Community Perceptions 2014 - City of Subiaco...Mature singles / couples (35-64) Seniors (65+)...

CATALYSE® empowering decision makers © 2014

Community Perceptions 2014

June 2014

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

2

Strategic Insights 3

The study 10

Overall perceptions 14

Governance and communication 18

Community services 29

Safety and environmental health 40

Built environment 49

Accessing local shopping areas 64

Addressing community priorities 70

Strategic Insights

3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97% satisfied with the City of Subiaco as a place to live

including 75% who are ‘delighted’ (rating 8+ out of 10)

84% satisfied with the City of Subiaco as a governing organisation

including 53% who are ‘delighted’ (rating 8+ out of 10)

57% agree that Elected Members understand their needs

59% agree that staff understand their needs

51% agree that the City clearly explains reasons for its decisions

43% agree that the City has developed and communicated a clear plan

Overall performance

4

▲ Up significantly

compared to 2013

Overall satisfaction

Perceptions of leadership

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There has been continuous improvement across a number of service areas and satisfaction this year is up significantly compared to 2013 for:

Image from: http://www.yoursubi.com.au/subiaco/subiaco-business-directory/coffee-shops/

A city continuously improving

5

Overall satisfaction with the City as a place to live

How the community is consulted about local issues

Services, facilities and care available for seniors

Services and facilities for those with disabilities

Access to public transport

Weekly recycling services

Verge-side bulk rubbish collections

Control of graffiti, vandalism and anti-social behaviour

The management and control of traffic on local roads

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64 64 63 63 61 61 60 59 59 57 56 54 54 51 47 45 43 41 40 40 39

Cit

y o

f Su

bia

co

A

B

C

D E F G

H I J K L M

N

O

P

Q

R S T

City of Subiaco

Other councils

Average result for overall satisfaction with [INSERT COUNCIL] as a ‘place to live’ and as a ‘governing organisation’.

Overall satisfaction | the city’s performance compared to others

6

Ind

ust

ry A

vera

ge 5

3 The City of Subiaco is now the industry leader,

along side the Town of Cottesloe.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• How the city centre is being developed • Parking (residential and commercial areas) • Footpaths and cycleways

Image sourced from: http://www.yoursubi.com.au/tag/restaurant/

Performance summary

7

• Management and control of traffic • Planning and building approvals • Street lighting

Strong performance:

• Waste management • Library and information services • Access to public transport • Parks and sporting grounds • Control of graffiti, vandalism and anti-social

behaviour • Services, facilities and care available for seniors • Sport and recreation facilities • Maintenance of local roads • The area’s character and identity

Leading the way:

• Streetscapes • Road maintenance • Mix and diversity of

housing • Animal and pest control • Control of graffiti,

vandalism and anti-social behaviour

• Verge-side bulk rubbish • Library and information

services • Access to public transport • Services, facilities and care

available for seniors • Informing the community

about services, facilities and events

High priorities:

Secondary priorities:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Overall satisfaction | 53% delighted

0 5 10 15 20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Community Priorities ™ P

erf

orm

ance

(% d

elig

hte

d)

Q. How satisfied are you with: Base: All respondents who provided a valid response (Residents 2014 n = varies) Q. Which areas would you most like the City of Subiaco to focus on improving? Base: All respondents (Residents 2014 n = 402) Areas where satisfaction was not measured but were spontaneously mentioned by respondents as areas to focus on improving

Lower performers

Strong performers

8

Residential parking

Public transport

Disabilities

Animal & pest

Community buildings

Leadership

Food, health, noise & pollution

Seniors

Events Footpaths &

cycleways

History & heritage

Transparency

City centre

Consultation

Informing about services, facilities & events

Informing about local issues

Customer service

Library

Commercial parking

Parks & sporting grounds

Planning & building

Roads Safety & security

Families

Youth

Sport & rec. facilities

Street lighting

Streetscapes Character & identity

Graffiti, vandalism & anti-social

Density & design

Traffic

Mix & diversity of housing

Verge-side bulk rubbish

Recycling services

Rubbish collections

Promoting as a place to live & work

Priority (% mentions)

Secondary priorities

High priorities

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0 5 10 15 20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Pe

rfo

rman

ce (%

de

ligh

ted

)

Q. How satisfied are you with: Base: All respondents who provided a valid response (Residents 2014 n = varies) Q. Which areas would you most like the City of Subiaco to focus on improving? Base: All respondents (Residents 2014 n = 402) Areas where satisfaction was not measured but were spontaneously mentioned by respondents as areas to focus on improving

9

Residential parking

Footpaths & cycleways

Commercial parking

Priority (% mentions)

Community Priorities ™ | 12 month shifts

Streetscapes

Character and identity

Recycling services

Seniors

Graffiti, vandalism & antisocial behaviour

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Development of the city centre | Residents are concerned about the future of the city centre. There may be opportunity to improve communication regarding the plan for the area to ease concerns about the loss of Subiaco Oval, increasing density and mixed-use development. Residents suggest increasing the vibrancy and social atmosphere of the area by attracting more small bars, cafes and small businesses.

Footpaths and cycleways | Residents would like to see improved maintenance of paths in the city to fix unevenness and make the area safer. Developing the cycleway network and improving access for cyclists in the city centre may also contribute to improved community perceptions.

Addressing community priorities

10

Parking | Parking remains a key priority area for improvement. Residents express concerns with parking in both residential and commercial areas. The spill-over from commercial parking into residential areas is causing pressure on residential parking. Of particular concern is the area around the hospital. On a positive note, satisfaction with parking around the Hampden Road shopping and commercial area has improved significantly.

The study

11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

52

39

31

31

16

14

38

18

20

12

15

28

46

70

14

16

10

12

Male

Female

18-34yrs

35-54 yrs

55+ yrs

Younger singles / couples (18-34)

Families with younger children (0-12)

Families with older children (13+)

Mature singles / couples (35-64)

Seniors (65+)

Crawley - Nedlands

Jolimont - Daglish

Shenton Park

Subiaco

Own

Rent

Other

Disability or impairment

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander

Culturally and linguistically diverse

The study

12

% of respondents - weighted

In May 2014, the City of Subiaco administered the

CATALYSE® Community Perceptions Survey.

Purpose: to better understand the needs of residents

living in the City of Subiaco and to evaluate community

perceptions against key performance indicators in the

Strategic Community Plan.

Methodology: the survey was conducted by phone with

402 randomly selected residents.

Interviewing was completed by the ECU Survey Research

Centre, with quotas set by age, gender and location, and

weighting applied, to match the population profile.

Sampling precision is +/- 5% at the 95% confidence

interval.

Unweighted

44

56

14

41

45

<1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

* Industry standards are provided when three or more councils have asked the same question in the past 30 months

Councils contributing to the CATALYSE® Industry Standards*

13

Overall perceptions

14

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Satisfaction with the City of Subiaco as a place to live is very high (up significantly).

• 97% are satisfied

Satisfaction is greater among older residents and those in Crawley-Nedlands and Jolimont-Daglish.

Q. Overall, how satisfied are you with the City of Subiaco as a place to live? Please give a rating out of 10, where 10 is totally satisfied and 0 is totally dissatisfied. Base: All respondents who provided a valid response, excludes ‘don’t know’ (2012 n = 400; 2013 n = 401; 2014 n = 402)

Overall satisfaction with City of Subiaco | as a place to live

15

97

2

1

83

65

97

94

95

75

75

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011

RESIDENT SATISFACTION

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)

SATISFACTION HISTORY

% of respondents

N/A

% of respondents Delighted Dissatisfied Younger singles / couples (18-34) 63% 0%

Families with younger children (0-12) 64% 3%

Families with older children (13+) 71% 1%

Older singles / couples (35-64) 82% 1%

Seniors (65+) 87% 1%

Crawley-Nedlands 84% 0%

Jolimont-Daglish 89% 0%

Shenton Park 67% 1%

Subiaco 72% 2%

^Small sample size (n < 30) = significant variance %% = notable variance %%

▲

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Satisfaction with the City of Subiaco as a governing organisation is high.


Satisfaction is greater among seniors and those in Jolimont-Daglish.

Q. Overall, how satisfied are you with the City of Subiaco, the organisation that governs the local area? Please continue to give a rating out of 10, where 10 is totally satisfied and 0 is totally dissatisfied. Base: All respondents who provided a valid response, excludes ‘don’t know’ (2012 n = 389; 2013 n = 385; 2014 n = 386)

Overall satisfaction with City of Subiaco | as a governing organisation

16

84

8

8

54

41

84

82

84

53

53

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents

N/A





Seniors (65+) 67% 4%



Shenton Park 43% 10%

Subiaco 52% 8%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Satisfaction with value for money from rates is relatively high.


• 10% are dissatisfied

Satisfaction is greater among seniors and those in Crawley-Nedlands and Jolimont-Daglish.

There is most room to improve perceptions among families with older children, older singles and couples and CALD residents.

Q. And, how satisfied are you with the value for money you get from your council rates? Please continue to give a rating out of 10, where 10 is totally satisfied and 0 is totally dissatisfied. Base: Respondents who own / are paying a mortgage on their home, excludes ‘don’t know’ (2011 n = 268; 2012 n = 252; 2013 n = 264; 2014 n = 251)

Value for money from council rates

17

79

10

10

43

28

79

75

80

75

42

42

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents

% of respondents Delighted Dissatisfied Younger singles / couples (18-34)^ 43% 0%




Seniors (65+) 66% 3%




Subiaco 36% 10%

Culturally and linguistically diverse^ 25% 10%


Governance and communication

18

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Satisfaction is moderate.




There is most room to improve perceptions among families with children, older singles and couples and home owners.

Q. I’m going to read out a list of areas that the City of Subiaco is directly responsible for. For each one I’d like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the city’s performance. Please give a rating out of 10, where 10 is totally satisfied and 0 is totally dissatisfied. Base: All respondents who provided a valid response, excludes ‘don’t know’ (2011 n = 306; 2012 n = 308; 2013 n = 316; 2014 n = 298)

Council’s leadership within the community

19

69

14

18

38

26

69

64

70

57

31

31

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011

Priority 1% Familiar 74%


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 45% 7%




Subiaco 26% 19%

Own 32% 19%

Rent 43% 3%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

32

12

22

13

11 Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Q. I’m going to read out a few statements. For each one, please let me know if you strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, feel neutral, somewhat agree or strongly agree. Base: All respondents who provided a valid response (2011 n = 404; 2012 n = 401; 2013 n = 401; 2014 n = 402)

The City of Subiaco has developed and communicated a clear plan for the area I am fairly clear about what the area is going to look and feel like in 10 years time

20

COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES

INDUSTRY COMPARISONS: % total agree

43 66 44

Council High Average

36 45 42 43

2011 2012 2013 2014

HISTORY: % total agree

% of respondents 43% agree the City has developed and communicated a clear plan for the area.

• 35% disagree

Those in Crawley-Nedlands, Shenton Park and Subiaco; and home owners are the most likely to disagree.

CALD residents are the least likely to agree.

% of respondents Agree Disagree Crawley-Nedlands 39% 36%



Subiaco 41% 38%

Own 39% 37%

Rent 54% 17%

Culturally and linguistically diverse 31% 31%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

44 18

10

6 8

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know


Elected members at the City of Subiaco (the councillors) have a good understanding of our needs

21



57 63 49


46 52 54 57

2011 2012 2013 2014


% of respondents 57% agree that elected members have a good understanding of their needs (continuing an upward trend).

Younger singles and couples and those in Jolimont-Daglish and Subiaco are the most likely to agree.

Home owners are more likely to disagree than renters.

% of respondents Agree Disagree Younger singles / couples (18-34) 75% 13%




Seniors (65+) 61% 15%




Subiaco 62% 20%

Own 58% 18%

Rent 50% 5%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

39

20

7

5 9

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know


Staff at the City of Subiaco have a good understanding of our needs

22



59 68 55


51 55 57 59

2011 2012 2013 2014


% of respondents 59% agree that staff have a good understanding of their needs (continuing an upward trend).

Seniors and those in Jolimont-Daglish are the most likely to agree.

Females the most likely to disagree.

% of respondents Agree Disagree Male 61% 7%

Female 58% 15%

Younger singles / couples (18-34) 50% 13%




Seniors (65+) 75% 8%




Subiaco 58% 14%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Satisfaction is relatively high.



Satisfaction is greater among older singles and couples, seniors, those in Jolimont-Daglish and home owners.

There is most room to improve perceptions among families with older children and CALD residents.


How the community is consulted about local issues

23

70

15

15

36

23

70

63

64

57

27

27

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011



INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 39% 9%




Subiaco 26% 15%

Own 30% 15%

Rent 19% 6%



▲

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

37

14

18

11 5

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know


The City of Subiaco clearly explains reasons for its decisions and how residents' views have been taken into account

24



51 52 45


36 43 44 51

2011 2012 2013 2014


% of respondents 51% agree that the city clearly explains reasons for its decisions and how residents’ views have been taken into account (continuing an upward trend).

• 29% disagree

Those in Jolimont-Daglish are the most likely to agree.

Those in Subiaco and home owners are more likely to disagree.

% of respondents Agree Disagree Crawley-Nedlands 47% 31%



Subiaco 50% 35%

Own 52% 34%

Rent 57% 13%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Satisfaction is moderate (continuing an upward trend).




There is most room to improve perceptions among families with children, older singles and couples, home owners and CALD residents.


How open and transparent council’s processes are

25

60

20

20

37

22

60

56

55

52

21

21

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011



INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 45% 9%




Subiaco 17% 21%

Own 24% 23%

Rent 22% 8%



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


How the community is informed about local issues

26

79

12

9

41

28

79

75

71

70

39

39

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is relatively high (continuing an upward trend).


Satisfaction is greater among females, seniors and those in Jolimont-Daglish.

There is most room to improve perceptions among families with older children, those in Shenton Park and CALD residents.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents

% of respondents Delighted Dissatisfied Male 32% 9%

Female 46% 9%





Seniors (65+) 60% 4%




Subiaco 40% 9%



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Level of customer service

27

81

10

9

61

42

81

79

79

69

46

46

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is high.




INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents


Female 53% 8%





Seniors (65+) 64% 5%



Shenton Park 43% 4%

Subiaco 43% 13%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q. I’m going to read out a list of areas that the City of Subiaco is directly responsible for. For each one I’d like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the city’s performance. Please give a rating out of 10, where 10 is totally satisfied and 0 is totally dissatisfied. Base: All respondents who provided a valid response, excludes ‘don’t know’ (2013 n = 387; 2014 n = 378)

How the community is informed about council services, facilities and events

28

84

9

7

46

37

84

81

46

46

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is high, earning the City the industry high.




INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents

N/A

N/A


Female 54% 6%





Seniors (65+) 69% 5%



Shenton Park 42% 7%

Subiaco 44% 9%


Industry High!

Community services

29

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


What the city is doing to promote the area as a desirable place to live and work

30

70

12

17

39

31

70

73

74

74

31

31

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011






There is most room to improve perceptions among families with younger children and those in Subiaco.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 49% 10%




Subiaco 26% 24%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q. I’m going to read out a list of these areas that are a shared responsibility. For each one I’d like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the city’s performance. Please give a rating out of 10, where 10 is totally satisfied and 0 is totally dissatisfied. Base: All respondents who provided a valid response, excludes ‘don’t know’ (2011 n = 301; 2012 n = 285; 2013 n = 296; 2014 n = 288)

Services and facilities for the youth

31

76

12

11

46

27

76

72

70

69

31

31

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is relatively high (continuing an upward trend).



Satisfaction is greater among younger singles and couples, seniors, those in Crawley-Nedlands, renters and CALD residents.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 52% 9%




Subiaco 31% 13%

Own 32% 12%

Rent 42% 2%



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Services and facilities for families

32

89

7

4

52

42

89

87

88

85

48

48

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011




Satisfaction is greater among seniors and CALD residents.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 60% 3%



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Facilities, services and care available for seniors

33

92

4

4

64

41

92

79

87

83

64

64

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is very high (up significantly), earning the city the industry high.


Satisfaction is greater among females and seniors.

There is greatest room to improve among ‘tomorrow’s seniors’, that is, older singles and couples aged 34-64 years with no children living at home. How can the City better meet their needs and expectations?


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents


Female 70% 4%





Seniors (65+) 75% 1%


▲

Industry High!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Access to services and facilities for people with disabilities

34

89

7

4

50

34

89

77

81

76

47

47

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is high (up significantly).


Satisfaction is greater among seniors.

There is greatest room to improve older singles / couples.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 58% 0%


▲

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Access to public transport

35

96

3

1

75

50

96

92

91

90

75

75

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011




Satisfaction is greater among younger singles and couples, seniors and those in Jolimont-Daglish.

There is most room to improve perceptions among CALD residents.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 81% 3%



Shenton Park 74% 1%

Subiaco 76% 1%



▲

Industry High!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Sport & recreation facilities

36

89

7

4

72

51

89

86

85

86

54

54

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2004

2013

2012

2011






INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 66% 1%



Shenton Park 50% 1%

Subiaco 50% 7%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Parks and sporting grounds

37

93

5

2

73

58

93

91

93

89

69

69

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011




Satisfaction is greater among seniors and those in Jolimont-Daglish and Shenton Park.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 81% 2%



Shenton Park 77% 1%

Subiaco 60% 2%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Festivals, events and cultural activities

38

89

7

4

57

42

89

86

88

82

47

47

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011




Satisfaction is greater among females, seniors and those in Crawley-Nedlands and Jolimont-Daglish.

There is most room to improve perceptions among families with older children and in Subiaco.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents


Female 56% 3%





Seniors (65+) 73% 2%



Shenton Park 49% 7%

Subiaco 37% 4%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Library & information services

39

93

6

1

74

63

93

94

96

92

74

74

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is high, earning the city the industry high.




INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents


Female 78% 1%





Seniors (65+) 90% 0%



Shenton Park 69% 0%

Subiaco 71% 1%


Industry High!

Safety and environmental health

40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Weekly rubbish collections

41

96

3

1

88

74

96

96

97

93

81

81

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is very high.




INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 90% 1%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Weekly recycling services

42

95

2

3

85

69

95

89

89

82

80

80

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is very high (up significantly).




INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 91% 0%



Shenton Park 73% 3%

Subiaco 82% 4%


▲

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Verge-side bulk rubbish collections

43

97

1

1

80

55

97

96

93

91

80

80

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is very high, (up significantly) earning the city the industry high.





INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 91% 2%



Shenton Park 78% 1%

Subiaco 76% 1%



▲

Industry High!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Safety and security

44

86

9

5

66

38

86

86

87

81

52

52

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011




Satisfaction is greater among younger singles and couples, followed by seniors and home owners.

There is most room to improve among older singles and couples.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 59% 1%

Own 54% 6%

Rent 38% 1%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


The control of graffiti, vandalism and anti-social behaviour

45

94

3

3

64

36

94

87

87

82

64

64

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011




Satisfaction is greater among younger singles and couples and renters.

There is most room to improve perceptions among older singles and couples and those with a disability or impairment.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 66% 2%

Own 61% 3%

Rent 78% 0%

Disability or impairment 47% 8%


▲

Industry High!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


The management and control of traffic on local roads

46

79

8

13

53

34

79

69

71

70

31

31

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011

Although satisfaction is relatively high (and up significantly), the community has identified this as a priority for further improvement.




There is most room to improve perceptions among those in Crawley-Nedlands.



INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 42% 15%



Shenton Park 23% 8%

Subiaco 34% 14%


▲

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Enforcement of local laws relating to food, health, noise and pollution

47

78

13

10

48

33

78

78

81

75

40

40

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011





Satisfaction is greater among home owners.

There is most room to improve perceptions among males, younger singles and couples, older singles and couples, those in Crawley-Nedlands and renters.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents


Female 46% 3%





Seniors (65+) 44% 5%



Shenton Park 43% 5%

Subiaco 38% 10%

Own 45% 6%

Rent 26% 31%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Animal and pest control

48

82

9

9

43

38

82

79

82

75

43

43

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011




There is most room to improve perceptions among families with older children, those with a disability or impairment and CALD residents.


INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 44% 6%




Industry High!

Built environment

49

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


The area’s character and identity

50

85

8

7

55

45

85

81

86

78

54

54

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011






INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)


% of respondents





Seniors (65+) 64% 4%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


How local history and heritage is preserved and promoted

51

83

9

8

53

37

83

80

84

76

48

48

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011






% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)







Seniors (65+) 64% 3%



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Planning and building approvals

52

47

18

35

38

24

47

50

52

40

16

16

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011

Satisfaction is low (continuing a downward trend) and the community has identified this as a priority for improvement.



There is most room to improve perceptions among families with children, those in Shenton Park and Subiaco, and home owners.


% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)







Seniors (65+) 27% 19%

Crawley-Nedlands^ 13% 29%



Subiaco 18% 37%

Own 17% 39%

Rent^ 4% 19%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


The mix and diversity of housing types in your local area

53

80

10

10

41

35

80

75

76

70

41

41

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011





Satisfaction is greater among those in Jolimont-Daglish.

There is most room to improve in Crawley-Nedlands.

% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)



% of respondents Delighted Dissatisfied Crawley-Nedlands 35% 16%



Subiaco 35% 10%


Industry High!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


The density and design of housing in your local area

54

78

8

14

43

37

78

73

74

65

38

38

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011





There is most room to improve perceptions among those in Subiaco and CALD residents.

% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)






Subiaco 33% 18%



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Road maintenance

55

92

5

3

56

38

92

91

88

88

56

56

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Satisfaction is very high, earning the city the industry high.


There is most room to improve perceptions among families with children and those in Shenton Park.

% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)







Seniors (65+) 70% 2%



Shenton Park 46% 6%

Subiaco 59% 1%


Industry High!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Footpaths and cycleways

56

80

8

11

51

39

80

84

80

79

41

41

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Although satisfaction is high, the community has identified this as a high priority for further improvement.




There is most room to improve in Crawley-Nedlands.

% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)







Seniors (65+) 51% 7%




Subiaco 42% 9%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Street lighting

57

85

6

10

55

45

85

80

84

82

52

52

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011


Although satisfaction is high, the community has identified this as a priority for improvement.



Satisfaction is greater among males, seniors and those in Jolimont-Daglish.

There is most room to improve perceptions among younger singles and couples.

% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)




Female 46% 15%





Seniors (65+) 68% 2%




Subiaco 55% 9%


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Streetscapes

58

86

6

7

51

38

86

87

87

74

51

51

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011





% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)







Seniors (65+) 60% 7%



Shenton Park 52% 5%

Subiaco 47% 9%


Industry High!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Community buildings, halls and toilets

59

79

11

9

55

34

79

81

79

78

35

35

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011




Satisfaction is greater among younger singles and couples and those in Jolimont-Daglish.

There is most room to improve perceptions among families with older children, those with a disability or impairment and CALD residents.

% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)







Seniors (65+) 45% 3%



Shenton Park 29% 8%

Subiaco 36% 12%




. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


How the city centre is being developed

60

60

18

23

59

33

60

59

59

60

19

19

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011

Satisfaction is moderate and the community has identified this as a high priority for improvement.



Satisfaction is greater among those in Jolimont-Daglish.

There is most room to improve perceptions in Subiaco and among home owners.

Familiar 91%

% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)






Subiaco 19% 29%

Own 20% 25%

Rent 13% 12%


Priority 20%

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Access to parking in residential areas

61

59

15

26

36

28

59

53

58

54

21

21

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011

The control of parking




Satisfaction is greater among older singles and couples, seniors and those in Jolimont-Daglish.

There is most room to improve perceptions among families with older children and in Subiaco.

Familiar 98%

% of respondents

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

Delighted (8+)







Seniors (65+) 30% 23%




Subiaco 19% 31%


Priority 14%

Parking

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q. I’m going to read out a list of areas that the City of Subiaco is directly responsible for. For each one I’d like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the city’s performance. Please give a rating out of 10, where 10 is totally satisfied and 0 is totally dissatisfied. *Base: Those who mostly drive to their local shopping area and who provided a valid response, excludes ‘don’t know’ (2011 n = 389; 2012 n = 390; 2013 n = 214; 2014 n = 225)

Access to parking in local shopping and commercial areas

62

59

15

26

36

28

59

62

58

54

24

24

Satisfied (6+)

Neutral (5)

Dissatisfied (0-4)

Council Score

Industry High

Industry Average

2014

2013

2012

2011

RESIDENT SATISFACTION % of respondents

Familiar 56%* Priority 12%

Parking

INDUSTRY STANDARDS



Families with younger children (0-12)^ 26% 20%



Seniors (65+) 23% 28%

Crawley-Nedlands^ 3% 34%



Subiaco 24% 32%





Satisfaction is greater among those in Shenton Park.

There is most room to improve perceptions among younger singles and couples and those in Crawley-Nedlands, followed by Subiaco.

Delighted (8+)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

37

34

28

3

13

35

24

32

42

47

24

15

12

15

18

16

13

28

27

19

12

34

49

2014

2013

2014

2013

2014^

2013^

Delighted (8-10) Satisfied (6-7) Neutral (5) Dissatisfied (0-4)

Q. How satisfied are you with parking in the [INSERT LOCAL SHOPPING AREA]? For each one, please give a rating out of 10 where 10 is totally satisfied and 0 is totally dissatisfied. Base: Subiaco Town Centre – Respondents who live in Subiaco, Jolimont or Daglish (2013 n = 137; 2014 n = 128); Shenton Park shopping and commercial area - Respondents who live in Shenton Park (2013 n = 57; 2014 n = 74); Hampden Road shopping and commercial area – Respondents who live in Crawley or Nedlands (2013 n = 20; 2014 n = 22)

Access to parking in local shopping and commercial areas

63

^Small sample size (n < 30)

Base: live in Subiaco, Jolimont or Daglish and drive to local shopping area

Base: live in Shenton Park and drive to local shopping area

Base: live in Crawley or Nedlands and drive to local shopping area

% of respondents

Satisfaction with parking in the Hampden Road shopping and commercial area has improved. 50% are now satisfied, up 13% points from the previous year. Although overall satisfaction with parking in the Subiaco Town Centre is fairly steady, only 22% are now delighted with parking in the Subiaco Town Centre, down from the previous year.

Subiaco Town Centre

Shenton Park shopping and commercial area

Hampden Road shopping and commercial area

▼

▲

Accessing local shopping areas

64

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q. When people in your household go to the [INSERT LOCAL SHOPPING AREA], how do they MOSTLY get there? Base: Subiaco Town Centre – Respondents who live in Subiaco, Jolimont or Daglish (2013 n = 254; 2014 n = 244); Shenton Park shopping and commercial area - Respondents who live in Shenton Park (2013 n = 98; 2014 n = 111); Hampden Road shopping and commercial area – Respondents who live in Crawley or Nedlands (2013 n = 48; 2014 n = 47)

Accessing local shopping areas | most popular ways

65

73

53

13

9

1

2

0

64

66

18

4

3

0

0

61

49

8

4

12

1

0

Walk or run

Drive car / vehicle

Cycle

Use public transport (bus, train, taxi)

Don't visit the area

Ride motorbike

Other

Subiaco Town Centre



% of respondents

Base: those living in Subiaco, Jolimont or Daglish

Base: those living in Shenton Park

Base: those living in Crawley or Nedlands

2013 2014 Trend

74 73 =

70 64 =

59 61 =

56 53 =

58 66 =

42 49 =

14 13 =

25 18 =

10 8 =

11 9 =

19 4 ▼

9 4 =

1 1 =

1 3 =

0 12 ▲

2 2 =

2 0 =

0 1 =

0 0 =

1 0 =

0 0 =

There are early indicators that people are turning away from

Hampden Road with 12% saying they don’t visit the area

(up 12% points) and lower satisfaction with ease of

accessing the area on foot.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accessing local shopping area| demographic analysis

66

% of respondents Walk or run Drive car /

vehicle Cycle

Use public transport

Ride motorbike

Total 69% 56% 14% 7% 1%

Subiaco Town Centre 73% 53% 13% 9% 2%

Shenton Park shopping and commercial area 64% 66% 18% 4% 0%

Hampden Road shopping and commercial area 61% 49% 8% 4% 1%

Male 64% 53% 13% 6% 2%

Female 73% 60% 14% 8% 0%

Younger singles / couples (18-34) 79% 54% 25% 4% 0%

Families with younger children (0-12) 77% 47% 23% 8% 0%

Families with older children (13+) 67% 59% 10% 8% 3%

Older singles / couples (35-64) 70% 50% 10% 5% 0%

Seniors (65+) 56% 62% 8% 11% 0%

Own / paying mortgage 68% 54% 13% 7% 1%

Rent 66% 53% 14% 7% 0%

Disability or impairment 54% 61% 4% 9% 2%

Culturally and linguistically diverse 69% 43% 15% 6% 0%

Q. When people in your household go to the [INSERT LOCAL SHOPPING AREA], how do they MOSTLY get there? Base: Subiaco Town Centre – Respondents who live in Subiaco, Jolimont or Daglish (n = 244); Shenton Park shopping and commercial area - Respondents who live in Shenton Park (n = 111); Hampden Road shopping and commercial area – Respondents who live in Crawley or Nedlands (n = 47)


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

87

91

89

71

90

6

8

8

9

23

3

2

3

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

4

7

2014

2013

2014

2013

2014

2013


Q. How satisfied are you with the ease of accessing the [INSERT LOCAL SHOPPING AREA] using the following modes of transport? For each one, please give a rating out of 10. Base: Subiaco Town Centre – Respondents who live in Subiaco, Jolimont or Daglish (2013 n = 240; 2014 n = 229); Shenton Park shopping and commercial area - Respondents who live in Shenton Park (2013 n = 96; 2014 n = 106); Hampden Road shopping and commercial area – Respondents who live in Crawley or Nedlands (2013 n = 43; 2014 n = 36)

Satisfaction with accessing the local shopping centre | by walking

67


Base: live in Subiaco, Jolimont or Daglish

Base: live in Shenton Park

Base: live in Crawley or Nedlands

% of respondents

Satisfaction with accessing local shopping centres by walking has remained steady. However, only 71% are delighted with accessing the Hampden Road shopping and commercial area, down 19% points from the previous year.

Subiaco Town Centre



▼

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

56

49

47

67

60

20

23

16

27

22

11

11

8

11

1

4

11

11

13

24

24

7

18

2014

2013

2014

2013

2014^

2013^



Satisfaction with accessing the local shopping centre | by bus

68





% of respondents

Satisfaction with accessing the Subiaco Town Centre and Shenton Park shopping and commercial area has remained steady.

Satisfaction with accessing the Hampden Road shopping and commercial area by bus is up from the previous year.

Subiaco Town Centre



▲

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70

59

70

59

58

54

14

24

17

20

17

19

10

8

5

3

2

8

7

9

8

18

23

19

2014

2013

2014

2013

2014^

2013



Satisfaction with accessing the local shopping centre | by cycling

69





% of respondents

Satisfaction with accessing the Subiaco Town Centre and Shenton Park shopping and commercial area by cycling has strengthened this year.

Subiaco Town Centre



▲

▲

Addressing community priorities

70

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“On the corner of Rokeby and Roberts Road it is taking too long to be redeveloped and it has a bad effect on the whole business and shopping strip around there.”

“The markets on the corner on Rokeby and Roberts have been abandoned for 15 years and I would like to see some sort of development, particularly something that benefited local community.”

“The old pavilion market site on the corner of Roberts Road and Rokeby Road needs to be dealt with, more specifically, they need to approve some sort of development as it is just an old rundown building.”

“The image and the future development of Subiaco as a shopping precinct needs to be improved.”

“The council needs to improve communication with residents about how the central business district of Subiaco is being developed and the direction the development is going.”

“People need a clear plan to be communicated for the development of the city centre.”

“There needs to be more transparency on what they are doing and what they are planning in the development of the area.”

Addressing community priorities | city centre development

Working out efficient routes Residents would like more communication about future development plans:

The Pavilion Markets site is seen as a potential site for development:

“

” 71

Q. Which areas would you most like the City of Subiaco to focus on improving?

A full list of verbatim responses is provided in the Appendix

“The oval is going - what will take its place to keep people's interest in Subiaco? Subiaco needs to take a lesson from other areas like Claremont.”

“I think the Council and state government needs to talk to the community about what is planned for Subiaco Oval.”

“A decision needs to be made about what is going to happen to Subiaco Oval.”

Concern about the loss of Subiaco oval remains:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Stop offices in residential areas.”

The centre should be less commercialised. They are developing the area too much and putting up too many apartments.”

“Infill of commercial use of residential properties is inappropriate in Subiaco.”

“The Council is allowing too much building and overdevelopment in terms of apartments and offices.”

“I think parts of Rokeby Road around Crossways needs to have shops that are actually open. There are a lot of empty shops in the area.”

“There are too many hair salons, dental places and banks in the area which becomes a problem when the weekend comes and they are all dead meaning the area seems too quiet.”

“The Rokeby shopping centre area needs improvement because the mix and diversity is quite lacking.”

“The council needs to do something about the affordability of rent on Rokeby Road and making it more affordable would encourage more diversity in businesses.”

“Subiaco is also being overdeveloped with commercial properties.”

Addressing community priorities | city centre development

Working out efficient routes Residents feel there is a lack of commercial offering and too many closed shops:

Mixed used development is causing concern:

“

” 72



“The CBD of Subiaco near the train station too much density.”

“The centre of the city Rokeby Road and Railway Parade, the housing is of too high density.”

“Need to stop the high density growth.”

“I think it is too high density with not enough infrastructure.”

“I also don't like the high density planning in Subiaco city centre. I think there should be less high rise buildings.”

As is the increasing density:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“They should promote the city centre more on a social level.”

“Promote the area of Subiaco as a place for tourists to come and visit, eat and enjoy.”

“… improve the vibrancy of Rokeby Road which appears to be dead, and the atmosphere is quite dull and not enjoyable.”

“…there are lots of shops closing down in the last 12 months. This stops people from wanting to go there.”

“The town centre retail offering is a disaster and the council needs to return the centre into a vibrant place to shop especially on Rokeby Road and Hay Street.”

Addressing community priorities | attracting visitors

Working out efficient routes To attract more visitors to the area, residents suggest improving the vibrancy and social atmosphere:

Some residents feel more small bars, cafes and small businesses are needed to improve the vibrancy:

“Allow small businesses to come in. Look at Fremantle, Northbridge, Leederville as examples.”

“There should be more small wine bars and al fresco cafes throughout the City of Subiaco.”

“The council needs to consider putting more retail outlets, bars and small cafes to attract more people to the area over the weekend.”

“The Rokeby Road strip needs to be revitalised with small wine bars and small retailers and make it easier for people to setup there.

Subiaco is being beaten by Leederville and being beaten by Claremont because these places

are more vibrant with more restaurants, cafes and wine bars.”

“Add more restaurants, cafes and pubs. Not just nightclubs. There are a lot of families living here.”

“Now the city centre area is just a nightclub hangout and you can't just relax and enjoy it. Not enough cafes and restaurants that I have to go to Highgate.”

“

” 73



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The parking in Subiaco Town Centre needs review because it is totally overpriced.”

“The council should also offer more free parking in Subiaco, particularly in the shopping district on Rokeby Road.”

“There is not enough parking in Subiaco, and it is far too expensive. It stops me going in unless absolutely necessary.”

Addressing community priorities | parking in commercial areas

Working out efficient routes The cost of commercial parking is a concern for some residents:

Parking related issues are believed to be impacting local businesses:

“Paid parking is killing Subiaco Centro.”

“…need to improve the ability for people to park in the City of Subiaco as current parking time limits are too restricted.”

“They should introduce free parking on weekends because currently everyone goes elsewhere and Subiaco dies.”

“

” 74



“There is nothing to accommodate the growth of the markets for parking.”

“Parking is a nightmare in the City of Subiaco, around the markets is the worse place.”

“With the extra land being taken over for the markets, there is not enough parking during Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays especially city centre.”

The markets are considered to be a particular hotspot:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Parking not enough and it is inadequate for the high rise density of houses.”

“They need to look at improving or limiting parking in residential areas surrounding the city centre.”

“Parking in residential areas, in particular, the need to improve the price of paid parking in residential area.”

“I personally do not have a driveway so I rely on street parking, and sometimes cannot find a spot to park my car on my own street.”

Addressing community priorities | parking in residential areas

Working out efficient routes A lack of available residential parking is causing concern:

Hospital parking is infringing on residential parking:

“People do not like to pay for parking at the hospital so they resort to parking in the street and they do not care if they get fined.”

“The redevelopment of the QEII site has led to a lot of street parking in the streets around the hospital.”

“Access for residents to parking around the Rosalie Park instead of SCGH - hospital staff and construction workers taking over parking.”

“

” 75



“Residential parking is really difficult up around the shopping complex near Onslow Road.”

“Daglish the overflow of parking from the city Subiaco to this area.”

“They need to look into the parking situation around University of Western Australia, Crawley, on Cook Street, Everett Street and Caporn Street.”

“They need to look at improving or limiting parking in residential areas surrounding the city centre.”

“…people who come to catch the train take residents' car parks and parking spots.”

Overflow of parking from commercial areas and train station is infringing on residential parking:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The footpaths in Subiaco need improving and need to be maintained properly. This is especially a problem on Thomas Street, Onslow Street and Rokeby Road.”

“The city centre area from the train station up to the council chambers. The brick paving is coming apart, median strips are uneven, footpaths uneven, becomes very dangerous.”

“Condition of footpaths in Crawley/Nedlands is general poor.”

“Improving sidewalks to a uniform level especially on Kanimbla Road.”

“The footpaths need to be upgraded on many streets in the area.”

Addressing community priorities | footpaths and cycleways

Working out efficient routes Residents would like the condition of some footpaths improved:

To improve access and safety for cyclists residents suggest extending the cycleway network:

“I would like particular focus on cycle paths to be uninterrupted and not along parking lines.”

“There needs to be more marked cycle paths in Subiaco and more spots to park bikes.”

“They are trying to encourage people to cycle into the centre but they don't provide bike racks anywhere.”

“More cycle ways across the suburb. It is so dangerous for cyclists in the roads…it is pointless having areas with good cycle paths and then areas where it goes back to being dangerous.”

“More cycle paths.”

“The existing cycle ways stop abruptly so this could be improved and added to…At the moment they lack continuity and deviate onto footpaths and side streets. The annoying nature prevents me from using them.”

“

” 76



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Communication with stakeholders specifically residents should be improved when making decisions about new buildings etc. The only communication currently is through the local paper with an ad, which is insufficient.”

“Planning at the council level needs to be improved. Also the Council's accepting of community input and their willingness to accept and promote change needs to be improved.”

“Improved communication on their process of building approvals.”

“Council needs to ensure it has consistent building approval processes in order to remain accountable.“

“The planning and development process needs to be more accountable.”

“Building and planning approvals need to have a stricter approval process as now it seems to be easy only for people with council connections.”

“There is inconsistency in their approach to planning and there is a loss of amenity that comes with the loss of streetscapes.”

“Development procedures seem to not be very transparent when it comes to consulting people… They sometimes have their own agendas which is very disappointing.”

“Council needs to review its planning approvals so there are a fixed set of planning and development rules that everyone can follow.”

Addressing community priorities | building and planning approvals

Working out efficient routes Some residents suggest concern over consistency and transparency with approvals:

There may be opportunity to engage in further consultation and communication with residents:

“

” 77



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“There needs to be a more relaxed approach to planning and development, there needs to be a higher density of building.”

“They need to be less aggressive about development, we need a mixed environment and a mixed configuration of housing bigger and better than what they are doing. High rise is the way to go, better security.”

Addressing community priorities | building and planning approvals

Working out efficient routes

Versus those who support more higher density development:

There is concern among residents about high rise development:

“There needs to be less high rise development.”

“Council needs to listen to the residents more by rejecting multi-storey apartment complexes.”

“The retention of the character and identity of Rokeby Road especially in the sense of limiting building heights to not be overly too high.”

“They are talking about high rise on the main streets which we do not favour and it appears that the councillors and community decisions and opinions are being overridden.”

“Provide lower height limit for the building in China Green because the tall buildings are out of character with the area.”

“

” 78



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Traffic congestion could be improved as there is no visibility when you come out of side streets because of parked cars.”

“I think the council needs to address the amount of traffic congestion in the central Rokeby area. I think the side parking on Rokeby Road is slowing traffic down.”

“Traffic management, slowing traffic in residential areas.”

“They could have a look at Subiaco Centro as the design which is asking for congestion.”

“Traffic in local streets to be promoted for local traffic only.”

“I have written a letter about the Hood Street traffic congestion because of the markets, but nothing has been done, also the speed limit along Station Street is too fast, should be 40kms.

“I think council should improve traffic management especially when the football is on by keeping the roads open.”

Addressing community priorities | traffic management & street lighting

Working out efficient routes Traffic congestion and management in residential areas is a concern:

Many residents feel that street lighting could be improved:

“Definitely more lights in the local streets such as Park Road. Once you go off from the main roads,

especially if you're walking, it is unsafe and dark.”

“I would the like the lighting to be more consistent, Broadway is well lit where Fairway is not lit well at all by comparison. I feel this is a security issue because when it is dark I feel more vulnerable.”

“There should be more lighting along pedestrian and pathways and residential areas.”

“Lighting needs to be repaired and replaced as soon as it stops working. There have been whole sections of road that aren't lit.”

“

” 79



CATALYSE® empowering decision makers © 2014

CATALYSE® Pty Ltd ABN 20 108 620 855 a: Office 3, 996 Hay Street,

Perth WA 6000 p: PO Box 8007,

Cloisters Square WA 6850 t: +618 9226 5674 f: +618 9226 5676 e: [email protected] w: catalyse.com.au

CATALYSE is proud to support Indigenous artists.

“Fireworks” is the exciting work of Yinjaa-Barni Artist, Maudie Jerrold.

Yinjaa-Barni Artists are traditional owners from the Fortescue River region. Their paintings

depict the remarkable country of the Pilbara in Western Australia's north-west. The contrasts

of the harsh environment with the hidden gorges of cool water, the seeds and flowers

bursting out after rain, are moments that belong to the great Creation stories of the Marrga.

Other works may be viewed at the Japingka Gallery in Fremantle [www.japingka.com.au].

Date post:	25-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Community Perceptions 2014 - City of Subiaco...Mature singles / couples (35-64) Seniors (65+)...

Documents