in’ to view the plans, talk to Ward Councillors and Council staff and provide feedback. Approximately 40 people attended across the three sessions.


Chelsea Reserve petition A petition was received by Council on 7 December 2015 requesting that Chelsea Reserve not be sold for development and remains as a reserve. The petition statement was “No Changes. Petition not to sell Chelsea Reserve. Happy to Leave Chelsea ‘As is’”. The petition comprised of 60 participants with 49 providing their name, address and signature, 10 participants only providing an address and signature (with no name), and 1 participant with no name and no signature. Three petitioners were represented twice (by name or signature) Fifty people who were represented on the petition (by name, signature or address) also provided feedback as part of the consultation (representing 43 submissions). One of these was identified by address only as a name or signature was not provided on the petition.

Community engagement outcomes

A total of 322 submissions (comprising feedback forms and emails) were received, which amounted to 297 submissions when accounting for more than one response from one person (292 feedback forms and five email submissions)1. These submissions represent 275 households (multiple submissions were received from 13 households) and 364 people (couples and families who submitted one submission per household). In order to better understand the views of those living near one of the four reserves proposed for partial sale, submissions from those who were in a 200m radius of such a reserve were identified. It should be noted that given the proximity of Maxlay and Johinke Reserve to each other, 21 responses (submissions) were in a 200m radius of both reserves. See page 4 for a map showing the Modbury Heights Precinct and the location of the reserves relative to each other.

No. of responses

Within a 200m radius of:

• Maxlay Reserve 39

• Vulcan Reserve 32

• Chelsea Reserve 72

• Johinke Reserve 28

Not within 200m radius of any of the above reserves 126 Unable to determine as street address not provided 3 Outside Modbury Heights Precinct 13

Of the five email submissions received, one respondent lived the in Modbury Heights Precinct, one was outside the precinct and the other three respondents did not provide their address details.

1 Where multiple feedback forms are provided, comments are merged into one submission.

Other types of additional submissions (ie email or notes on maps) are included separately in Appendix 1: Additional submissions/attachments


High level summary of feedback received2

Feedback on the overall precinct plan

There was a reasonable level of support for Council’s proposed plan for Modbury Heights Precinct, as well as the proposed model to ‘self fund’ the upgrades by the way of partial sale of specific reserves. Analysis of the comments provided in response to the question about views on the overall precinct plan showed that around 42% of respondents were generally positive or supportive about the ideas for upgrading the precinct. Most of this group were also favourable to the proposed funding approach although 4% (n=5) were not. Another group (around 9%, n=27) were also generally supportive of the overall precinct plan but had some concerns, conditions to their support or queries about the plan. There was also a group of respondents (around 13%, n=37) who were unsupportive of the precinct plan, mainly due to their disapproval of the proposal to partially sell community land to fund the upgrades, in particular Chelsea Reserve. See pages 14-16 for a full list of coded comments for this question.

2 Unless otherwise noted, this summary is based on feedback form data (n=292). A summary

of the feedback from the five email submissions is on page 13.


Views on the proposed funding approach

Graph 1: Analysis of comments about proposed funding approach

33% 14% 6% 22% 25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

(n=292)

Favourable

Favourable - but with conditions/concerns/questions

Unsure/mixed views

Unfavourable

Did not answer

As the graph above shows, just under half (47%) were categorised as having either favourable views to the proposed funding approach or favourable but with conditions, concerns or queries. Concerns were mostly related to: • the type of future housing that may be built, with a wish for no high density

development or housing that wasn’t in keeping with the look and feel of existing housing in the area

• a desire for 100% of raised funds to go towards upgrades and maintenance in Modbury Heights only and not to other areas of the City

• rates not being affected and/or increased A further 6% indicated were unsure or had mixed views with questions or concerns. Just under a quarter (22%) were not in favour of the proposed funding approach, most commonly due to opposition to sale of reserves and loss of open space. Some felt that it was preferable to carry out upgrades over a longer timeframe when they could be paid for during the usual budgeting process, rather than sell community land to pay for upgrades in the short term. See pages 17-20 for a full list of coded comments and reasons for having a particular view.


Feedback on concept plan for Lot 50 Golden Grove Road

Most commonly respondents were in favour of all or the majority of the ideas proposed. Well liked ideas included (in order of highest to lowest mentioned): • public toilets • BBQ/picnic setting • native & community garden • urban forest & nature play Suggested changes, concerns or queries mostly related to: • no installation of public art • vandalism & graffiti • ensuring provision of adequate shade See pages 21 to 23 for tables showing a complete listing of coded (themed) likes, changes and queries.


Feedback on concept plan for Hargrave Reserve

Most commonly respondents again liked all or the majority of the ideas proposed. Well liked ideas included (in order of highest to lowest mentioned): • new playground • picnic settings • pathway around oval • public toilets Some also commented that they were glad to see the reserve being revitalised and that this was long overdue. Suggested changes, concerns and queries mostly related to: • intentions for sporting club use of reserve • car parking (upgrades or amount required) • picnic settings (location of and amount required) See pages 24 to 26 for tables showing a complete coded (themed) listing of likes, changes and queries.


Feedback on concept plan for Maxlay Reserve

Most commonly respondents liked the fenced dog park. Other well liked ideas included (in order of highest to lowest mentioned): • all/most of the ideas proposed • informal BMX track • pathway connection to Golden Way • irrigated kickabout Suggested changes, concerns and queries mostly related to: • the location of proposed area to sell • impact of additional housing and reserve use on traffic • selling reserve/community land • having a BMX track • lack of public toilets See pages 27 to 29 for tables showing a complete listing of coded (themed) likes, changes and queries for total respondents and those in a 200m radius of the reserve.


Feedback on concept plan for Vulcan Reserve

Most commonly respondents liked all or most of ideas proposed. Well liked ideas included (in order of highest to lowest mentioned): • picnic setting/shelter • upgraded pathways • retention of playground • landscape works • irrigated kickabout Suggested changes, concerns and queries mostly related to: • selling reserve/community land • the location of the proposed area to sell • impact on street parking • the basketball half court See pages 34 to 35 for tables showing a complete listing of coded (themed) likes, changes and queries for total respondents and those in a 200m radius of the reserve.


Feedback on concept plan for Chelsea Reserve

Most commonly respondents liked all or the majority of ideas proposed. Well liked ideas included (in order of highest to lowest mentioned): • picnic setting/shelter • basketball half court • irrigated kickabout When compared to the other three reserves proposed for partial sale, there was a larger group of respondents (n=41, 14%) who used this question to indicate they liked nothing about the concept plan and that the reserve should be left as is. Most of this group lived in a 200m radius of Chelsea Reserve. Suggested changes, concerns and queries mostly related to: • selling reserve/community land • lack of playground • impact of additional housing on traffic, parking etc • kickabout area • the basketball half court See pages 40 to 42 for tables showing a complete listing of coded (themed) likes, changes and queries for total respondents and those in a 200m radius of the reserve.


Feedback on concept plan for Johinke Reserve

Most commonly respondents liked all or the majority of ideas proposed and the upgraded pedestrian walkway. Suggested changes, concerns and queries related to: • selling reserve/community land • upgrading the whole reserve instead and including more plantings • the walkway – more information about level of use and safety concerns See page 47 for tables showing a complete listing of likes, changes and queries for total respondents and those in a 200m radius of the reserve.


Levels of support and opposition to partial land sales

The following graphs show the levels of support and opposition for each of the four reserves proposed for partial sale. Graph 2: support/oppose levels (total respondents)

48%

41% 41%43%

18% 19%

28%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Maxlay Reserve Vulcan Reserve Chelsea Reserve Johinke Reserve

(n=292)

Support

Oppose

Graph 3: support/oppose levels (respondents in 200m radius of reserve)

38% 38%

19%

36%

41%

47%

75%

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Maxlay Reserve

(n=39)

Vulcan Reserve

(n=32)

Chelsea Reserve

(n=72)

Johinke Reserve

(n=28)

Support

Oppose

As the graphs show above, support was highest overall for the partial sales of Maxlay and Johinke Reserves, although this level of support dropped when just considering the views of those in a 200m radius of these reserves. Opposition was highest for Chelsea Reserve, mostly due to the strength of opposition from those living closest to this reserve.


When considering a respondent’s views to all four proposed partial reserve sales, analysis showed that around a third supported all land sales and 1 in 10 were opposed to all land sales. The remainder of respondents had no opinion, were unsure or left the question blank, or opposed and supported various different combinations of reserves. n %

Support all land sales 99 34%

Oppose all land sales 30 10%

Combination of different views (support/oppose, etc) for all land sales 125 43%

Have no opinion/unsure/left blank for all reserves 38 13%

Total 292 100%

Overall the reasons for supporting land sales included: • perception that land was currently unused or wasted • was a good balance of development and upgrades • reserves will be more usable and of more benefit to the community Overall the reasons for opposing land sales included: • loss of open space • disagreement with sale of reserves for the purpose of raising revenue • traffic and parking concerns due to additional housing and residents • not wanting additional housing in their area , particularly high density housing The reasons provided for supporting or opposing the partial sale of each of the four reserves identified can be found in the Results section of this report, starting on page 31.

Summary of additional attachments/emails to feedback forms

Eleven respondents provided attachments to their feedback forms or additional feedback by way of a separate email to Council. The content of these additional attachments or emails expanded on comments already provided on the feedback form or were copies of the concept plans/maps with hand written additional comments and suggestions, such as entry points or a different location for housing. Copies of these additional attachments and emails can be found in Appendix 1.

Summary of email submissions

Five email submissions were received during the community engagement period. These submissions included comment on the following: • The value of open space, querying the appropriateness of selling significant

portions of land to fund upgrades and preferring upgrades to be done over a longer timeframe

• A suggestion for an alternative development opportunity for Hargrave Reserve • Disagreement with selling reserves for housing • Upgrade suggestions for Lot 50 Golden Grove Road which reflect the history and

heritage of the site • Support for the Lot 50 upgrades and a suggestion to install bike racks for Dry

Creek path bike riders Copies of these submissions can be found in Appendix 2.


Results

Note: due to rounding some combined scores on the graphs may range from 99% to 101%. Multiple response questions will not add to 100%. Use of ‘n’ in table and charts refers to the number of respondents.

Feedback on Modbury Heights Precinct Plan overall

Do you have any comments about the overall Modbury Heights Precinct Plan?

Responses for this question have been coded (themed) and then categorised into high level groups. Note: comments provided may have covered different ideas/themes and therefore a respondent may be represented more than once across these themes. Percentages are calculated from total number of feedback form submissions (n=292)

Generally positive/supportive of proposed precinct plan n %

Overall support for precinct plan/upgrading Modbury Heights/good ideas/positive

101 35%

Good use, re-purposing of unused reserves/good balance of upgrading and selling

28 10%

Forward thinking initiative from Council/well thought out/financially sustainable planning

13 4%

Improvements add value to Modbury Heights/improves liveability/make it user friendly

13 4%

Like Hargrave Reserve upgrades 6 2%

Like Lot 50 upgrades proposed 3 1%

Council have listened to community feedback 2 1%

Adelaideans are afraid of change/but any change is better than none 1 0%

Some support, but have concerns/reservations/questions n %

Like upgrades proposed, but not idea of selling reserves to fund it/keep existing open space

9 3%

Support, but with caveats: as long as all money goes to redevelopment/ rates don't increase/upgrades maintained/no more subdivision/retain all native vegetation

8 3%

Support, but with reservations - selling land/losing leafy, green feel/setting precedent

4 1%

Agree with most improvements with some exceptions/things missing 4 1%

Support some upgrades but not to extent proposed - 'gold plating' 1 0%

Ambitious if a bit ill-considered in places 1 0%

Against reserve sales n %

No sale of any reserves to fund improvements/loss of (excessive amount of) open space/must never be sold/irreversible step

24 8%

Chelsea Reserve – leave as is/no upgrade or sale/Council promised it wouldn’t be touched

14 5%

No resident overlooking reserve should lose view 2 1%

Like Modbury Heights as it is/no upgrades needed 1 0%

Johinke Reserve – don't sell 1 0%


Do you have any comments about the overall Modbury Heights Precinct Plan? (cont)

Precinct plan approach/rationale/Council management n %

Council should budget better/fund upgrades to all reserves with rates or saved money/is a short term view

9 3%

Prefer long term approach/already waited, what's another 10 years, why the rush now/more economical to do gradually

5 2%

Not public's fault reserves unusable/no infrastructure/look bad - upgrades could've been done one over last few years

4 1%

This is nothing more than a money making scheme/money grab 4 1%

No benefit to ratepayers in selling land for housing/only to Council with land sale money & rates from small blocks

3 1%

Don't trust Council to properly manage funds/do work in 4 years/put all money towards the precinct plan

3 1%

Not impressed, sell then spend small amount to upgrade what's left 2 1%

Lack of money shouldn't hinder thoughtful, long term planning 1 0%

Question 7.2% open space statistic - more like 32% when considering four reserves proposed for sale

1 0%

All excess money should go to Modbury Heights, not general revenue pool

1 0%

Disagree with selling more land than needed to fund upgrades - unfair Modbury Heights loses land to fund other areas

1 0%

Why are other area upgrades funded by rates but 100% of Modbury Heights upgrades funded by selling community land?

1 0%

Disappointed only income raising strategy proposed is to sell land/reserves – open space key reason for living in Modbury Heights

1 0%

Haven't consulted about upgrades in Modbury Heights before, just done them

1 0%

Uninspired/boring plan 1 0%

Facilities and amenity n %

More shelters/lighting/drinking fountains/public toilets - encourage people to stay and use amenities longer

6 2%

Would like footpaths/walkways in - Metcalfe Avenue/between Plover Ave & Kestral Drive

3 1%

Public toilets may attract vandals/graffiti etc, have extra cleaning costs 3 1%

Need public amenities where picnics, BBQs etc are proposed 2 1%

Need more/bigger playgrounds in Modbury Heights/all upgraded sites to have playgrounds

2 1%

Need rubbish bins/dog waste bags/drinking fountains on all reserves 2 1%

Like committed upgrade plans for Dresden/Kestral/Emma Reserves 2 1%

Need attractive, open spaces/structured/usable for recreation 1 0%

Leave all reserves in natural state except Lot 50 1 0%

Modbury Heights Shopping Centre also needs updating 1 0%

Bike paths in City have no gutter crossings 1 0%

Remove dead trees/bottle brushes in the area 1 0%

Get high school to clean up its area 1 0%

Remove stobie poles 1 0%

More lighting - Kingfisher walkway to Jubilee Way 1 0%

Would like dog park at Kingfisher Reserve 1 0%

More seating/bins along Kingfisher Reserve 1 0%

Concerned about vandalism - new infrastructure, plantings 1 0%

Keep established trees, newly planted trees 1 0%

Road upgrades needed - Melrose Street 1 0%

Where possible plant native trees/plants to cater for local wildlife 1 0%


Do you have any comments about the overall Modbury Heights Precinct Plan? (cont)

Housing and traffic n %

Don't agree to selling reserves for housing development/will change feel of area, become medium density and 'cramped'

6 2%

More houses will mean more traffic issues 5 2%

Any new development should match current housing/be complementary/no units or 'shoebox' houses

5 2%

Concerns about impact of additional housing near Chelsea/Maxlay Reserves on traffic access/narrow streets around them

3 1%

Other reserves in precinct n %

Should have upgraded/sold land from - Dresden, Minerva, Kestral Reserves

5 2%

Sell all reserves/not used/houses are better 1 0%

Consultation process n %

Impressed by Council documentation and consultation process 1 0%

Not enough lead time to attend open houses - delay in mailing out 1 0%

Return envelope too small for form, invest in A4 envelope 1 0%

Not enough detail in booklet 1 0%

Draft precinct plan inaccurate - Swan Court Reserve included, sold years ago

1 0%

Other comments n %

Concerned about impact on wildlife from removal of trees/on Kingfisher Reserve

2 1%

Council should ensure it gets the best price for the land 1 0%

$4m could be used instead for hospital/library/Hive/youth 1 0%

Where will money come from to maintain upgrades? 1 0%

Maxlay Reserve – better to sell land north and/or south rather than the middle

1 0%


Feedback on proposal for funding local area (precinct) upgrades via land sales of under-used reserves

“We are proposing a different ‘fast tracked’ funding approach to pay for local area upgrades and improvements which involves partial sale of under-used reserves with no or minimal infrastructure, so we can provide these upgrades to the community as quickly as possible.” What do you think about this proposed funding approach? Graph 4: Categorising of comments about proposed funding approach

33% 14% 6% 22% 25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

(n=292)

Favourable

Favourable - but with conditions/concerns/questions

Unsure/mixed views

Unfavourable

Did not answer

Responses to this question were analysed and categorised into four broad categories, as shown in the graph above. The following tables provide the coded (themed) comments for each of these four categories.

Reasons of those favourable to proposed funding approach (n=97)

n %

Agree/good idea/good concept/no problem with this/support it 38 39%

Many reserves earmarked for sale are under used/wasted/should be sold 23 24%

Sensible idea/makes sense/practical/responsible approach/good management

11 11%

Work starts/is done sooner/fast tracked 10 10%

Will reduce costs for ratepayers/avoid increase in rates or going into debt 9 9%

Helps fund projects/provide capital/fund ongoing maintenance 8 8%

Reasonable compromise/is reasonable 7 7%

Is well researched/innovative/intelligent approach 5 5%

More housing is positive/wasted land put to use for housing 5 5%

TTG area has lots of parks, doesn't take long to get to any/are costly to maintain

5 5%

Not selling whole reserves/small amount of land sales OK 4 4%


Reasons of those favourable to proposed funding approach (n=97) (cont)

n %

Part of reserve left will be more usable/upgraded 4 4%

Just do it/get it done/go for it/go ahead 3 3%

Need to look at 'big picture'/future benefits of development for next generation

2 2%

Most efficient/effective way to get upgrades done 2 2%

Some areas/reserves too big, ie Maxlay 2 2%

Will provide more employment/jobs 1 1%

Makes area look nicer - landscaping, trees, paths, etc 1 1%

(Upgrades) will increase property values 1 1%

Bonus – more houses for Council to collect rates/revenue from in future 1 1%

Reasons of those favourable to proposed funding approach, but with conditions/some concerns (n=41)

n %

Hope any development is low density/residential not commercial/in keeping with the area

12 29%

As long as funds are used for Modbury Heights upgrades and not for other Council projects

9 22%

As long as rates don’t increase/rates aren't linked to improvements/rates are capped or minimised

4 10%

As long as funding correctly covered by land sales/enough money obtained

2 5%

Must ensure we get real value for money on land sold/commercial value is paid

2 5%

As long as upgrades are done honestly after listening to locals/consulting with everyone

2 5%

OK with this being a once off approach/hope it's not a pattern for the future

2 5%

As long as funding from sales is used equitably 1 2%

As long as remaining reserve is of sufficient size to keep area looking nice 1 2%

Also concerned about increased costs of Council/should also look at cost saving measures

1 2%

Some reserves only 'under used' due to state they're in 1 2%

Not sure about using term 'fast tracked' - area has needed attention for a long time

1 2%

Cautious about sales of reserves - once sold they are gone 1 2%

Pay high level of rates - shouldn't money be available in budget for upgrades?

1 2%

Make sure you're careful, not just quick 1 2%

As long as you’re sure reserves for sale are in fact under used 1 2%

Would like to see as much vegetation retained and planted around any developments

1 2%

As long as it (land sold) is not in front of my home 1 2%

As long as the reserves are kept maintained 1 2%

As most of the money raised will come from sale of Maxlay, upgrades here should be prioritised

1 2%

Would this make it more expensive for potential homeowners to install infrastructure?

1 2%

Concerned about plans for Maxlay - increased traffic, number of houses planned, car parking etc

1 2%


Reasons of those unsure/with mixed views on proposed funding approach (n=17)

n %

Where is the evidence that reserves are under used? Concerned about use of term/relates to lack of maintenance

4 24%

Disagree/unsure about plans for Maxlay Reserve - layout, traffic concerns, portion for sale

2 12%

What about long term planning, maintenance - where will money come from?

2 12%

Concerns about whether roads, parking etc will support new housing and more residents, will be more traffic

2 12%

Object to sale of Johinke Reserve – no immediate benefit to surrounding area

1 6%

Unsure what types of housing may be built 1 6%

Is funding model for upgrades 'all or nothing'? Can it be done in stages? 1 6%

Don’t understand how reserves were chosen for sale when those not being used are not sold and vice versa

1 6%

Should only sell reserves that are wasted/unused/won't devalue homes through lost views

1 6%

What are plans for extra money? Sale will yield more than upgrade costs 1 6%

A 'cheap trick' to increase rate income by having additional housing on reserves

1 6%

A 'tongue in cheek' form of blackmail - if you want upgrades you must accept partial sell offs

1 6%

Should have provided more detail - itemise upgrade costs, what associated land development fees will be

1 6%

No guarantee all reserves will be irrigated with recycled water 1 6%

Council's track record doesn't instil confidence that upgrade plans will come to fruition

1 6%

Process seems opaque - community finds out about plans after mostly deciding on the plan

1 6%

Costs could be improved through more community involvement/ volunteering/crowd funding etc

1 6%

Selling parts of larger areas like Maxlay less noticeable than selling small reserves like Johinke

1 6%

Any approach ultimately leads to tax payers paying for it 1 6%

Reasons of those unfavourable to proposed funding approach (n=64)

n %

Oppose/disagree with sale of reserves/should remain in community hands/be kept as is

27 42%

Loss of open space in area/reduced amount of reserve/is why we live here

13 20%

Prefer upgrades done over long timeframe/when can be afforded in budget

11 17%

Once land is sold it's gone forever/can't be replaced 7 11%

Approach to revenue raising short-sighted/lacks imagination/'quick fix' solution

7 11%

More housing will lead to increased traffic in precinct 6 9%

More housing will lead to more congestion/concrete/noise, will ruin ambience & 'feel' of area

6 9%

Just a money making scheme/money value only for Council 5 8%

Aren't rates for investing in beautification/upgrades of reserves/why 'fast track'?

4 6%

Fast tracking more about 'greedy' developers getting hands on land quicker

4 6%

Concerned about type of housing development/no high rise wanted 4 6%

Only people who live next to reserves proposed for sale should have a say

3 5%


Reasons of those unfavourable to proposed funding approach (n=64) (cont)

n %

Have allocated enough funds/rates to Golden Grove to detriment of other areas

2 3%

Rather see more imagination used to make spaces useful, ie community involvement

2 3%

There are other ways of obtaining funds/no other ways proposed other than selling land

2 3%

Don't support sale of land for housing if residents lose reserve outlook/impacts negatively on residents

2 3%

Have an issue with what is considered 'under used' - can't use if not maintained well

2 3%

What will Council sell next to fund ideas/what happens next time money is needed?

2 3%

Council said two years ago no more land would be sold off 1 2%

How about selling off parks in Golden Grove instead? 1 2%

Excess land being sold with no reason given 1 2%

Modbury Heights burdened with selling community land to 100% fund upgrades

1 2%

Excess money raised proposed to be spent on upgrades outside of Modbury Heights

1 2%

Minimal upgrades to make park 'friendly' shouldn't require land sales 1 2%

Approach highlights Council’s poor financial management 1 2%

Residents may prefer a once off rate rise/levy instead of land sales 1 2%

Selling land will devalue homes 1 2%

Would like to know what upgrades could be done without selling reserves 1 2%

Upgrades a waste of money/should use money to help community, not make it look better

1 2%


Feedback on reserves identified for total upgrade

Lot 50 Golden Grove Road (adjacent Kingfisher Reserve)

Percentages are calculated on the total number of feedback form submissions (n=292) The proposed ideas I like (about Lot 50) are:

n %

All/most ideas – good plan/happy with proposal/seems OK 74 25%

Public toilets 34 12%

BBQ and picnic setting 28 10%

Native and community garden 27 9%

Urban forest and nature play 20 7%

Off street car parking 16 5%

Irrigated kickabout area 15 5%

Turning into something community can use/improvement of public space

14 5%

Kept as open space/natural surroundings/activity area/not being sold 12 4%

Landscaping/large tree planting 12 4%

None/leave as is/don't sell or do anything 9 3%

Public art feature 8 3%

What is urban forest/nature play? 2 1%

New pathways 1 0%

Is there a plan for Golden Grove Road upgrade? Would it affect tree planting proposed?

1 0%

No commercialisation in area/Kingfisher Reserve 1 0%

Wasn't Lot 50 earmarked for aged care housing? 1 0%

Use local TTG plants/native garden/original vines 1 0%

Parking not accessible from Kingfisher Drive 1 0%

Since situated on Golden Grove Road, should be a major upgrade for Modbury Heights

1 0%


Things I would like to change (about Lot 50) are:

n %

Public art

No public art 16 5%

Security/lighting/vandalism concerns/questions

Concerns about vandalism/graffiti – toilets/BBQ/public art 13 4%

Concerns about public toilets – should be closed after dark/what about cleaning – self cleaning?

8 3%

What about lighting – solar considered? 7 2%

Might be loitering issues – security needed? Eg CCTV/video surveillance

4 1%

Car parking

Car park exit/entry to Golden Grove Road will need management/care – 70km/h speed limit

3 1%

No off street parking/vehicle access – increase size of forest and garden area

2 1%

Seal off street parking/hotmix 2 1%

Car park may be abused by people catching bus on Golden Grove Road 1 0%

Shelter

Include shelter/shade sails 11 4%

Exercise equipment

(Adult) exercise machines/area used for boot camps, etc 8 3%

Heritage aspects

Install historic plaque/from old stone house in remembrance of site's heritage

6 2%

Should be developed in way that preserves heritage of the site 1 0%

Impact on surrounding areas/current facilities/wildlife

Don't impinge on current walking track 3 1%

Install soundproofing/barrier between Golden Grove Road & Kingfisher Road

2 1%

Don't impinge of creek/wildlife 1 0%

Community garden

Move native and community garden away from main road 2 1%

No community garden/not sure about it – will introduce weeds, close to waterway/close to existing Wynn Vale garden

3 1%

Bigger community garden area 1 0%

Playground

Include playground 5 2%

Sell reserve

Sell all/part of reserve/for environmental housing 5 2%

Dogs

Have off leash area for dogs/dog park 2 1%

Should be enforced as dogs on leash area 1 0%


Things I would like to change (about Lot 50) are: (cont.)

n %

Other comments

Include public seating 4 1%

Include drinking fountains for people/dogs 4 1%

No public toilets 4 1%

What about use of existing shed – tool shed? Men's Shed? 4 1%

Include skate park 3 1%

Include more shade trees 3 1%

Ensure natural aspect retained 2 1%

More (native) planting than proposed 2 1%

Have footpath access from Kingfisher Drive 2 1%

Move toilets closer to car park 2 1%

Should have kept Wilson's Farm/not bulldozed it 2 1%

Introduce business here, ie outdoor recreation/adventure 2 1%

Included basketball/netball ring 2 1%

Reduce area around toilets and increase kickabout/picnic area 2 1%

More BBQ/picnic areas 2 1%

Consider including a water feature 2 1%

Include educational boards about flora and fauna (urban forest) 1 0%

No pram access from opposite side of Golden Grove Road 1 0%

No BBQ/picnic setting 1 0%

Install rubbish bins 1 0%

Has water catchment integrated for recycling been considered? 1 0%

Need more interesting name than 'Lot 50' 1 0%

Include treehouse in nature play area 1 0%

Attract/allow coffee vans to area on weekends 1 0%

Upgrades seem extensive – are they value for money? 1 0%

Rose garden near BBQ/picnic area 1 0%

Reduce plantings to save money 1 0%

Small rainforest near northwest corner 1 0%

No nature play area – waste of money when area already surrounded by nature

1 0%

Plant fruit trees/kids can pick fruit 1 0%

Dense bushes along Kingfisher Drive – safety concerns 1 0%

Make Lot 50 a drawcard to Linear trail/defined entry point 1 0%


Hargrave Reserve

Percentages are calculated on the total number of feedback form submissions (n=292) The proposed ideas I like (about Hargrave Reserve) are:

n %

All/most ideas – good plan/happy with proposal/seems OK 95 33%

New playground 29 10%

Picnic settings 25 9%

Pathway around oval 23 8%

Public toilets 22 8%

Glad it's being revitalised/needs a revamp/long overdue/currently an eyesore

22 8%

Additional plantings/landscaping 18 6%

Irrigated kickabout 17 6%

Multi-use building 14 5%

Nothing 10 3%

Car park 9 3%

Informal off street car park 5 2%

Removing existing playground 2 1%

All – as long as it's used as a sporting ground 1 0%

Things I would like to change (about Hargrave Reserve) are:

n %

Intentions/ideas for sports clubs

Get sporting clubs back – cricket/football/has potential to be more than just a kickabout area

12 4%

Will sports clubs return? What is Council trying to achieve? Is it a cricket oval? Is whole oval needed?

8 3%

Why have two ovals so close (school oval)? Council should work with school/use school oval

3 1%

Set up oval for sport/install football/soccer goals, etc 3 1%

Unless you can guarantee oval used for sports, what is gained for $1m? Don't think it will be used enough

2 1%

Car parking

Off-street parking wasteful given other two car parks/dangerous & dusty/anti-social behaviour concerns

8 3%

Do carparks need upgrade? Already fit for purpose. Upgrade only if minor works needed

4 1%

Barrier between off-street car park and oval? Prevent hoon damage to oval

1 0%

Lighting

Will there be adequate lighting? What about solar lighting? 8 3%

BBQ facilities

What about BBQ facilities/need BBQs 8 3%

Exercise equipment

Exercise equipment/fitness track 8 3%


Things I would like to change (about Hargrave Reserve) are: (cont.)

n %

Cost of upgrades

$1m a lot of money to spend/seems pricey/is it value for money? Close to upgraded Maxlay reserve

7 2%

Seating

More seating/benches around oval 7 2%

Path around reserve

2m path around oval might encourage go karts/remote controlled cars/why have it?/seems costly

7 2%

Seal 2m pathway around oval for scooters/skateboards/walking 3 1%

Have pathway wandering through whole reserve not around oval 1 0%

Selling more of reserve

Sell part/all of reserve for housing/eastern side/no-one uses oval 7 2%

Picnic settings

Don't need picnic areas/are three picnic settings necessary? 4 1%

Review picnic setting locations – closer to carparks/playground 3 1%

More picnic settings/areas 4 1%

Shade sail/shelter for playground/picnic areas 4 1%

Picnic setting corner Hargrave & Kingsford Smith – concerned about parking nearby, narrow road

1 0%

Playground

Larger area for playground/larger playground 5 2%

Current playground is OK/other playgrounds nearby 2 1%

Public toilets

Consider location of toilets/not facing houses/too close to residents/plant trees to hide or soften view

3 1%

Security concerns – toilets possibly vandalised 3 1%

Who will clean/lock up toilets? 2 1%

Second public toilet other side of oval 1 0%

Public toilets not needed/reserve not used enough 1 0%

Multi-use building

Do we need multi-use building & toilets again? Were wasted resources previously

3 1%

Hope building can be hired by community groups/have events at reserve/dog obedience training

3 1%

No multi-use building 1 0%

Multi-use building also a sports recreation centre/for badminton 1 0%

Why was previous building demolished? 1 0%

Sheltered seating instead of multi-use building 1 0%

Make multi-use building smaller or screen with trees/plantings 1 0%

Move multi-use building to northern end near Hargrave Street/away from Bellchambers Court residents

1 0%

What is multi-use building for? 1 0%

Plantings

Plant native/local TTG species plants/include signs & information 3 1%

Less plantings/too many plants/trees proposed 1 0%

No gum trees 1 0%

More plants/shrubs/trees/flowers 1 0%


Things I would like to change (about Hargrave Reserve) are: (cont.)

n %

Dogs

Will dogs be required to be on leash? Should be enforced 2 1%

Include dog park 2 1%

Install bins/dog waste bags 1 0%

Others

Include skate park 3 1%

Install drink fountains 2 1%

Make part of the oval a wetland/see Oaklands wetland 2 1%

Include school in redevelopment, could do native art feature 1 0%

Half court basketball/netball ring 1 0%

Install bike path next to playground 1 0%

Need appropriate signage 1 0%

Speed humps in Kingsford Smith Street/stop hooning near public park 1 0%

Seal path along roadside/don't like little stones in shoes 1 0%

Have pop up cafes or coffee shop instead of multi-use building 1 0%

Park similar to that on corner of OG Road and North East Road 1 0%


Feedback on reserves identified for upgrade and partial sale

Maxlay Reserve

Results are shown calculated on the total number of feedback form submissions and compared to views of those who live in a 200m radius of Maxlay Reserve. The proposed ideas I like (about Maxlay Reserve) are:

Total (n=292)

Total %

200m (n=39)

200m %

Fenced dog park 63 22% 12 31%

All/most ideas – good plan/happy with proposal/ seems OK

47 16% 4 10%

Informal BMX track 39 13% 7 18%

Pathway connection to Golden Way 19 7% 7 18%

Irrigated kickabout 17 6% 10 26%

Picnic setting 16 5% 6 15%

Partial sale of land/potential sale/large area to start with

14 5% 3 8%

Nothing 12 4% 4 10%

Additional planting/trees 10 3% 4 10%

Informal off street car parking 9 3% 3 8%

Shelter and seating 4 1% 1 3%

All – except land sale 3 1% 0 0%

Retaining some open space 3 1% 2 5%

All – but concerns about housing/extra traffic etc 2 1% 1 3%

More housing 1 0% 0 0%

Asking residents in area what they want 1 0% 0 0%

Turning it into a parkland from wasteland it is now 1 0% 0 0%

Things I would like to change (about Maxlay Reserve) are:

Total

(n=292) Total

% 200m (n=39)

200m %

Location of parcel of land proposed for sale

Sell different parcel of land – both ends/north end near Mona Crt/southern end/along Golden Way/ Maxlay Rd

20 7% 4 10%

Why put housing in middle of reserve/have separate reserve areas?

17 6% 5 13%

Against land sale

Don't sell land/stop selling our parks 18 6% 5 13%

Sell less land 1 0% 1 3%


Things I would like to change (about Maxlay Reserve) are: (cont)

Total

(n=292) Total

% 200m (n=39)

200m %

Traffic

Concerned about increase in traffic/limited access from Maxlay Rd/Brunel Drv/need traffic plan

11 4% 9 23%

Extend Brunel Drive to Golden Way to address traffic issues/Palmyra Street only northern access point

8 3% 1 3%

Need roundabout near informal off street parking (Brunel Drive)

2 1% 2 5%

Need pedestrian crossing near car park on Maxlay Road

2 1% 2 5%

Have appropriate speed signage along Maxlay Road

1 0% 1 3%

BMX track

BMX track – unsure/outdated/attract loiterers after dark/limit lighting

16 5% 6 15%

BMX track too big – removes too many trees 1 0% 0 0%

BMX track must be fenced 1 0% 0 0%

BMX track will need to be monitored 1 0% 0 0%

Public toilets

Install public toilets – near dog park 15 5% 0 0%

Seating/picnic area

Install BBQ – with picnic area 5 2% 3 8%

Ensure enough seating/park furniture provided 3 1% 0 0%

Increase sheltered areas/with seating 4 1% 0 0%

Include picnic area with BMX track and kickabout area

1 0% 0 0%

Car parking

Car park is too small for reserve uses proposed/ need more/bigger car park

8 3% 2 5%

Concerns about parking on Maxlay Road/narrow road, extra cars

4 1% 3 8%

Not keen on car park 1 0% 1 3%

Playground

Install playground – near picnic setting/with shade 11 4% 3 8%

Dog park

Dog park – is it needed? Plenty of others around 6 2% 2 5%

Make dog park bigger 1 0% 0 0%

Consider separate areas of dog park for large and small dog breeds

1 0% 0 0%

Is best location for dog park near busy road (Golden Way)?

1 0% 0 0%

Sell more land

Sell all land for housing 3 1% 0 0%

Sell more land for housing – 2/3rds or half 2 1% 0 0%

Inform us about potential land for sale – interested in purchasing

1 0% 0 0%


Things I would like to change (about Maxlay Reserve) are: (cont)

Total

(n=292) Total

% 200m (n=39)

200m %

Housing proposed

Limit housing blocks size – no more than 20-25/restrict housing heights

3 1% 2 5%

Keep buffer of 20m reserve in front of new housing/preserve outlook for housing opposite

2 1% 1 3%

Entry point to new housing/BMX track positioned so as to avoid car headlights affecting residents

2 1% 2 5%

Quality housing facing road good advertising for Modbury Heights

1 0% 0 0%

How many houses are proposed? What type? 1 0% 0 0%

Is land being sold for private housing or nursing home type building?

1 0% 1 3%

Ensure infrastructure is capable of providing services to new housing

1 0% 0 0%

Drainage swale

0%

0%

What is drainage swale? Will it be grassed or rocks?

2 1% 0 0%

Drainage swale – screen with trees/shrubs/ wetland

2 1% 0 0%

Plantings/fauna

Have more plants/trees/shrubs/feature planting 2 1% 0 0%

Plant native trees 2 1% 0 0%

Need pathway/habitat corridor connecting two reserve areas

2 1% 1 3%

Hope trees at eastern end of Maxlay Reserve are retained/don’t want grove of gum trees removed

2 1% 0 0%

Have less plantings/save money 1 0% 1 3%

What will happen to oak trees recently planted along Maxlay Road?

1 0% 1 3%

Other

Install drink fountains – at dog park/BMX track 3 1% 0 0%

Install outdoor (adult) exercise equipment/fitness track

5 2% 2 5%

Install skate park – near BMX track 5 2% 1 3%

Concerns about attracting loitering/hoons/barking dogs/litter from upgrades

2 1% 2 5%

Hoped for cycle lanes rather than BMX track 1 0% 1 3%

Footpath is only on one side of Maxlay Road 1 0% 0 0%

Security lighting/solar lighting – along pathway to Golden Way

1 0% 0 0%

Install rubbish bins 1 0% 0 0%

Ensure play areas not near Golden Way 1 0% 0 0%

Put fencing along Golden Way 1 0% 0 0%

Second irrigated kickabout area superfluous/duplicated

1 0% 0 0%

Install basketball/tennis court 1 0% 0 0%

Leave enough room to play frisbee games 1 0% 1 3%

Consider installing a water feature 1 0% 0 0%

Include a pathway connecting Brunel Drive to Golden Way

1 0% 0 0%


Do you support or oppose the proposal to change the community land classification of Maxlay Reserve for the purpose of partially selling this reserve to fund upgrades?

Graph 5 (percentage) – proposed partial sale of Maxlay Reserve

48

38

18

41

5 6

10

23

10

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

respondents

(n=292)

200m

proximity to

reserve

(n=39)

Support

Oppose

Have no opinion

on this matter

Unsure

Did not answer

Graph 6 (count) – proposed partial sale of Maxlay Reserve

68

4

18

4

15

0

52

16

139

15

0 50 100 150

Total respondents (n=292)

200m proximity to reserve (n=39)

number of responses

Support

Oppose

Have no opinion on this matter

Unsure

Did not answer


Why do you say this? Reasons for supporting (partial Maxlay Reserve sale)

Total

(n=139) Total

% 200m (n=15)

200m %*

Currently a dustbowl/wasted land/unused 44 32% 5 33%

Good balance of development & raising funds/makes sense/way of generating money

31 22% 3 20%

Area will be upgraded/more usable/of benefit to community/improve quality of reserve

26 19% 3 20%

Rates won't go up/cost residents less in long run 9 6% 0 0%

Large reserve/only small part being sold/enough natural spaces around

6 4% 1 7%

(Only if) housing development is sensible/in keeping with existing housing/not high density

6 4% 1 7%

Easier to maintain small area/better design of reserve

5 4% 1 7%

Upgrades are fasttracked/done as a matter of urgency

5 4% 0 0%

New houses/upgrades will increase amenity of the area/boost growth

5 4% 0 0%

Will be more land available for housing/would like details about any land releases

5 4% 1 7%

Will generate more income for Council (housing) 3 2% 0 0%

Will hopefully increase land values in the area 2 1% 2 13%

(Only if) reserve doesn't lose wide open space appeal/kept as open area for birdlife

2 1% 1 7%

Doesn't affect me 1 1% 0 0%

Funds must go to upgrade & maintenance of Maxlay Reserve only

1 1% 1 7%

Trust that Council knows best 1 1% 0 0%

But have concerns about traffic issues 1 1% 0 0%

Only reserve agree to sell/such a large area already

1 1% 0 0%

But still cautious about land sales 1 1% 0 0%

As long as local residents aren't disadvantaged 1 1% 0 0%

* interpret with caution – small sample size


Reasons for opposing (partial Maxlay Reserve sale)

Total count (n=52)

Total %

200m count (n=16)

200m %*

Not in favour of Council selling community land for funds/for housing – is irreversible

11 21% 2 13%

Have property due to reserve opposite/quiet area/would lose tranquillity/country feel

9 17% 7 44%

No more housing/will change suburb for worse-more traffic/noise/congestion etc/reduce living standards

9 17% 0 0%

Additional traffic, parking concerns/will become dangerous/no traffic plan

8 15% 3 19%

Do (less) upgrades within budget/should manage funds better/if can't afford upgrades don't do them

7 13% 1 6%

Don’t want to lose open space/destroy natural reserve/important for overall wellbeing/why we live here

7 13% 2 13%

Keep as one reserve/don't want to break up large open space into two smaller ones

3 6% 0 0%

Don't want (high density) housing (opposite)/shouldn't have to look at houses

2 4% 1 6%

Raising funds by selling land not sustainable 2 4% 1 6%

Losing reserve opposite will devalue my property 2 4% 1 6%

Not willing to lose what we have, current open space for upgrades/need to protect our open spaces

2 4% 0 0%

Was told/guaranteed reserve wouldn't be built on 2 4% 2 13%

Shouldn't sell assets to pay for 'nice to haves'/survived without them so far

1 2% 1 6%

Believe money will go to general revenue instead 1 2% 0 0%

Ideas are only proposed – don't think upgrades will actually happen

1 2% 0 0%

Won't be funds left over to keep upgrades well maintained

1 2% 1 6%

Disagree selling middle portion/fear it's a deliberate decision to create two small parks to sell later

1 2% 0 0%

No information on how many dwellings proposed/number of extra people etc

1 2% 0 0%

Who decides whether reserve is under-used? Condition of reserve often means can't be used

1 2% 1 6%

Prefer whole reserve to be upgraded instead 1 2% 0 0%

Reduced refuge area/smaller reserves for native fauna

1 2% 0 0%

Selling land is 'easy' solution/should think outside the box, how to use space more effectively

1 2% 0 0%

Area not large enough to support plans/will look crammed

1 2% 0 0%

Land sale not required/money raised (from other reserves) will be in excess of proposed upgrades

1 2% 1 6%

Prime land should used for something more significant than housing/using Golden Way frontage

1 2% 1 6%

Prefer reduced amount of upgrades instead/minimise costs

1 2% 1 6%



Reasons for being unsure (partial Maxlay Reserve sale)

Total

(n=18) Total %*

200m (n=4)

200m %*

Don't like seeing green/open space lost 4 22% 0 0%

Traffic concerns/exiting Palmyra Street/more traffic on Maxlay Road

3 17% 2 50%

Not best usage/plan for this reserve 2 11% 1 25%

Don't live near reserve/unfamiliar with the area/don't use it

2 11% 0 0%

What type of land use (for sold parcel) is envisaged? What controls will Council have?

2 11% 1 25%

What impact will it have on us? Value of property, amenity, ambience, etc

2 11% 1 25%

For nearby residents to say/make comments 1 6% 0 0%

Don't want multi-storey development in the area 1 6% 0 0%

Don't want to be priced out of home/have rate rises

1 6% 1 25%


Reasons for having no opinion (partial Maxlay Reserve sale)

Total

(n=15) Total %*

200m (n=0)

200m %*

For residents nearby to have their say/they bought houses overlooking reserves

4 27% 0 0%

Not directly affected/don’t live nearby/never been there

4 27% 0 0%



Vulcan Reserve

Results are shown calculated on the total number of feedback form submissions and compared to views of those who live in a 200m radius of Vulcan Reserve. The proposed ideas I like (about Vulcan Reserve) are:

Total

(n=292) Total

% 200m (n=32)

200m %

All/most ideas – good plan/happy with proposal/seems OK

63 22% 7 22%

Picnic setting/shelter 26 9% 6 19%

Upgraded pedestrian pathways 24 8% 6 19%

Retention of existing playground 17 6% 5 16%

Landscape works 15 5% 6 19%


Nothing 14 5% 4 13%

Relocated basketball half court 13 4% 1 3%

Sale of unused land 4 1% 0 0%

That some open land/play space retained 2 1% 0 0%


Housing for seniors a good idea here 1 0% 0 0%

Things I would like to change (about Vulcan Reserve) are:

Total

(n=292) Total

% 200m (n=32)

200m %

Against land sale

Don't sell land/retain & improve reserve 15 5% 5 16%

Proposed area for sale

Parcel for sale odd shape/should be a different area, along Zeus Crt, Arethusa St/school traffic on Vulcan Ave

11 4% 4 13%

Smaller parcel of land sold/sell strip along Vulcan Ave only/concerned about amount of land being sold

9 3% 4 13%

Sell all of the reserve/larger parcel than proposed – along Neptune Ave/too small to develop effectively

6 2% 1 3%

Parking

More off street parking needed – off Zeus Crt/Vulcan Ave/Neptune Ave

6 2% 6 19%

8 Vulcan Ave overdeveloped/3 houses too much/has caused parking problems

4 1% 4 13%

Basketball half court

Have larger half court basketball area/concreted area/full size

3 1% 0 0%

Don't move basketball half court 2 1% 2 6%

Including seating near half court/playground 2 1% 0 0%

Lighting

Security lighting/solar lighting – along pathways 6 2% 4 13%

Public toilets

Install public toilets 5 2% 0 0%


Things I would like to change (about Vulcan Reserve) are: (cont)

Total

(n=292) Total

% 200m (n=32)

200m %

Housing

No housing on the reserve/area proposed used for school drop offs/pick ups/concerns about congestion

4 1% 2 6%

Keep buffer of 20m reserve in front of new housing/preserve outlook for housing opposite

1 0% 0 0%

How will vehicles access residential blocks without impacting on landscaping?

1 0% 0 0%

Playground

Like to see better/bigger playground/current ones in area are boring

4 1% 2 6%

Include nature play area 2 1% 0 0%

Kickabout area

Larger kickabout area 2 1% 1 3%

More picnic settings in place of kickabout area/north of pathway

2 1% 2 6%

Relocate kickabout area to north side of walkway/make bigger

1 0% 1 3%

Need bigger park area/new housing in area may overwhelm current park

1 0% 1 3%

Replace kickabout area with dog park/won't be used as a kickabout area

1 0% 1 3%

Kickabout area not needed/Hargrave Reserve nearby

1 0% 0 0%

Include skate park on northwest side or another kickabout area, picnic settings

1 0% 1 3%

Plantings

More plants/trees 1 0% 1 3%

More large tree plantings 1 0% 1 3%

Keep existing plants in parcel to be sold 1 0% 0 0%

Less plants/more water efficient 1 0% 0 0%

More low lying shrubs/less trees 1 0% 0 0%


Plant fruit trees 1 0% 1 3%

Landscape works not necessary 1 0% 0 0%

Pathway

Only one pathway needed/it's not a maze 1 0% 0 0%

Pathways around reserve should be more interconnected

1 0% 0 0%

Existing pathways are OK, don't need upgrading 1 0% 0 0%

Other

Install adult outdoor exercise equipment 4 1% 2 6%

Install drink fountains 3 1% 1 3%

Better overall maintenance of reserve/has been lacking for a long time

2 1% 2 6%

Install BBQ 2 1% 0 0%

Install rubbish bins 1 0% 1 3%

Install public tennis court 1 0% 1 3%


Do you support or oppose the proposal to change the community land classification of Vulcan Reserve for the purpose of partially selling this reserve to fund upgrades?

Graph 7 (percentage) – proposed partial sale of Vulcan Reserve

41

38

19

47

7

3

5

6

28

6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

respondents

(n=292)

200m

proximity to

reserve

(n=32)

Support

Oppose

Have no opinion

on this matter

Unsure

Did not answer

Graph 8 (count) – proposed partial sale of Vulcan Reserve

82

2

14

2

21

1

55

15

120

12

0 50 100 150


200m proximity to reserve

(n=32)

number of responses

Support

Oppose


Unsure

Did not answer


Why do you say this? Reasons for supporting (partial Vulcan Reserve sale)

Total

(n=120) Total

% 200m (n=12)

200m %*


20 17% 1 8%

Currently wasted land/unused/neglected/under-used/an eyesore

18 15% 1 8%


14 12% 1 8%

Only if housing development has strict limitations/in keeping with existing housing/not high density

7 6% 2 17%

Large reserve/existing reserve too large/better to sell some

5 4% 0 0%

Other reserves in close proximity, ie Hargrave 5 4% 0 0%

Easier/cheaper to maintain small area 4 3% 0 0%


4 3% 1 8%



New houses/upgrades will increase amenity of the area/boost growth

2 2% 0 0%

Will be more land available for housing/happy to have more homes in this area

2 2% 0 0%

As long as different area for sale chosen – smaller section/different location

1 1% 1 8%

Wouldn't affect residents as much/have open space and roads, good access – not like Johinke

1 1% 0 0%

Block of houses will shade playground area 1 1% 0 0%

(Only if) reserve doesn't lose wide open space appeal/don't sell too much

1 1% 0 0%

But might be traffic/parking issues with more housing

1 1% 0 0%

Only if sold as stated 1 1% 0 0%


As long as local residents aren't disadvantaged/has minimum impact on residents

1 1% 0 0%



Reasons for opposing (partial Vulcan Reserve sale) Total

(n=55) Total

% 200m (n=15)

200m %*

Don’t want to lose open space/established trees/important for overall wellbeing/children – keep as a reserve

11 20% 2 13%

Additional traffic, parking concerns/Vulcan Ave used for school drop offs/pick ups/danger to children

11 20% 7 47%

Not in favour of Council selling community land-for funds/for housing/is irreversible

6 11% 0 0%

Have property due to reserve opposite/quiet area/would lose tranquillity

6 11% 2 13%


6 11% 1 7%

Do upgrades within budget/should manage funds better/if can't afford don't do them

5 9% 1 7%

Condition of reserve often means can't be used/Council hasn't maintained reserve well

4 7% 2 13%

Don't want (high density) housing (opposite)/subdivision already happening

3 5% 2 13%

Reserve currently well used/upgrades not needed 3 5% 2 13%

Losing reserve (opposite) will devalue my property

3 5% 2 13%

Too large an area proposed for sale/reduce size of land to be sold

2 4% 0 0%

Not willing to lose what we have/current open space for upgrades/need to protect our open spaces

2 4% 0 0%


2 4% 0 0%

Reduced refuge area/smaller reserve for native fauna

2 4% 1 7%

Don't trust Council to carry out plans 1 2% 1 7%

Area doesn't need changing 1 2% 0 0%

Reserve belongs to community 1 2% 1 7%

Prefer whole reserve to be upgraded instead 1 2% 0 0%


1 2% 1 7%

Why sell now? Council has done nothing for years?

1 2% 0 0%

Was told/guaranteed reserve wouldn't be built on/Defence Service Homes

2 4% 2 13%



Reasons for being unsure (partial Vulcan Reserve sale) Total

count (n=14)

Total %*

200m count (n=2)

200m %*


3 21% 0 -

Not best usage/plan for this reserve/a section appears to be inaccessible from the road

2 14% 0 -

Don't want multi-storey development/high density housing in the area

2 14% 1 50%

Don't like seeing green/open space lost 2 14% 0 -

For nearby residents to say/make comments 1 7% 0 -

What type of land use (for sold parcel) is envisaged? What type of buildings?

1 7% 0 -


1 7% 0 -


Reasons for having no opinion (partial Vulcan Reserve sale) Total

(n=21) Total %*

200m (n=1)

200m %

Not directly affected/don't live nearby/never been there/not familiar with reserve

5 24% 0 -


3 14% 0 -



Chelsea Reserve

Results are shown calculated on the total number of feedback form submissions and compared to views of those who live in a 200m radius of Chelsea Reserve. The proposed ideas I like (about Chelsea Reserve) are:

Total (n=170)

Total %

200m (n=72)

200m %

All/most ideas – good plan/happy with proposal/ seems OK

55 19% 10 14%

Nothing/leave as is 41 14% 34 47%

Picnic setting/shelter 21 7% 9 13%

Basketball half court 18 6% 7 10%


Sale of some land/in ratio proposed/less unused land

10 3% 1 1%

Landscape works 8 3% 2 3%

Improved facilities/upgraded reserve/maintaining some green space

9 3% 4 6%


Leaving some of the reserve in a natural state 1 0% 1 1%

Things I would like to change (about Chelsea Reserve) are:

Total (n=292)

Total %

200m (n=72)

200m %

Against land sale

Don't sell land/don't agree to sell for housing/promised it would never be sold, built on

16 5% 9 13%

Playground

Install playground/why no playground? 10 3% 2 3%

Housing

Concerns about housing density/traffic & parking congestion/no info on block sizes, housing type

7 2% 4 6%

Have reserve buffer/setback/tree planting for any housing to minimise impact on residents opposite

2 1% 1 1%

Ensure blocks are of sufficient size to attract families

1 0%

0%

Any housing built so as to protect privacy of houses opposite Chelsea Crt

1 0% 1 1%

Access road to any housing via Wedgwood Road, not Chelsea Crt

1 0% 1 1%

Kickabout area

Irrigate whole area/larger area of reserve 5 2% 0 0%

Bigger kickabout area/seems too small 4 1% 3 4%

Irrigated kickabout area not needed 1 0% 0 0%

Proposed park area to close to busy Derby/Noritake Road intersection/potentially dangerous for kids

1 0% 1 1%


Things I would like to change (about Chelsea Reserve) are: (cont.)

Total (n=292)

Total %

200m (n=72)

200m %

Basketball half court

Don’t want basketball half court/not suitable near busy road/already one on Kestral Reserve

5 2% 3 4%

Prefer half court tennis court instead of half court basketball

3 1% 3 4%

High fence around basketball half court 1 0% 1 1%

Location of basketball half court inappropriate due to gradient of land

1 0% 1 1%

Adjust layout of upgrades, is scaling correct? Basketball court seems too small

1 0% 1 1%

Rage cage instead of half court basketball court 1 0% 1 1%

Sell more land

Sell more/all land for housing/invest funds in other reserves/is close to Dresden Reserve

6 2% 0 0%

Maintenance

(Just) better maintenance of reserve/kill weeds/mow

6 2% 6 8%

Picnic setting

Don’t want park furniture/picnic setting 3 1% 2 3%

Additional picnic settings/shelter 3 1% 2 3%

Sell less land

Reduce land sale area/too much proposed for sale/locals losing over 50% of reserve

5 2% 1 1%

Pathways

Pathways around/through reserve (no land sale) 3 1% 1 1%

Retain strip of reserve, have pathway along Wedgwood Road to Chelsea Court

1 0% 0 0%

Landscaping/plants

Have more plants/trees/shrubs – northeast corner/near picnic shelter

2 1% 1 1%

No landscape works 2 1% 2 3%

Include community/native garden 2 1% 2 3%

Less plantings/more water efficient 1 0% 0 0%


Further enhancements of reserve in consideration of size of area proposed for sale

1 0% 0 0%

Keep existing vegetation on parcel being sold 1 0% 0 0%

Include urban forest/nature play area 1 0% 0 0%


Things I would like to change (about Chelsea Reserve) are: (cont.)

Total (n=292)

Total %

200m (n=72)

200m %

Other

0%

Install public toilets 4 1% 0 0%

Install outdoor exercise equipment/fitness track 3 1% 1 1%

Improved car parking, ie 'cutaways' on Wedgwood Road

3 1% 3 4%

Upgrade whole reserve 2 1% 1 1%

Install drink fountains 2 1% 0 0%

Install rubbish bins/provide sufficient bins 2 1% 1 1%

Security lighting/solar lighting 1 0% 0 0%

Locals to have first option on any blocks of land for sale

1 0% 0 0%

Appears to be little enthusiasm from Council to upgrade reserve for benefit of community

1 0% 0 0%

What is planned for rest of open space? 1 0% 1 1%

$60k investment proposed illogical compared to amount of land sold-'out of kilter'

1 0% 0 0%

Bike track around reserve 1 0% 1 1%

Install small skate park 1 0% 0 0%

Include dog park/with seating 1 0% 0 0%


Do you support or oppose the proposal to change the community land classification of Chelsea Reserve for the purpose of partially selling this reserve to fund upgrades?

Graph 9 (percentage) – proposed partial sale of Chelsea Reserve

41

19

28

75

6

3

4

3

21

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

respondents

(n=292)

200m

proximity to

reserve

(n=72)

Support

Oppose

Have no opinion

on this matter

Unsure

Did not answer

Graph 10 (count) – proposed partial sale of Chelsea Reserve

61

13

2

17

2

82

54

119

14

0 50 100 150


200m proximity to reserve

(n=72)

number of responses

Support

Oppose


Unsure

Did not answer


Why do you say this? Reasons for supporting (partial Chelsea Reserve sale) Total

(n=119) Total

% 200m (n=14)

200m %*


25 21% 5 36%

Currently vacant/unused 19 16% 4 29%


14 12% 1 7%

Only if housing development is sensible/in keeping with existing housing/not high density

6 5% 1 7%

Dresden Reserve is nearby/appropriate to reduce size of Chelsea Reserve

4 3% 1 7%


3 3% 0 0%


New houses/upgrades will increase amenity of the area/boost growth/bring in new families

3 3% 0 0%

Good location for housing/away from high traffic area

3 3% 0 0%

Support sale of whole reserve/selling larger portion

3 3% 0 0%

Easier to maintain small area/better design of reserve

2 2% 1 7%


Large reserve/still about 2000m2 left to be

upgraded 2 2% 0 0%

Is a once off partial sale of reserve 2 2% 0 0%

As long as local residents aren't disadvantaged/ sold area doesn't impact negatively on residents

2 2% 0 0%

Doesn't affect me 1 1% 0 0%

Proposal wouldn't devalue properties 1 1% 0 0%

Will be more land available for housing 1 1% 0 0%

As long as green area maintained 1 1% 0 0%


Housing wouldn't obstruct views/big area 1 1% 0 0%

As long as local residents are in agreement 1 1% 0 0%



Reasons for opposing (partial Chelsea Reserve sale) Total

(n=82) Total

% 200m (n=54)

200m %

Traffic/parking concerns – T junction Derby & Noritake busy, already accidents/Stage 1 community engagement identified this

39 48% 36 67%

Don’t want to lose open space/keep as a reserve/too valuable community asset/important for wellbeing/need to protect them

22 27% 19 35%

Have property due to reserve opposite/is quiet area/natural open space

19 23% 16 30%

Don't want (high density) housing (opposite)/will block views of hills/block light

17 21% 15 28%


15 18% 13 24%

Upgraded area will encouraging youth hangout/loitering etc/residents will feel unsafe

12 15% 12 22%

Reserve already used, has been used by many families over the years/like it as it is

11 13% 10 19%

Reserve place for native fauna/wildlife/will reduce refuge area

11 13% 11 20%


10 12% 6 11%

Reserve won't be big enough for ball games/ don't make smaller/will be minimal park left

6 7% 3 6%

Too large an area proposed for sale/think Council will sell other section later/reduce size of land to be sold

5 6% 2 4%

Proposed play area too close to road, residents/ poor planning to locate near high traffic area

5 6% 5 9%

Was told/guaranteed reserve wouldn't be built on/was gifted to public/disappointed Council going back on promise

5 6% 4 7%


4 5% 0 0%


4 5% 2 4%

Upgrade whole reserve instead/for children to use

3 4% 2 4%

Reserve too small to sell/for proposed changes 2 2% 0 0%

Condition of reserve often means can't be used/Council hasn't maintained reserve well/would use it more if better maintained

2 2% 2 4%

Should consider selling Dresden Reserve instead/better suited for development than Chelsea Reserve

2 2% 1 2%

Just a grab for cash by Council 1 1% 0 0%

Noise from half court basketball court will annoy residents

1 1% 1 2%

No information on how many dwellings proposed/number of extra people etc/could be unsuitable for area

1 1% 1 2%

Not willing to lose what we have/current open space for upgrades/changes more detrimental compared to upgrades proposed

1 1% 1 2%


1 1% 0 0%


Reasons for being unsure (partial Chelsea Reserve sale) Total

(n=13) Total %*

200m (n=2)

200m %*

Don't want multi-storey development in the area/or housing not consistent with the area

4 31% 2 100%

Don't like seeing green/open space lost/large area proposed for sale

4 31% 1 50%


2 15% 0 0%

Not best usage/plan for this reserve/could do better

1 8% 0 0%

Traffic/parking concerns, congestion 1 8% 0 0%


1 8% 0 0%

Concerned about privacy of own property from new housing development

1 8% 1 50%


Reasons for having no opinion (partial Chelsea Reserve sale) Total

(n=17) Total %*

200m (n=2)

200m %*

Not directly affected/don't live nearby/never been there/not familiar with reserve

4 24% 0 -

Concerned about safety during construction/more work vehicles in area

1 6% 1 50%



Johinke Reserve

Results are shown calculated on the total number of feedback form submissions and compared to views of those who live in a 200m radius of Johinke Reserve. The proposed ideas I like (about Johinke Reserve) are:

Total (n=292)

Total % 200m (n=28)

200m %*

All/most ideas – good plan/happy with proposal/seems OK

39 13% 4 14%

Upgraded pedestrian walkway 23 8% 7 25%

Nothing/leave as is/don't sell 13 4% 2 7%

Land sale/excess land put to good use 12 4% 1 4%


Things I would like to change (about Johinke Reserve) are:

Total (n=292)

Total % 200m (n=28)

200m %*

Against land sale

Don't sell land 10 3% 5 18%

Upgrade reserve instead

Upgrade reserve with facilities-playground, picnic setting, landscaping, toilets etc

5 2% 3 11%

Could've been landscaped before/been a community garden

1 0% 1 4%

Planting

0%

0%

More plants/trees etc (native) 3 1% 0 0%

Landscaping should land be sold 1 0% 0 0%

Walkway

0%

0%

Is walkway used enough/to warrant spending this amount of money on pram ramps, etc

2 1% 0 0%

Leave walkway as is/no upgrade 1 0% 1 4%

Don't like walkways – usually get full of rubbish/graffitied

1 0% 0 0%

Information lacking about walkway – paved or concreted?

1 0% 1 4%

Ensure kerbing of walkway at Brunel Drive end 1 0% 0 0%

Other

0%

0%

Lighting/solar lighting/along walkway 2 1% 0 0%

Not a lot of park left/only a walkway/large parcel of land proposed for sale

2 1% 0 0%

Sell all the land/too small to develop 2 1% 0 0%

Unsure if infrastructure can support more housing in the area

1 0% 0 0%

Keep small area for seating with shelter 1 0% 0 0%

Not much being done to reserve given potential sale proceeds to be obtained

1 0% 0 0%

Concerned about housing – don't want small blocks, two storey housing

1 0% 1 4%



Do you support or oppose the proposal to change the community land classification of Johinke Reserve for the purpose of partially selling this reserve to fund upgrades?

Graph 11 (percentage) – proposed partial sale of Johinke Reserve

43

36

14

29

7

4

4

4

31

29

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

respondents

(n=292)

200m

proximity to

reserve (n=28)

Support

Oppose

Have no opinion on

this matter

Unsure

Did not answer

Graph 12 (count) – proposed partial sale of Johinke Reserve

91

8

12

1

21

1

41

8

127

10

0 50 100 150

Total respondents

(n=292)

200m proximity to

reserve (n=28)

number of responses

Support

Oppose


Unsure

Did not answer


Why do you say this? Reasons for supporting (Johinke Reserve sale) Total

(n=127) Total

% 200m (n=10)

200m %*

Currently wasted land/unused/small/little value as a reserve

32 25% 5 50%


17 13% 0 0%

Other (upgraded) reserves nearby, ie Maxlay 9 7% 0 0%

Area/suburb will be upgraded/more usable/of benefit to community

8 6% 1 10%

Will be more land available for housing/perfect location for housing/school nearby

8 6% 1 10%

Only if housing development in keeping with existing housing/not high density/depends on number of houses

5 4% 0 0%

Rates won't go up/cost residents less in long run

3 2% 0 0%


2 2% 0 0%

Will generate more income for Council (housing)

2 2% 1 10%

As long as local residents aren't disadvantaged/has minimum impact on residents

2 2% 0 0%

New houses/upgrades will increase amenity of the area

1 1% 0 0%

(Only if) integrity of remaining reserve not compromised by use of sold land

1 1% 0 0%

But have concerns about traffic issues/traffic in crescent already a problem

1 1% 0 0%

But keep a small section for sheltered seating 1 1% 0 0%

Could only build a couple of houses on reserve/not a big impact on residents

1 1% 0 0%



Reasons for opposing (Johinke Reserve sale) Total

(n=41) Total

% 200m (n=8)

200m %*

Don’t want to lose open space/keep as a reserve/too valuable a community asset

10 24% 2 25%

Additional traffic-out of Brunel Drv area, De Sassenay Cres/parking concerns – small court

8 20% 4 50%

Have property due to reserve opposite/is quiet area/has open space ambience

6 15% 5 63%

No more housing/will change suburb for worse – more traffic/noise/congestion etc/reduce living standards

6 15% 1 13%


5 12% 0 0%


4 10% 0 0%

Don't want (high density) housing (opposite)/make street feel closed in

4 10% 2 25%


3 7% 3 38%

Not willing to lose what we have/current open space for upgrades/need to protect our open spaces

3 7% 0 0%

Improved walkway doesn't justify selling that amount of land/only be walkway left

3 7% 0 0%

No information on how many dwellings proposed/number of extra people etc

2 5% 2 25%

Upgrade reserve instead/have a playspace/ better location than other reserves as away from busy roads

2 5% 1 13%

Concerns making walkway full length, create hiding/meeting spot

1 2% 0 0%

Reserve too small to sell 1 2% 0 0%


1 2% 0 0%

Reduced refuge area/smaller reserves for native fauna

1 2% 0 0%

Have lived here 39 years, why hasn't Council improved this reserve before?

1 2% 0 0%


1 2% 0 0%



Reasons for being unsure (Johinke Reserve sale) Total

(n=12) Total %*

200m (n=1)

200m %*


3 25% 0 -

Don't like seeing green/open space lost 2 17% 0 -

For nearby residents to say/make comments 1 8% 0 -

Don't want multi-storey development in the area

1 8% 0 -

Traffic, congestion concerns/more cars parked in crescent if multiple houses built

1 8% 1 100%

Not sure how many people already use walkway

1 8% 0 -

What type of land use (for sold parcel) is envisaged? What controls will Council have?

1 8% 0 -


1 8% 0 -

Fence will be graffitied 1 8% 0 -


Reasons for having no opinion (Johinke Reserve sale) Total

(n=21) Total %*

200m (n=1)

200m %*

Not directly affected/don't live nearby/never been there

5 24% 0 -


4 19% 0 -


Do you have any other comments in relation to the draft concept plans and proposed funding approach to pay for these upgrades? A number of other comments were provided, some a reiteration of comments already made. These comments can be found in the verbatim comments section starting on page 188.


Evaluation of Community Engagement Strategy objectives

The key objectives/purpose of the community engagement, as tabled below, were developed as part of the Community Engagement Strategy: Objectives Comment

Provide summary of feedback received in stage 1 visioning process

A summary of the feedback received in Stage 1 was included in the information booklet.

Inform the community of work already planned/budgeted for in Modbury Heights

A summary of the work already planned and budgeted for on Emma, Kestral and Dresden Reserves was included in the information booklet. Additional detail about these upgrades was included in the FAQs document available on Council’s website.

Obtain feedback on draft concept plans for Hargrave Reserve and Lot 50, Golden Grove Road (total improvements) and Vulcan, Maxlay, Johinke and Chelsea Reserves (partial upgrades) and validate proposed activities/upgrades

Based on the feedback received there has been a reasonable level of agreement with the plans proposed for the reserves, with the exception of Chelsea Reserve. The information booklet brochure was an effective tool for conveying a significant amount of information, including concept plans/upgrade ideas, as well outlining a proposed funding model to pay for the improvements, the project to date, a current condition report for each of the reserves and different ways for the community to have their say (call to action).

Understand the community’s priorities in terms of activities/upgrades proposed

Indication of which proposed ideas were liked has provided a sense of which areas and ideas are priorities, and is supported by the feedback received in the Stage 1 community engagement.

Inform the community of the benefits of the option to ‘self fund’ upgrades via the sale of under-utilised parcels of community land

A section of the information booklet included details on the proposed funding model, an estimation of how much revenue could be raised, and what would happen with these funds, including the use of the balance of funds after upgrades are paid for.

Inform the community of the reserves identified for potential revocation of the community land classification and partial sale (Chelsea, Johinke, Maxlay, Vulcan)

Information about the four reserves identified for partial sale, as well as the process and criteria Council staff used for identifying the reserves, was outlined in the information booklet.

Inform the community of all the steps required to change any community land classification

Information about the process for changing or revoking the community land classification of a reserve was included in the information booklet, as well as the FAQs document available on Council’s website.

Obtain local knowledge from the community regarding their use and value in regards to these reserves (Chelsea, Johinke, Maxlay, Vulcan)

As seen with previous consultations about land sales, there is a portion of this community that places a high value on local open spaces regardless of size, proximity to other larger open spaces and the potential benefit to ‘trade off’ or sell part of a reserve to fund upgrades.

Gain community feedback on whether they support or oppose the proposed revocation of the community land status and proposed partial land sale of the four reserves identified

This community engagement process was a change in approach to precinct planning and community land sales (revocation). Approximately 13% of residents and landlords who received letters inviting feedback responded. This is not an unexpected response rate given the complexity of the consultation and number of issues we were engaging on, the requirement for the community to read and understand a lot of information in order to participate meaningfully in the process, as well as the number of questions that needed to be asked in order to gain feedback on multiple concept plans and four community land revocations.


Next steps

Feedback from Stage 2 of the community engagement will be used to shape the final draft Modbury Heights Precinct Plan. In March 2016 Council will consider all the feedback and the final draft plan, as well as which (if any) reserves may be partially sold and how to then proceed with funding the proposed upgrades. Following the Council meeting we will write to everyone who responded during the Stage 2 community engagement process to advise what Council has decided and what the next steps will be. It is recommended that there is ongoing dialogue and/or consultation with directly impacted residents as the Modbury Heights Precinct Plan is rolled out, whether about progressing with upgrade plans and/or continuing the community land revocation process for any of the four identified reserves (Maxlay, Vulcan, Chelsea and Johinke).

Documents

Community engagement outcomes report · 2016-03-16 · Stage 1 community engagement Community engagement was identified as a crucial element of the precinct planning process. In June