COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND MARKETING REPORT · 2019. 9. 3. · COOLANGATTA KIRRA MASTER PLAN ENGAGEMENT AND MARKETING REPORT Page 3 of 38 . 1. Executive summary . The City of Gold Coast

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND MARKETING REPORT DRAFT COOLANGATTA AND KIRRA BUSINESS CENTRES PLACE BASED MASTER PLAN

AUGUST 2019

COOLANGATTA KIRRA MASTER PLAN ENGAGEMENT AND MARKETING REPORT Page 2 of 38

Table of Contents 1. Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Key findings ................................................................................................................................................... 3 GC have your say analytics .......................................................................................................................... 3 Report considerations ................................................................................................................................... 3

1 Project background ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Community engagement objectives ............................................................................................................ 4

3 Marketing and communications ................................................................................................................... 4 Summary............................................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Highlights ............................................................................................................................................ 5 3.2

5 Engagement results .................................................................................................................................... 11 Survey results ................................................................................................................................... 11 5.1

5.1.1 Coolangatta and Kirra precinct use ........................................................................................ 11 5.1.2 Length of residency ................................................................................................................ 12 5.1.3 Transportation to the precincts ............................................................................................... 12 5.1.4 Satisfaction of Coolangatta/Kirra features .............................................................................. 13 5.1.5 Support for Master Plan ......................................................................................................... 17 5.1.6 Support for proposed park improvements .............................................................................. 18 5.1.7 Reasons for support/opposition .............................................................................................. 19 5.1.8 Master Plan priorities .............................................................................................................. 20 5.1.9 Additional comments .............................................................................................................. 24

Ideas tool results ............................................................................................................................... 26 5.25.2.1 20 year plan ............................................................................................................................ 26 5.2.2 Arts and culture ...................................................................................................................... 28 5.2.3 Historical preservation ............................................................................................................ 29

Appendix A – Community engagement tools .................................................................................................. 30 GC have your say home page .................................................................................................................... 30 GC have your say project page .................................................................................................................. 31 Online survey .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix B – Email notification to City Panel ................................................................................................. 36

Appendix C – Demographic results .................................................................................................................. 37


1. Executive summary The City of Gold Coast (City) undertook a Place Based Master Plan community engagement for Coolangatta and Kirra business centres. The engagement provided the community with the opportunity to comment on the draft Master Plan.

The engagement period ran from 25 March to 15 April 2019.

This report provides a summary of the engagement, marketing and communication activities undertaken and the feedback received. The survey aimed to provide feedback on specific aspects of the Master Plan, whilst the ideas tool allowed community suggestions to be provided for the topics of the 20 year plan, arts and culture, and historical preservation in the Coolangatta and Kirra precincts.

Key findings

A total of 678 survey responses were received:

• 54.9% made day trips to Coolangatta/Kirra for recreational purposes.

• 76.3% used a private vehicle as the primary mode of transport in the area.

• 72.9% were most satisfied with the safety of the precincts during the day, whilst 51 per cent were most unsatisfied with car parking.

• Approximately 74 per cent strongly or somewhat supported the proposed Master Plan and more than 80 per cent strongly or somewhat supported the proposed park improvements.

• ‘Reduced traffic congestion’ was the top priority for the Master Plan, whilst wall murals and pavement art’ was the lowest priority.

A total of 33 ideas were submitted from 26 respondents:

• 29 ideas for the 20 year plan including maintaining the natural environment, reducing high rises and addressing parking among others.

• Two ideas for arts and culture – a sculpture at the seaward end of the Coolangatta groyne and upgrading the ‘Coolangatta Eagle’

• Two ideas for historical preservation, however, only one was relevant to the topic of this forum – the preservation of significant buildings such as the CWA in Boundary Street

GC have your say analytics

GC have your say analytics:

• 2607 aware participants – visited at least one page on the site.

• 1514 informed participants – visited multiple pages, viewed images and contributed.

• 678 engaged participants – responded to the survey and/or submitted an idea.

• 302 new GC have your say registrations.

Report considerations

The responses to this survey provide an indication of community views among residents and visitors to the Coolangatta and Kirra precincts. They are not a randomly selected representative sample. The results were heavily skewed towards residents of the Tweed Coast.

The idea tool submissions can be found at www.gchaveyoursay.com.au/coolangattamp.

http://www.gchaveyoursay.com.au/coolangattamp


1 Project background The City undertook a Place Based Master Plan for Coolangatta and Kirra business centres. Through well engaged place making and thorough analysis and urban design, opportunities were sought to improve the street environment and public spaces of these centres in consultation with the area’s business leaders, stakeholders and the community.

The Place Making team undertook targeted engagement with local business and community leaders to gain feedback and input into concepts that made up the draft Master Plan. Following this a community-wide engagement was undertaken to provide the opportunity to comment on the draft Master Plan.

2 Community engagement objectives The community engagement objectives of this project were to:

• Inform the community about the draft Master Plan and its content. • Offer the community an opportunity to comment on the draft Master Plan.

3 Marketing and communications

Summary 3.1

This was a city-wide community engagement with marketing and communications specifically targeted to those most impacted by potential changes:

Primary target audience: residents, property owners and businesses within Coolangatta and Kirra.

Secondary target audience: broader Gold Coast community who visit or have an interest in the area, visitors who may be visiting during the consultation phase and the planning and development industry.

Marketing and communications utilised a range of awareness and engagement tactics including:

• media announcement • social campaign distribution of electronic direct mail to stakeholders for distribution to their network • direct mail of postcards to residents and businesses within walking distance to Coolangatta and Kirra • distribution of postcards to local cafes and restaurants to directly target those actively visiting the area • electronic direct mail to the GC have your say participants • Planning and Development Hub and Alert • pop-up display • engagement with local Divisional Councillor to share information

An incentive of $500 EFTPOS gift voucher was used to encourage completion of survey.

Marketing and communications (including pop-up display) had a total cost of $6104.00 and a combined reach of 221,632 and achieving a $2.75 CPM (cost per thousand).

Creative (graphic design) $1500.00 Social media $989.98 Direct $1339.86 Pop-up display $1775.00 Incentive $500.00 TOTAL $6104.00


Highlights 3.2

GC Have Your Say

The survey was distributed to the GC have your say City Panel on 28 March 2019 (refer to Appendix B). The City Panel is a database of participants who have registered to partake in City of Gold Coast engagements. An email (refer to Appendix B) was sent to 19,809 City Panel members. A total of 17,888 (90.1%) were successfully delivered, 6278 (31.7%) were opened and 883 (4.5%) clicked on the survey link.

Media

A media announcement was made on 26 March generating more than $6820 in publicity and reaching an audience of more than 105,000.

Media sentiment was positive, headlined with ‘Council is asking for ideas and feedback while it designs a Master Plan for the future growth of Coolangatta and Kirra’.

Social

Total social campaign spend was $989.98 and achieved a total campaign reach of 85,605 (55,824 paid and 29,781 organic). This generated a total of 2226 link clicks.

The creative execution was a stronger driver to link clicks over the incentive, indicating that relevant content is more effective than a prize.

Posts targeting the primary audience (local community) achieved a higher click through rate than posts targeting the secondary audience.


Example creative:


Direct Mail

A postcard was distributed to all residents (1915) and businesses (1797) within Coolangatta and Kirra on the 26 March.

An additional 1000 postcards were printed for distribution to local cafes and restaurants to target those visiting the precinct.

Example creative:


Stakeholder engagement

Electronic direct mail was emailed to 74 existing project stakeholders who were also encouraged to share with their existing networks.

Example creative:

Industry engagement

A Planning and Development Alert was sent to 993 industry contacts on the Economy, Planning and Environment industry database on 28 March.

The alert resulted in 502 unique opens and 90 clicks to the GC Have Your Say engagement page.


Example creative:

Pop-up display

A pop-up display was set up from 25 March to 14 April at The Strand, Coolangatta to take advantage of the high foot-traffic. Project display boards, video and iPads were used to inform and enable on-the-spot feedback. Approximately 4000 people visited the stand during the engagement period.

Example creative:


Engagement with Divisional Councillor

Divisional Councillor, Gail O’Neill actively supported the engagement including re-sharing social posts with her audience of 1439.

Example creative:


5 Engagement results Quantitative and qualitative data was collected from the GC have your say engagement. The results from the survey questions and ideas tool are presented below. The responses to the quantitative questions have been analysed across different stakeholder groups, namely age and gender. The qualitative responses have been analysed across key themes. Refer to Appendix A for information on the community engagement tools or Appendix C for the demographic results.

The survey aimed to provide feedback on specific aspects of the Master Plan, whilst the ideas tool allowed community suggestions to be provided for the topics of the 20 year plan, arts and culture, and historical preservation in the Coolangatta and Kirra precincts.

Survey results 5.1

A total of 678 survey responses were received.

5.1.1 Coolangatta and Kirra precinct use

Question 1 identified how respondents most use the Coolangatta and Kirra precincts. The majority of respondents (54.9%) made day trips to Coolangatta/Kirra for recreational purposes and this was consistently the most common reason across all age and gender groups. However, the opened ended comments suggested that some respondents’ frequency of day drips to the area was very low (i.e. a few times a year). This was followed by residents of the area (30.7%) and people who work in the area. Other responses included using the precincts for both recreational and business purposes, as well as driving/riding through and as a stopover when visiting the airport.

54.9%

30.7%

4.6% 3.8% 3.7% 2.4%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

I make day trips toCoolangatta / Kirra

for recreationalpurposes

I live in Coolangatta/ Kirra

I work inCoolangatta / Kirra

I make day trips toCoolangatta / Kirra

for businesspurposes

I holiday inCoolangatta / Kirra

Other

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-5455-64 65-74 75+ Male Female


5.1.2 Length of residency

From the respondents who identified they lived in the Coolangatta/Kirra area in question 1, question 2 identified how long they had resided in the area. Of the 208 respondents who lived in the area, 32.7% had resided in the area for 1-5 years and 31.3% had resided for 6-15 years. Residents were similar across age groups with the 23.6% aged 55-64, followed by 21.2% aged 45-54.

5.1.3 Transportation to the precincts

Question 3 identified the main type of transport used to travel to the Coolangatta/Kirra precincts. Travel by private vehicle was the most common mode of transport across all age and gender groups. However, respondents who lived in the area identified walking as a mode of transport almost as frequently as private vehicle use.

9.1%

32.7% 31.3%

17.3%

9.6%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Less than 12 months 1 - 5 years 6 - 15 years 16 - 25 years 26+ years

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-5455-64 65-74 75+ Male Female

76.3%

13.3%

5% 4.1%

0.4%

0.3% 0.3% 0.1%

Private vehicle (car)

Walking

Bicycle

Bus

Ride share service (e.g. Uber)

Vehicle for commercial use (e.g. truck,van)Motorcycle / scooter

Taxi


5.1.4 Satisfaction of Coolangatta/Kirra features

Question 4 asked respondents their level of satisfaction with various features in Coolangatta/Kirra on a scale of 1 (Very unsatisfied) to 5 (Very satisfied). On average, 1.5% of respondents did not answer one or more of the options. The safety of the precincts during the day was the most satisfied feature, with 72.9% of respondents either satisfied or very satisfied. This was also the most satisfied feature across all age groups, except for the 18-24 years and 75 years and over. The second most satisfied feature was the footpaths (65.6%), which was the most satisfied feature for the 18-24 years age group. This was followed by family friendly facilities (58%) which were the most satisfied feature for the 75 and over age group. These were also the most satisfied features for Gold Coast residents.

Car parking was the most unsatisfied feature, with 51 percent of respondents either unsatisfied or very unsatisfied. Of this 51 per cent, 87.8% were from Northern NSW. Most age groups considered car parking to also be the most unsatisfied feature, including the 25-34 years, 35-44 years, 45-54 years, 65-74 years and 75 years and over. The second most unsatisfied feature was traffic (47.6%) followed by safety at night (37.6%). Of this 47.6%, approximately 87 per cent were from Northern NSW. The 55-64 years age group were most unsatisfied with traffic, while the less than 18 years and 18-24 years were most unsatisfied with public art. The most unsatisfied feature for Gold Coast residents was traffic, followed by car parking and shade and street trees.


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

On-road cycle lanes and facilities

Precinct mobility

Shade and street trees

Family friendly facilities

Viewing platforms and seating

Footpaths and walking

Traffic

Safety (day time)

Safety (night time)

Street lighting

Car parking

Wayfinding signage

Public art

Percentage (%) of respondents

Overall satisfaction

Very unsatisfied Unsatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied


72.9%

65.6%

58%

56.8%

50%

46.3%

46%

41.9%

35.7%

28.8%

27.3%

26.4%

20.2%

0 100 200 300 400 500

Safety (day time)



Precinct mobility



Wayfinding signage

Street lighting


Safety (night time)

Public art

Car parking

Traffic

Number of respondents

Satisfied and very satisfied responses by location of residence

Gold Coast Northern NSW Other QLD

51%

47.6%

37.6%

32.7%

28.2%

25.4%

21.4%

20.9%

20.7%

16.5%

14.6%

14.5%

7.5%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Car parking

Traffic

Safety (night time)


Public art


Precinct mobility


Street lighting


Wayfinding signage


Safety (day time)


Unsatisfied and very unsatisfied responses by location of residence



0 100 200 300 400 500

Safety (day time)



Precinct mobility



Wayfinding signage

Street lighting


Safety (night time)

Public art

Car parking

Traffic


Satisfied and very satisfied responses by age

18-34 35-54 55+

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Car parking

Traffic

Safety (night time)


Public art


Precinct mobility


Street lighting


Wayfinding signage


Safety (day time)


Unsatisfied and very unsatisfied responses by age

18-34 35-54 55+


5.1.5 Support for Master Plan

Question 5 asked for respondents’ level of support for the Master Plan delivering improvements to Coolangatta/Kirra. More than 74 per cent of respondents either strongly or somewhat supported the proposed Master Plan. Approximately 10 per cent somewhat or strongly opposed the Master Plan. Respondents who made day trips for business purposes were the most supportive group (92.3% either somewhat or strongly supported), whilst respondents who work in the area were the least supportive (19.4% either somewhat or strongly opposed). Additionally, the 65-74 years were the most supportive age group (82.5% either somewhat or strongly supported), whilst the 25-34 years age group were the least supportive (13.5% either somewhat or strongly opposed).

A total of 74.1% of Gold Coast residents strongly or somewhat supported the Master Plan, whilst 8.2% of Gold Coast residents strongly or somewhat opposed the Plan.

A correlation analysis found that a statistically significant relationship existed between the level of support and gender (Beta = -0.092, p=0.018) where males are more likely to support the plan than females.

-

34.7%

39.5%

15.6%

6% 4.1%

Strongly support it

Somewhat support it

Neither support nor oppose it

Somewhat oppose it

Strongly oppose it

34.7%

39.5%

15.6%

6% 4.1%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Strongly support it Somewhat support it Neither support noroppose it

Somewhat oppose it Strongly oppose it

Num

ber o

f res

pond

ents

Master Plan support by location of residence



5.1.6 Support for proposed park improvements

Question 6 asked for respondents’ level of support for proposed park improvements in Coolangatta/Kirra. More than 80 per cent of respondents either strongly or somewhat supported the proposed park improvements. Approximately 6.6% somewhat or strongly opposed the improvements. Respondents who made day trips for business purposes were the most supportive group (84.6% either somewhat or strongly supported), whilst respondents who lived in the area were the least supportive (10.1% either somewhat or strongly opposed). Additionally, the under 18 years were the most supportive age group (90.9% either somewhat or strongly supported), whilst the 25-34 years age group were the least supportive (10.1% either somewhat or strongly opposed).

Gold Coast residents who strongly or somewhat supported the proposed park improvements equated to 80 per cent, whilst 7.1% strongly or somewhat opposed it.

44%

36.4%

13%

4.3% 2.4%

Strongly support it

Somewhat support it

Neither support nor oppose it

Somewhat oppose it

Strongly oppose it

44%

36.4%

13%

4.3% 2.4%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Strongly support it Somewhat support it Neither support noroppose it

Somewhat oppose it Strongly oppose it

Num

ber o

f res

pond

ents

Support for proposed park improvements by location of residence



5.1.7 Reasons for support/opposition

Question 7 asked respondents to explain the reasoning for their answers to questions 5 and 6.

A total of 332 respondents provided an answer to question 7. Many respondents acknowledged that the proposed improvements were welcomed as they will benefit the area. Reasons for this included:

• area needs upgrading and beautifying • improvements will attract more visitors • active lifestyle (i.e. walking, cycling) is promoted • improvements support/manage growth • good for local businesses • any improvements to the area considered positive • better use of green spaces • more community spaces were desired • ideas seem reasonable/appropriate • area needs more seating and shade • enhancement of community spaces are essential • improvements were reflective of the local atmosphere and culture • tree planting important for shade, greening and wildlife.

Despite the majority of feedback being positive, improvements to the Master Plan were noted. These included:

• issues such as parking, congestion, roads and traffic, growth and development, and crime and safety need to be more extensively addressed and prioritised in the Plan

plan appears to reduce the amount of parking available more CCTV and improved lighting

• dedicated cycle ways (not shared with cars or pedestrians) • improvements not substantial enough for the area • more family-friendly focus/attractions (e.g. recreational facilities for children) • more sustainable focus

integration of renewable energies natural amenity conservation

• more picnic table seating • upgrading the boardwalk • improving visibility on roads/pedestrian crossings, such as reducing greenery at intersections • include of southern areas in the plan, such as Rainbow Bay • improve tree planting:

more tropical vegetation more tree planting in general, such as in the dunes reserves along beaches more trees to create shade

• inclusion of a public transport plan for the area • more focus on maintaining and promoting local atmosphere and lifestyle • more focus on neglected backstreets • more attention on short and long-term asset maintenance • stricter building heights • more art, particularly art reflective of local history and culture

coloured ball lights not desirable • aiming to minimise cars • improvements to prioritise local needs over developers and tourists.

Reasons for opposing the plan included:

• desire to keep the area as is • the Plan, or certain elements of the Plan, are not necessary


nothing wrong with existing area temporary event space not needed upgrades should be minimised

• money could be better spent on more important things (e.g. improving roads, traffic and public transport) or other areas of the Gold Coast that need it more

• improvements are cosmetic and lack long-term planning over-development and population concerns

• natural beauty and atmosphere comprised do not support concrete paths and built-up structures, particularly in replace of green spaces too many new developments and amenities changing image of the area concerns of overcommercialisation.

Eleven respondents noted that they either could not find the appropriate documents related to the Master Plan or they were unsure of what the changes were. Many attributed this to the site being difficult to navigate. Additionally, a lack of City trust and over-development of the area was a considerable concern by many respondents. This was particularly stated by one respondent: “I worry this [Master Plan] is a front by GCCC to increase development and high rise on the southern end of the Gold Coast”. This mirrored comments in response to question 9 and has been included in the discussion for this question.

5.1.8 Master Plan priorities

Question 8 identified respondents perceived level of priority for the different features of the Master Plan. On average 3.3% did not respond to one or more of the options.

The highest priority was ‘Reduced traffic congestion’ with 66.8% of respondents considering this to be either a high or essential priority. This was also the highest priority for the 25-34 years, 45-54 years and 55-64 years age groups. The second highest priority was ‘Street trees for shade’ (63.4%), which was the highest priority for the 75 years and above and equal highest for 25-34 years age groups. The third highest priority was ‘Extra places to sit and enjoy views’ (62.8%). The highest priority for the under 18 years was ‘Wall murals and pavement art’, whilst 18-25 years considered ‘Water sensitive urban design’ the highest priority. The 35-44 years age group identified ‘Boardwalk improvements including viewing platforms’ as the highest priority and the 65-74 years considered this to be ‘Street lighting for safety’. The top three priorities for Gold Coast residents were reduced traffic congestion, street trees for shade, and parking facility improvements.

The lowest priority was ‘Wall murals and pavement art’ with 39.5% of respondents not considering this a priority or a low priority. This was also considered the lowest priority for all age groups 45 years and above. The second lowest priority was ‘Gateway treatments and entry statements for first impressions’ (38.5%) and ‘Slower traffic speeds for road safety’ (34.5%). ‘Gateway treatments and entry statements for first impressions’ were identified as the lowest priority for the less than 18 years, 25-34 years and 35-44 years age groups, whilst the 18-25 years age groups considered this to be ‘Slower traffic speeds for road safety’. The lowest priorities for Gold Coast residents included wall murals, formalised parking in Jarvis Lane / Goodwin Park, and gateway treatments and entry statements for first impressions.

The priorities by precinct use were similar to the priorities of other demographics. Respondents residing in the area considered ‘Reduced traffic congestion’ to be the top priority, whilst respondents making day trips for business purposes considered both ‘Street trees for shade’ and ‘Park facility improvements’ to be the top priority. Respondents who make day trips for recreation purposes and respondents who work in the area both considered ‘Extra places to sit’ as the highest priority. Respondents who holiday in the area identified both ‘Pedestrian connections, crossings and ramps’ and ‘Street lighting for safety’ as the equally highest priorities.


66.8%

63.4%

62.8%

59.6%

59.1%

56.3%

52.9%

52.1%

50.9%

50.3%

48.1%

46.8%

43.4%

43.1%

38.2%

37.9%

37%

33.6%

33.3%

32.7%

32.3%

31.3%

26.7%

0 100 200 300 400 500

Reduced traffic congestion

Street trees for shade

Extra places to sit and enjoy views

Street lighting for safety

Boardwalk improvements including viewing decks

Park facility improvements

Headland improvements

Pedestrian connections, crossings, ramps, corner build-outs

Improved wider footpaths

Water sensitive urban design initiatives

Extra community facilities

Celebration of beach culture, history and local storiesembedded in the landscape

Bike lanes and markings

Activations of parks - Goodwin Park

Decorative lights and umbrellas, street art

Slower traffic speeds for road safety

Set down points / drop off zones along Marine Parade

Wayfinding signage

Wall murals and pavement art

More bike racks

Local identity / visual branding

Formalised parking in Jarvis Lane / Goodwin Park

Gateway treatments and entry statements for first impressions


High and essential priority responses by location of residence



39.5%

38.5%

34.5%

32.9%

32.7%

31.3%

27.3%

27.1%

26.7%

24%

23.6%

18%

17.1%

17%

16.4%

15.3%

13.3%

13.1%

12.5%

11.9%

11.7%

11.2%

11.1%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Gateway treatments and entry statements for firstimpressions



More bike racks




Wayfinding signage
















Not a priority and low priority responses by location of residence



0 100 200 300 400


















Wayfinding signage


More bike racks



Gateway treatments and entry statements for first impressions


High and essential priority by age

18-34 35-54 55+


5.1.9 Additional comments

A total of 254 comments were provided in response to question 9, where respondents could provide additional comments. The qualitative data from the open ended question was analysed using open, axial and selective coding techniques to identify common themes and produce the graphs contained in this report.

The most common theme from the comments was pedestrian walkways and crossings. Many respondents were supportive of the walkway improvements to encourage a more active lifestyle; however, improving the shade along pathways was also suggested to encourage a more active lifestyle. Road improvements were frequently

0 50 100 150 200 250


Gateway treatments and entry statements for firstimpressions



More bike racks




Wayfinding signage
















Not a priority and low priority responses by age

18-34 years 35-54 years 55+ years


mentioned to improve pedestrian safety and mobility. In addition, comments repeatedly called for bicycles and motorised skateboards to be removed from the walkways, as they were hazardous to pedestrians.

The second prominent theme was parking: most responses wanted more parking (including additional parking for disability and electric scooters); requests for free parking; new developments to provide adequate parking; issues around most people driving in Marine Parade are looking for parking; suggestions of a multi-story car park; safety issues; event parking; and enforcement.

The third most common theme was roads and traffic, with over development and population growth in the area placing a strain on road infrastructure, further intensifying the problem. Addressing the road and traffic issues for Coolangatta and Kirra were considered as high priorities, with respondents suggesting these should take precedence over other aspects of the Master Plan. Road and traffic concerns were also identified as posing safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. In particular, several comments suggested reducing the foliage in and around intersections to promote visibility. Suggestions for the Master Plan included revising the speed limits for some streets, such as Griffith Street, Marine Parade and Stapylton Street, among others. Others suggested making the sea front roads one way or making Marine Parade car free. Comments also suggested other roads/intersections that needed revising, such as Coolangatta Road and Haig/Ocean Streets, among others.

45 43

34 33

32 30

26 25

22 21

20 19

18 16 16

14 14

11 8

7 7 7 7

6 5

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Pedestrian walkways and crossingsParking

Green spacesRoads and traffic

DevelopmentArts and culture

Local atmosphere and identityRecreation facilities

Public transportAsset maintenanceCrime and policing

SeatingCycleways

PlanningAmenities

Social welfareDining and entertainment

Economy and businessNoise

Environmental protectionAccessability

Financial wastageAnimal and pest management

Waste and recyclingInformation and transparency

Other

No. of respondents

Qualitative themes


Ideas tool results 5.2

Three ideas tools were used to obtain community suggestions for the 20 year plan, arts and culture, and historical preservation in the Coolangatta and Kirra precincts. All ideas can be found at gchaveyoursay.com.au/coolangattamp. A total of 33 ideas were submitted from 26 respondents.

5.2.1 20 year plan

A total of 29 ideas were submitted for the 20 year plan. Ideas ranged from pedestrianising Griffith Street, planting more native trees, addressing parking and other infrastructure concerns and environmental protection, among others. The top three ideas with the most ‘likes’ were in relation to the development in the region. The top two ideas called for a stop to high rises being approved and the third idea wanted the natural beauty of the area to be maintained. Refer to the images below or www.gchaveyoursay.com.au/coolangattamp.



5.2.2 Arts and culture

Two ideas were submitted for arts and culture in the precinct. These included having a sculpture at the seaward end of the Coolangatta groyne and upgrading the ‘Coolangatta Eagle’. However, there was no engagement from other users regarding these ideas.


5.2.3 Historical preservation

Two ideas were submitted for historical preservation in the precinct; however, only one was relevant to the topic of this forum. This included the preservation of significant buildings such as the CWA in Boundary Street. However, there was very little engagement from other users regarding these ideas.


Appendix A – Community engagement tools

GC have your say home page


GC have your say project page


Online survey





Appendix B – Email notification to City Panel


Appendix C – Demographic results Of the 678 respondents, 347 (51.2%) were males and 330 (48.7%) females. One (0.1%) respondent identified as other.

The majority of responses (86.3%) were from Northern NSW, specifically Tweed Heads. There were 85 responses (12.5%) from the Gold Coast and 8 responses (1.2%) from other QLD suburbs. Of the 85 responses from the Gold Coast, 71 were from southern suburbs, primarily Coolangatta and Kirra.

1.6%

3.7%

13.1%

19.6% 20%

23.2%

14.3%

4.4%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

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

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

Age and Gender

Male Female Other

86.3%

10.5%

1.3% 0.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Northern NSW Southern GoldCoast

Central Gold Coast Northern GoldCoast

Western GoldCoast

Other QLD

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

Location


Documents

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND MARKETING REPORT · 2019. 9. 3. · COOLANGATTA KIRRA MASTER PLAN ENGAGEMENT AND MARKETING REPORT Page 3 of 38 . 1. Executive summary . The City of Gold Coast