INT19/28453 June 2019

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES REPORT Percy Doyle Reserve, Duncraig — Sports Floodlighting Upgrade

107990 2 | 40

CONTENTS OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 3 

STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................................................. 4 

ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS ........................................................................................................... 5 

RESPONSE RATE ........................................................................................................................... 8 

DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................ 9 

COMMENT FORM QUESTIONS .................................................................................................... 13 

APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................... 17 

107990 3 | 40

OVERVIEW The community was invited to provide feedback from 3 May 2019 to 31 May 2019 on a proposal to upgrade the sports floodlighting at 3 playing spaces at Percy Doyle Reserve, Duncraig. Feedback was sought by way of an online Comment Form to determine the overall level of community support for the proposal. The City collected 37 valid responses throughout the 29-day advertised engagement period. A total of 6 submissions were received from reserve user groups, and 31 were received from other community members. This indicates an overall response rate of 1.6%. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the upgrading of sports floodlighting in the playing spaces A, B and C (as identified in the Frequently Asked Questions) on a 5-point scale from “strongly oppose” to “strongly support”. The majority of respondents indicated that they “strongly support” the upgrading of sports floodlighting at playing space A (21), playing space B (23), and playing space C (23). Comments from respondents included general support for the proposal; support for increased night time sporting activities; concern about potential light spill/interrupted views; concern about energy efficiency (particularly LED lighting); and concern about how the upgrades will be funded.

107990 4 | 40

STAKEHOLDERS A total of 1,838 stakeholders were directly engaged by the City. Stakeholders identified included:

Local residents and ratepayers within a 500 metres radius of Percy Doyle Reserve = 1,648 Community Engagement Network Members residing in Duncraig = 183 Percy Doyle Reserve user and community groups = 7

Greenwood Football Club Marmion Cricket Club Marmion, Sorrento, Duncraig Progress and Ratepayers Association Sorrento Duncraig Junior Football Club Sorrento Football Club Wanneroo Joondalup Teeball Club Wednesday social soccer group

Additional stakeholders, including reserve visitors and interested residents and ratepayers living further than 500 metres away from the reserve, were also indirectly engaged by the City via the engagement materials described below.

107990 5 | 40

ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS Local residents and ratepayers within a 500 metres radius of Percy Doyle Reserve were sent information packs through the post on 3 May 2019 containing a cover letter and Frequently Asked Questions document. These stakeholders were directed via the cover letter to the City’s website to complete the online Comment Form. Community Engagement Network members and the Marmion, Sorrento, Duncraig Progress and Ratepayers’ Association were sent emails on 3 May 2019 advising them of the engagement and linking them to the City’s website to complete the online Comment Form. The 6 Percy Doyle Reserve user groups were sent emails on 3 May 2019 advising them of the engagement and seeking a formal written response representing the views of their group. The feedback was requested via email. Cover letter to local residents and ratepayers within a 500 metres radius of Percy Doyle Reserve (see Appendix 1 for full):

Email to Marmion, Sorrento, Duncraig Progress and Ratepayer’s Association, email to Community Engagement Network members residing in Duncraig, and email to Percy Doyle Reserve user groups (see Appendix 2–4 for full):

107990 6 | 40

Frequently Asked Questions document (see Appendix 5 for full):

Online Comment Form (see Appendix 6 for full):

In addition to directly contacting identified stakeholders via post and email, the City advertised the engagement to other community members via the following means:

Webpage linked through the “Community Consultation” section of the City’s website visible from 3 May 2019 to 31 May 2019.

Signage erected at 3 playing space locations (A, B and C) at the Percy Doyle Reserve from 3 May 2019 to 31 May 2019.

Community Consultation webpage on the City’s website (see Appendix 7 for full):

107990 7 | 40

Signage erected at Playing Spaces A, B and C (see Appendix 8–9 for full):

107990 8 | 40

RESPONSE RATE The City collected a total of 37 valid responses throughout the 29–day advertised engagement period. Responses that were considered valid include all those which contained contact details enabling identification and were submitted within the advertised engagement period. (Note that the response from the Greenwood Football Club provided at Attachment 10 was received after the closing date.) Of the 1,648 residents and ratepayers within a 500 metres radius of Percy Doyle Reserve, 12 submitted feedback. Further, 13 Community Engagement Network members submitted feedback. In relation to reserve user and community groups, the City received a response from representatives of the following groups:

Greenwood Football Club Marmion Cricket Club Sorrento Duncraig Junior Football Club Sorrento Football Club Wanneroo Joondalup Teeball Club Wednesday social soccer group

(Note that an analysis of these stakeholder responses has not been included in this report. Full verbatim responses are provided at Appendix 10–15.) The majority of responses came from stakeholders who had been engaged directly by the City, indicating an overall response rate of 1.6%. This data is shown in the table below. Forms

sent Forms

received Response

rate Responses received by stakeholder type: N N* % Local residents and ratepayers within a 500 metres radius of Percy Doyle Reserve

1,648 12 0.7%

Community Engagement Network Members 183 13 7.1% Percy Doyle Reserve user and community groups 7 6 85.7%

Greenwood Football Club 1 1 100.0% Marmion Cricket Club 1 1 100.0% Marmion, Sorrento, Duncraig Progress and Ratepayers Association

1 0 0.0%

Sorrento Duncraig Junior Football Club 1 1 100.0% Sorrento Football Club 1 1 100.0% Wanneroo Joondalup Teeball Club 1 1 100.0% Wednesday social soccer group 1 1 100.0%

Other community members (engaged indirectly) — 8 — Total response rate (engaged directly) 1,838 29 1.6%

*Numbers may not add up to total, as respondents can represent more than 1 stakeholder type.

107990 9 | 40

DEMOGRAPHICS

Respondent address Respondents were asked to provide their contact address and the majority of respondents (29) are residents of the City of Joondalup. 18 respondents indicated that they reside in the suburb of Duncraig and a further 4 indicated that they reside in the suburb of Marmion. This data is shown in the table and chart below. Responses received by suburb: N % City of Joondalup 29 93.5%

Duncraig 18 58.1% Hillarys 1 3.2% Joondalup 1 3.2% Kallaroo 1 3.2% Marmion 4 12.9% Mullaloo 1 3.2% Sorrento 3 9.7%

Outside City of Joondalup 2 6.5% Total responses (excluding reserve user/community groups) 31 100.0%

Responses received by suburb:

18

1 1 1

4

1

32

Duncraig Hillarys Joondalup Kallaroo Marmion Mullaloo Sorrento Outside Cityof Joondalup

107990 10 | 40

Respondent age Respondents were asked to provide their age and just over half are between the ages of 55–64 years (9) and 65–74 years (7). This data is shown in the table and chart below. Responses received by age: N % Under 18 years 0 0.0% 18–24 years 0 0.0% 25–34 years 1 3.2% 35–44 years 5 16.1% 45–54 years 6 19.4% 55–64 years 9 29.0% 65–74 years 7 22.6% 75+ years 0 0.0% No response 3 9.7% Total responses (excluding reserve user/community groups) 31 100.0%

Responses received by age:

0 0

1

5

6

9

7

0

Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

107990 11 | 40

Respondent reserve usage type Respondents were asked how they currently use Percy Doyle Reserve with the following options:

Organised sport or recreation (eg use the playing fields or clubrooms as part of a sporting club) Informal sport or recreation (eg dog walking, non-organised sport) I do not currently use Percy Doyle Reserve, but I am interested in this project Other A total of 6 respondents indicated that they currently use Percy Doyle Reserve as part of organised sport or recreation. 11 respondents indicated that they use the reserve for informal sport or recreation, and 13 respondents indicated that they do not currently use the reserve but are interested in the project. Of the 5 respondents who indicated “other”, 3 described a form of informal sport or recreation, 1 described that he/she lives near the reserve, and 1 described that he/she does not use the reserve. This data is shown in the table and chart below. Responses received by type of reserve use: N* % Organised sport or recreation (eg use the playing fields or clubrooms as part of a sporting club)

6 19.4%

Informal sport or recreation (eg dog walking, non-organised sport) 11 35.5% I do not currently use Percy Doyle Reserve, but I am interested in this project

13 41.9%

Other 5 16.1% No response 1 3.2% Total responses (excluding reserve user and community groups) 31 —

*Numbers may not add up to total, as respondents may select more than 1 option. Responses received by type of reserve use:

6

11

13

5

Organised sportingclub/community group

Informal sport orrecreation

Do not currently use Other

107990 12 | 40

Respondent membership/affiliation to reserve user groups Respondents were asked to identify whether they are a member of, or affiliated with, any of the Percy Doyle Reserve user groups. A total of 7 respondents indicated that they are members of, or affiliated with, either the Greenwood Football Club (1), Sorrento Duncraig Junior Football Club (1), Sorrento Football Club (4), or the Wednesday social soccer group (1). A further 24 respondents indicated that they are not associated with any of the user groups listed. This data is shown in the table and chart below. Responses received by membership/affiliation to reserve user groups:

N* %

Greenwood Football Club 1 3.2% Marmion Cricket Club 0 0.0% Sorrento Duncraig Junior Football Club 1 3.2% Sorrento Football Club 4 12.9% Wanneroo Joondalup Teeball Club 0 0.0% Wednesday Social Soccer Group 1 3.2% I am not associated with any of the above clubs/groups 24 77.4% Total responses (excluding reserve user and community groups) 31 —

*Numbers may not add up to total, as respondents may select more than 1 option. Responses received by membership/affiliation to reserve user groups:

1

0

1

4

0

1

24

Greenwood Football Club

Marmion Cricket Club

Sorrento Duncraig Junior Football Club

Sorrento Football Club

Wanneroo Joondalup Teeball Club

Wednesday Social Soccer Group

I am not associated with any of the above clubs

107990 13 | 40

COMMENT FORM QUESTIONS

QUESTION: “The City is proposing to upgrade the sports floodlighting at playing spaces A, B and C. Please indicate your level of support for each proposal” Respondents were advised that the City is proposing to upgrade the sports floodlighting at playing spaces A, B and C (as identified in the Frequently Asked Questions document) to meet the Australian Standard for Football (All Codes) Amateur Competition and the Australian Standard for Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the proposed upgrades in each of the playing spaces on a 5-point scale from “strongly oppose” to “strongly support”. The majority of respondents indicated that they “strongly support” the upgrading of sports floodlighting at playing space A (21), playing space B (23), and playing space C (23). This data is shown in the tables and charts below. Please indicate your level of support for upgrading the sports floodlighting at playing space A:

N %

Strongly oppose 0 0.0% Oppose 1 3.2% Neutral 2 6.5% Support 6 19.4% Strongly support 21 67.7% No response 1 3.2% Total responses (excluding reserve user and community groups) 31 100.0%

Please indicate your level of support for upgrading the sports floodlighting at playing space A:

01

2

6

21

Strongly oppose Oppose Neutral Support Strongly support

107990 14 | 40

Please indicate your level of support for upgrading the sports floodlighting at playing space B:

N %

Strongly oppose 0 0.0% Oppose 1 3.2% Neutral 2 6.5% Support 4 12.9% Strongly support 23 74.2% No response 1 3.2% Total responses (excluding reserve user and community groups) 31 100.0%

Please indicate your level of support for upgrading the sports floodlighting at playing space B:

Please indicate your level of support for upgrading the sports floodlighting at playing space C:

N %

Strongly oppose 0 0.0% Oppose 1 3.2% Neutral 2 6.5% Support 4 12.9% Strongly support 23 74.2% No response 1 3.2% Total responses (excluding reserve user and community groups) 31 100.0%

Please indicate your level of support for upgrading the sports floodlighting at playing space C:

01

24

23

Strongly oppose Oppose Neutral Support Strongly support

01

24

23

Strongly oppose Oppose Neutral Support Strongly support

107990 15 | 40

QUESTION: “If you oppose the upgrades to sports floodlighting at Percy Doyle Reserve, please tell us why” Respondents were asked to describe why they oppose the upgrades to sports floodlighting. There was 1 respondent who indicated that they “oppose” the upgrades and he/she provided a comment. This is shown verbatim in the table below. Note that there was another respondent who did not select “oppose” or “strongly oppose” but still responded to this question. This response has been moved under the question “Do you have any further comments about the proposed upgrades to sports floodlighting at Percy Doyle Reserve?” and a note made. Verbatim responses* — Please tell us why you oppose the proposal (N = 1): Whilst there may be a better quality light provided, it seems most unreasonable of the City to waste monies unnecessarily. It seems to me that there are far more pressing issues, like tree planting, maintenance of road reserves and social issues for the City to be spending money on.

*Note: Words that may identify respondents or contain offensive language have been removed and replaced with square brackets, ie [- - -]. Minor alterations have been made to spelling/grammar to enhance readability.

107990 16 | 40

QUESTION: “Do you have any further comments about the proposed upgrades to sports floodlighting at Percy Doyle Reserve?” Respondents were asked if they had any further comments about the proposed upgrades to sports floodlighting at Percy Doyle Reserve. A total of 17 respondents provided feedback, common themes include:

General support for the proposal. Support for increased night time sporting activities. Concern about potential light spill/interrupted views. Concern about energy efficiency (particularly LED lighting). Concern about how the upgrades will be funded. Full comments are provided verbatim at Appendix 16.

107990 17 | 40

APPENDIX 1 — Cover letter to local residents and ratepayers within a 500 metres radius of Percy Doyle Reserve

107990 18 | 40

APPENDIX 2 — Email to Marmion, Sorrento, Duncraig Progress and Ratepayers Association

107990 19 | 40

APPENDIX 3 — Email to Community Engagement Network members (Duncraig residents)

107990 20 | 40

APPENDIX 4 — Email to Percy Doyle Reserve user groups

107990 21 | 40

APPENDIX 5 — Frequently Asked Questions (page 1)

107990 22 | 40

(page 2)

107990 23 | 40

APPENDIX 6 — Online Comment Form (page 1)

107990 24 | 40

(page 2A — respondents who selected “yes” to “Are you submitting this feedback on behalf of an organisation or club?”)

107990 25 | 40

(page 2B — respondents who selected “no” to “Are you submitting this feedback on behalf of an organisation or club?”)

107990 26 | 40

(page 3)

107990 27 | 40

(page 4)

107990 28 | 40

(page 5)

107990 29 | 40

APPENDIX 7 — Community Consultation webpage

107990 30 | 40

APPENDIX 8 — Signage erected at Percy Doyle Reserve

107990 31 | 40

APPENDIX 9 — Map showing locations of signage erected at Percy Doyle Reserve

A

B

C D

107990 32 | 40

APPENDIX 10 — Response from Greenwood Football Club

107990 33 | 40

APPENDIX 11 — Response from Marmion Cricket Club

107990 34 | 40

APPENDIX 12 — Response from Wednesday social soccer group

107990 35 | 40

APPENDIX 13 — Response from Sorrento Duncraig Junior Football Club

107990 36 | 40

(continued) [via online Comment Form] As an AFL football club, SDJFC supports increased lighting on Oval B as it will enable more games (and training) to be played at night. AFL is a contact sport, so the correct lighting is required to provide a safe environment for players. The SDJFC also supports the lights on Grounds A and C as it will be good for all sports to have access to Australian Standard lighting for games.

107990 37 | 40

APPENDIX 14 — Response from Sorrento Football Club

107990 38 | 40

APPENDIX 15 — Wanneroo Joondalup Teeball Club

107990 39 | 40

APPENDIX 16 — Verbatim responses

QUESTION: “Do you have any further comments about the proposed upgrades to sports floodlighting at Percy Doyle Reserve?” Note: Words that may identify respondents or contain offensive language have been removed and replaced with square brackets, ie [- - -]. Minor alterations have been to spelling/grammar to enhance readability. Verbatim responses* — Do you have any further comments about the proposed upgrades to sports floodlighting at Percy Doyle Reserve? (N = 17): I hope the City is considering using LED lighting, rather than HID lighting! LED lighting is cheaper to run, no warm-up time, more efficient, and considerably less maintenance. All of this leads to a more economical installation and reduced ongoing and long term costs to ratepayers. It will be great for my young boy — a future champ :-) to kick the footy and cricket with these lights . Great to see infrastructure being upgraded. The playing space A is in desperate need of an upgrade. Currently kids train under these lights and they would be best using torches. It will be a great outcome for all user groups, providing greater utilisation and a safer environment to train and play. Commend the Council for the forward planning. Don’t need to add additional poles and floods behind cricket nets, can be illuminated from new proposed pole closest to nets. Please make sure the lighting is as bright, if not brighter than the current lights. [from "If you oppose the upgrades to sports floodlighting at Percy Doyle Reserve, please tell us why"] Light spill [- - -] is my concern. When the existing lights were installed (don't remember any consultation about that install), the light spill from them was enough for me to move around inside of my house without the need to turn any lights on to see. The trees [- - -] got to a height that filters this light a little and, whilst it is still intrusive, it is not as bad as it used to be. With you planning to extend these poles in height by another 5 metres, it will take them above the tree line and shine [- - -]. With the increased brightness proposed, the light pollution will be many times worse than it has been before, and I definitely do not want that. You advise that playing space D already meets the standards that you are proposing for the rest of the playing fields. Presumably that also meets AS Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting AS4282? These lights were on recently, and the light spill from them was bright enough at Marmion Avenue to see where I was walking (through vacant land) without the need for a torch. To have this replicated [- - -] my house is not acceptable, as the intrusion of light [- - -] is an invasion of my privacy. [from: "Do you have any further comments about the proposed upgrades to sports floodlighting at Percy Doyle Reserve?"] You refer to two Australian Standards regarding the lighting proposal. These appear in title form only on the Standards Australia website, and to get any information they have to be purchased. I see no reason why I should do that. You should make this available to residents and highlight in the Standards all relevant aspects to the proposal. As a ratepayer, I oppose it being funded by my money. I'm sure many of the users live outside the City of Joondalup and would benefit without contributing to the cost. I also oppose ratepayers’ funds (mine) being used to pay for the increased electricity running costs. I wonder if the users had to pay for the electricity, would they still use the playing fields? As an aside, I do not like the layout of the City's website — it was not easy to find this comment section on the proposal. I would like to see solar energy used and perhaps have this supplemented with fixed exercise bikes, arm pedals and cross trainers etc. Current lighting to the football oval is poor at best and limits the areas of the ground that can be used at night. Great idea

107990 40 | 40

Verbatim responses* — Do you have any further comments about the proposed upgrades to sports floodlighting at Percy Doyle Reserve? (N = 17): I hope the new floodlighting is using energy efficient LED light. We are strong supporters of community sport and would never stand in the way of this. However, with a view over [- - -] which will probably be affected more than any other resident (we look directly down [- - -]) we would like to be considered. The two proposed light towers, which we understand can be up to 800 mm in diameter at the base, will be directly in our line of sight if placed in line with [- - -]. If they were placed 8–10 metres to the east of the [- - -] they would be largely behind a tree and would thus not spoil our view to the same extent. I am happy to provide a photo to demonstrate this. I think it's a very good idea for people to use the open space in the evenings plus for security. I know the existing lighting makes training very difficult at night. Will encourage more night sporting activities. Interested in how it will be funded as I think adult sports should provide some funding toward the cost, unless of course, the ongoing hire fees are designed to partly offset capital costs.