Workshop Program - City of Prospect too open as noise travels from kids area ... o Not enough meeting rooms and truly quiet spaces ... staff have a home branch and 2. nd

Workshop Program Tuesday 9 February 2016 commencing after Special Council Meeting at 6.15pmReception Room, Civic Centre, 128 Prospect Road, Prospect SA 5082

Workshop Chair: Nathan Cunningham, Director Community, Planning & Communications

Agenda

Workshop Opening

Apologies – On Leave - Page

Notes from previous workshop ........................................................................................... 3

Workshop Items ................................................................................................................... 7

1 Quick debrief of Metropolitan Library Tour ............................................................... 7

2 Waste Contract ............................................................................................................ 7

3 Community Engagement Feedback for Main North Road Masterplan .................... 8

4 Urban Innovations Team Presenting Vision, Objectives and Guiding Principles .. 8

5 2016 Gallery Program Overview / Update .................................................................. 9

6 LGA Ordinary General Meeting – Notices of Motion ................................................. 9

Future Workshop and Council Agenda Items .................................................................. 10

Meeting Close

City of Prospect: Workshop Program 09/02/2016 2

Workshop Guidelines

The following details provide an overview of the procedures to be observed:

1. The Workshop will be held on the first and second Tuesday of each month, other than January of each year, between the hours of 6.15pm and 9.30pm (commencing with a light meal for elected members and staff), for the term of the Council or until the Council determines to discontinue the Workshop structure.

2. The need for extraordinary Workshops will be assessed and determined by the CEO.

3. The Workshops will be held in the Reception Room, Civic Centre, 128 Prospect Road, Prospect SA 5082.

4. The time, date and location may be subject to change by the CEO where necessary.

5. The Workshops will be open to the public and media. Notice of a Workshop and the program for a Workshop is to be placed on the Council's website.

6. No decisions will be made at the Workshops. There will be the opportunity for discussion and questions and answers only, and the provision of guidance to the Administration.

7. The CEO or proxy will convene and chair the Workshop to ensure the smooth running of the meeting. The proxy will be determined by the CEO on a needs basis.

8. All Elected Members will be encouraged to attend.

9. The CEO will ensure the Program and papers for the Workshop, which will include Agenda items for the following Council Meeting, will be provided to members by the Friday preceding the Workshop to allow time for members to read the reports and prepare their questions prior to the Workshop.

10. Notes will be made of the general issues and items covered by the Workshop, given that no decisions can be made, and distributed to Elected Members for information.

11. The format for the Workshop may vary on a meeting by meeting basis and could include training, planning, presentations, and discussions.

12. The format for the Workshop will be determined by the CEO.

13. External parties may make Presentations/ deputations to the Workshop, subject to prior agreement by the CEO.

14. Elected Members, employees and consultants will be required to disclose any financial and/or conflicts of interest in matters to be discussed. The disclosure of such interest and participation in the Workshop will need to be made as if the matter was considered in accordance with the Local Government Act 1999. A record of the disclosures of interest will be made and maintained by the CEO.

Workshop Protocol

The protocols are a set of guiding principles that aim to achieving enhanced, meaningful engagement of members and to facilitate an equal and equitable participation of all members.

The individual members commitment to active listening and disciplined talking, displaying both courtesy and respect to other members is paramount.

1. The Chair ensures that every members' input is heard and not overlooked or lost, and will enforce a limit on speakers' time when it is best required.

2. No rank and/or officer position of administrative or governance authority recognised within the workshop (except for the Chair), and protocols are enforced when deemed necessary.

3. Members and staff are to be addressed by their first name and not by their title of office they hold.

4. Discussion must be focussed on the issues and matters being the subject of discussion.

5. One member speaking at a time is a right, and must be enjoyed by all members.

6. Interrupting another member speaking is not desired and members are encouraged to exercise restraint for the benefit of all concerned. Equally, there should be no dialogue between members and person(s) in the gallery that interrupts the workshop discussion.

7. No ridicule, blame or shame to be expressed and/or exchanged during the workshop and care should always be taken with the words used in debate.

8. Problems and solution expressed by members are a healthy part of the discussion and may lead to positive outcomes, and should not be frowned upon but rather encouraged.

9. Although it is not a decision-making forum, it is an important part of ensuring a well-informed and enhanced decision-making process for Council.

10. The imperatives for a successful conduct of these workshops are that all members need to work together, displaying courtesy and respect to each other.

It is important that all members recognise the above list of protocols is not about rules; protocols are a set of guiding principles that are agreed on and committed to by all participating members.


Notes from previous workshop

Notes from Workshop 02/02/2016 Chair: Nathan Cunningham, Director Community, Planning & Communications

Present: K Barnett, A Bowman, T Evans, M Groote, A Harris, M Standen

On leave:

Apologies: D O’Loughlin, M Larwood, M Lee,

Notes from previous workshop 08/12/2015

Taken as read

Workshop Items 1 Library Tour of Metropolitan Libraries WALKERVILLE: One site

Address 66 Walkerville Terrace, Walkerville

Builder/Architect/Designer Sarah Constructions (Builder) JPE (Architect)

Year of Build 2014

Approximate Cost $10m (total building)

Approximate Size Total Building size 1117 sq m

Features Connected customer service / library / foyer spaces

Notes

Thoughts, observations and comments made -

Has a good presence on Main Road

Library becomes a bit of a hub by being combined with Civic Centre and Town Hall

Integration with Civic Centre works well - design flows from Council Chamber to Library to Town Hall

Town Hall allows weddings, christenings etc. but acoustics needed addressing

Library approximately 400 m2

Maybe too open as noise travels from kids area – larger kids area required for their users

Security guard is needed after hours, due to openness of Civic Centre and Town Hall, for toilet

access

Publicly available meeting room for hire with audio / video facilities

Tables with Scrabble and Connect 4 near entrance area – very inviting

Installing dedicated local history area

Good level of technology

Promotions on touch screens can print

Audio section with small room for listening

Automated lighting and air conditioning – run off solar

Good natural light but may be issues with some PC screens

Are such high spec finishes required?

Advice from Walkerville staff –

o Not enough meeting rooms and truly quiet spaces (this is important)

o Suggested we visit Strathalbyn Library

o AV screen in general area for playing movie events etc. would be good


ST PETERS: Three library sites across the Council area with staff rostered over 108 open hours per week

Address 101 Payneham Road St Peters

Builder/Architect/Designer Phillips/Pilkington Architects and Flightpath Architects

Year of Build 2012

Approximate Cost $7.75m – 50% Federal grant

Approximate Size Unknown

Features Retrofit of the existing Town Hall with a mezzanine level. Includes a Cultural Heritage centre

Notes Heritage Architecture Award as well as a Commendation Award in the Public Architecture award category, in the 2013 South Australian Architects Awards


Feedback from community through design process highlighted that people didn't like others walking

through collections as thoroughfares. Designed seating breakout areas around periphery of

collection

Community Hub revitalising St Peters

Civic precinct – a strong presence on a main road

Flooring along edges of ground floor was timber which was noisy

Mezzanine floor had coffee/tea making facilities and a range of seating areas and styles and nice

views. Interesting the mezzanine area was empty during our visit/tour

Collection would not fit without the mezzanine

Challenges in an historic building physically connecting two buildings with large corridor to allow

access at separate times

Meeting rooms as well as EHA and 3D Radio on site as tenants

Greater integration with Cultural Heritage than most libraries. This service is well resourced

Quarterly rotation of cultural collection displays

Quiet space provided in cultural area – again empty during visit

No Digital Hub but one-on-one training provided

Separate meeting rooms for community to book with kitchen facilities and additional exterior access

with ramp. Despite being vacant during tour, these were mentioned as a success of the renovations

Visitations have increased by 40% once reopened with capacity to run larger programs

No Self-Service capability

Loading zone for library deliveries needs careful consideration

Advice from St Peters staff –

o The front counter functionality did not work – there is a new counter being installed at the

end of February 2016

o Had some acoustic issues with the design

o Pram / wheelchair access has been difficult – often the case with historic buildings

o More space around public computer area would be beneficial

o Working on two levels has logistical challenges as well as passive surveillance issues

.


ADELAIDE: Multiple sites – staff have a home branch and 2nd

branch and rotate between

Address Level 3, Rundle Plaza, Rundle Mall, Adelaide

Builder/Architect/Designer Hassell – Architect and Internal Design

Year of Build 2014 – 11 month project

Approximate Cost $2.2m (fitout) – leased space

Approximate Size 1900sq m

Features Events space, outdoor reading room, history hub, digital hub, media and innovation lab and gallery space

Notes Technology focus with two thirds being ‘people space’ intended for events, functions, seminars, exhibitions and training.


Central Adelaide site upstairs just off Rundle Mall

People were upset about other Library shutting down but the service had outgrown the leased

premises in Grote Street

Community consultation with existing library customers took place before design/fit out

Community generated vision which went to the Elected Members. Vision guided everything

Operational manual for library developed at same time as design/fit out

Main entrance opens into event space. Flexible digital hub space able to expand event area.

Flooring was not carpet but it wasn’t noisy

A library is about life-long leaning and books are only one of those tools

Multi-skilled staff rotate between collections and program delivery and interchange between

branches

50% of borrowings will be digital

Run satellite digital programs

Own social media channels – similar to Prospect

Large staff work room for books collections etc – no chairs

Design and layout of library areas very flexible with shelving on wheels (but this was expensive) and

moveable signage on shelves, and staff know how to make sure its flexible and adaptive

Facilities in the ceiling for pull down screens for hanging art displays etc

No café but hot and cold water available for coffee/tea making and washing up. Can bring your own

food.

Some areas separated by tall plants (Mother-in-laws tongue) – very effective

Outdoor area with tables / chairs, plants and herbs growing and power points available – great feel

and great views

Recycled milk crates used to create chairs and tables

Sunday Lego Club for kids to build various models which are displayed in cabinets for the week until

next session

Lots of pin board space for information and displays

60 volunteers assist with innovation lab and digital hub

Volunteers have lockers / shower facilities / hot desking

Good view lines and glimpses through the collection making the area feel more open, inviting and

vibrant

Studio 1

Walls can move to change the space

Hidden sinks behind sliding walls

Advice from Adelaide staff –

o Don’t get white chairs


HALLETT COVE – CIVIC CENTRE:

Address 1 Ragamuffin Drive, Hallett Cove

Builder/Architect/Designer Mossop Construction + Interiors, Hassell Architect

Year of Build 2015 – Build time 18 months

Approximate Cost $13.4m ($3.4m Federal grant) – engaged consultant and an advocate to push – several unsuccessful grant applications.

Approximate Size 2000sq m

Features Library enterprise hub and community spaces. Designed to reflect the history and culture of the local community and has environmental and natural coastal features.

Notes


Engaged with the community prior to building –

o if we build this business facility would you use it?

o Hallett Cove and Edwardstown Business Associations are strong in running sessions in the

Enterprise Centre.

o Enterprise Centre key driver for federal funding

o Building design followed 5 guiding principles – Community lounge room feel, Building to

reflect coastal environment (and others)

Doesn’t scream City of Marion – in fact the Council logo or the word ‘Library’ is not found on the

outside of the building

Previous library at Hallett Cove was 17 years as a temporary location

One central ‘customer-service’ point - multi trained staff can assist customers for all services

Open Kitchen with large table and stools, sink, coffee/tea making / microwave and oven – used by

chefs and authors etc. for presentations. No real bookings – just gets used

Large flexible hall space can be one area or divided into four separate sections with total seating for

200 people. Can be opened out for indoor/outdoor functions with power points outside

Has a sprung floor(part) for dance / yoga / exercise programs

Inbuilt storage concealed by sliding doors for children’s chairs and play equipment

Toilet facilities have sensor opening and closing doors – no touching

Locker area can be hired for $1 (refundable). Each locker has a power point in it for charging

phones etc.

Library section can be locked off during non-opening hours

Library shelving on wheels for easy movement

Flooring had a terrazzo look – but fairly quiet. Voices did carry but the Centre was not busing during

visit. Children’s area was carpeted

High ceilings – cherry picker needed to change a light bulb. Acoustics work better with lower roof

areas

Open office area for staff but has a ‘Quiet’ area, and staff have lockers, kitchen facilities and their

own toilets

No security monitoring or even passive surveillance (views) of public area from staff offices

Visitations have doubled since re-locating to this library but will it hold?

Room hire facilities have created an income stream

Main concerns:

Not overly inviting - the area seemed to be too large (more like a barn), but would the population

increase grow into it?

No normal Council services provided – missed opportunity?

Materials and finishes were a bit cold, uninviting and not engaging (i.e. chairs that you didn’t feel you

were allowed to move). Other white plastic chairs already dirty.

Meeting Closed at 8.15pm.


Workshop Items

1 Quick debrief of Metropolitan Library Tour

Responsible Director:

Nathan Cunningham Director Community, Planning & Communication

Expected Duration: 15 minutes

Presented by: Nathan Cunningham

A round the table debrief/discussion on the Metropolitan Library Tour on Tuesday 2 February 2016 led by Nathan.

Attachments: Nil

2 Waste Contract


Greg Georgopoulos Director Infrastructure, Assets & Environment Expected Duration: 45 minutes

Presented by: Chris Brideson from Water and Waste Innovations, and Anders Bogdanowicz

The purpose of this Workshop item is to discuss a range of topics and issues that will influence the final form of a new Kerbside Waste and Recycling Collection Contract, due to commence in July 2017. The Workshop will be an opportunity to familiarise the Elected Members with a number of technology and industry changes that have evolved since the current City of Prospect kerbside contract commenced in 2010. It will also provide the chance for a discussion about level and scope of services provided to both domestic and business ratepayers in the Council area.

Attachments: Nil


3 Community Engagement Feedback for Main North Road Masterplan


Matt Grant Director Business & Economic Development Expected Duration: 30 minutes

Presented by: Michael Arman, Angela Hazebroek from Urban & Regional Planning Solutions (URPS)

Consultation for the Main North Road Masterplan took place from the month of November 2015 to January 2016. URPS consultants will present the following analysis of the community consultation results:

Purpose of the engagement

Who participated?

What did we learn?

Directions for the Master Plan

Attachments: Nil

4 Urban Innovations Team Presenting Vision, Objectives and Guiding Principles


Matt Grant Director Business & Economic Development Expected Duration: 30 minutes

Presented by: Gene Fong, Rick Chenoweth, Jennifer Uebergang, Anders Bogdanowicz

The Urban Innovations Team has been working together to develop guiding objectives and principles based on the community engagement results and how these principles will guide future works in the Master planning process.

Attachments: Engagement Report - Main North Road Masterplan


5 2016 Gallery Program Overview / Update


Nathan Cunningham Director Community, Planning & Communication


Presented by: Carolyn Ramsey

Carolyn Ramsey (Manager Arts, Gallery and Events) will present an overview of the 2016 Gallery Program.

Attachments: Nil

6 LGA Ordinary General Meeting – Notices of Motion


Ginny Moon, Director Corporate Services


Presented by: Kerry Loughhead

On 17 December 2015 the Local Government Association (LGA) called for Notices of Motion to be considered at the LGA Ordinary General Meeting to be held on 15 April 2016. Elected Members were advised on 4 January 2016 that this item would be listed for a Workshop discussion in the first week of February, and were invited to send any ideas for Motions to the administration to include in these papers. No Motions were received at the time of writing this report. The attached table details the Notices of Motion that have been submitted by Council over the last 5 years, and the action undertaken by the LGA, as reported in the subsequent General Meeting agenda. The LGA have also provided further comment on the actions at our request (where possible) and this has been added to the table as a follow up comment, although the LGA have explained there is a gap in the process when it comes to following through with further reports on action items. I believe this gap will be addressed by the LGA, or it may be an opportunity for us to submit a Notice of Motion to have the action item monitoring system reviewed.

Attachments: Table of Notices of Motion since 2011 (CR16/3220)


Future Workshop and Council Agenda Items

Members may seek advice as to the purpose, or intended resolutions planned for the next Council meeting. These items are subject to change.

Workshop 01/03/2016

Broadview Sports & Recreation Precinct – Master Plan – Priorities and Costings

Long Term Financial Plan Assumptions

Budget 2016/2017 – Recurrent Budget Assumptions

Tourrific Prospect Feedback Council Meeting 23/02/2016

Mayoral Report

Report on Stage 1 – China Action Plan

Memorial Gardens Playspace

Budget Review 2

Adoption of Eastern Region Alliance Strategic Plan

Results of Air Raid Communications Shelter Engineering Investigation

LGA Ordinary General Meeting Notice of Motion

Eastern Health Authority Charter Review – Membership Clause

Policy Review – Privacy Policy

City of Prospect

2015-0302 21 January 2016

Engagement Report Main North Road Master Plan

Main North Road Master Plan

Community Engagement Report

21 January 2016

Lead consultant URPS

Prepared for City of Prospect

Consultant Project Manager Michael Arman, Associate Suite 12/154 Fullarton Road (cnr Alexandra Ave) Rose Park, SA 5067 Tel: (08) 8333 7999 Email: [email protected]

URPS Ref 2015-0302

Document history and status

© URPS All rights reserved; these materials are copyright. No part may be reproduced or copied in any way, form or by any means without prior permission. This report has been prepared for URPS’ client. URPS and its associated consultants are not liable to any person or entity for any damage or loss that has occurred, or may occur, in relation to that person or entity taking or not taking action in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein. www.urps.com.au ABN 55 640 546 010 H:\Synergy\Projects\2015\2015-0302 Community Engagement - Main North Road Master Plan\Draft Reports\R001_v2_160121_Draft_Engagement_Report.docx

Revision Date Reviewed Approved Details

1 14/01/16 AH 14/01/16 Draft report for review by client

2 21/01/16 MA 21/01/16 Report finalised following Council review

i

URPS Community Engagement Report Contents

www.urps.com.au

Contents 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1

1.1 What is the role of this report? ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 What were the objectives of the engagement? ............................................................................. 1

1.3 What engagement activities were undertaken? ............................................................................ 2

1.4 Additional Engagement Activities .................................................................................................. 2

2.0 Community Survey ...................................................................................................................3

2.1 Why did we undertake a community survey?................................................................................ 3

2.2 What did we ask? ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Who participated?.......................................................................................................................... 3

2.4 What did we learn? ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.4.1 Current use of Main North Road ....................................................................................................... 5 2.4.2 Satisfaction with Main North Road today ......................................................................................... 6 2.4.3 What could be changed about Main North Road today .................................................................... 7 2.4.4 Vision for the future .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.4.5 Other comments .............................................................................................................................. 10

3.0 Engagement with students ..................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Why did we engage with students? ............................................................................................. 12

3.2 What did we ask? ......................................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Who participated?........................................................................................................................ 12

3.4 What did we learn? ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.4.1 Session with the Student Representative Council ........................................................................... 12 3.4.2 Activity completed in each class ...................................................................................................... 13

4.0 Business door knocking .......................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Why did we door knock local businesses? ................................................................................... 16

4.2 What did we ask? ......................................................................................................................... 16


4.4 What did we learn? ...................................................................................................................... 17 4.4.1 Cluster One ...................................................................................................................................... 17 4.4.2 Cluster Two ...................................................................................................................................... 18 4.4.3 Cluster Three ................................................................................................................................... 18

5.0 Face-to-face meetings ............................................................................................................ 20

5.1 Why did we door conduct face-to-face meetings? ...................................................................... 20

5.2 What did we ask? ......................................................................................................................... 20


5.4 What did we learn? ...................................................................................................................... 20 5.4.1 Clayton Church Homes .................................................................................................................... 20

ii

Contents

www.urps.com.au

URPS


5.4.2 Friends of Prospect Library .............................................................................................................. 21 5.4.3 North Adelaide Football Club .......................................................................................................... 22 5.4.4 North Road Cemetery ...................................................................................................................... 23 5.4.5 Prospect Local Environment Group ................................................................................................. 24 5.4.6 Prospect Residents Association ....................................................................................................... 26

6.0 Summary and Community Design Brief ................................................................................... 28

Appendix A........................................................................................................................................ 31

1

www.urps.com.au

URPS Community Engagement Report Introduction

1.0 Introduction Main North Road is a strategic road corridor that plays multiple roles. On one hand, it is a DPTI-managed arterial road of metropolitan significance that carries heavy volumes of traffic and connects the CBD with the northern suburbs and beyond. On the other hand, it is the location of important business, employment and community facilities serving both local and metropolitan catchments.

Recognising the importance of the road corridor, the City of Prospect identified Main North Road as one of ten strategic focus areas in its Strategic Plan 2012-2016, describing it as:

Inner city green corporate boulevard

Develop a commerce focused arterial road, which encourages and provides a range of new employment and business opportunities.

Partner with our community, investors, Federal and State agencies to plan for and improve the amenity and infrastructure of the road with an aim to encourage increased commercial activity, excellence in building design and increased street trees and landscaping. Promote effective local public transport solutions to improve the effectiveness of this National Highway 1 gateway to and from Adelaide’s CBD and northern employment and industrial precincts.

To help achieve this vision, Council is preparing the first stage of a master plan for the Main North Road precinct to present a preferred future for Main North Road. The master plan will establish a framework to guide future development and establish priorities for the provision of new infrastructure and public realm projects.

1.1 What is the role of this report?

An important component of the master plan preparation is the effective engagement of community at the start of the process to elicit ideas from the community which will help set the direction of the master plan.

This Engagement Report summarises the engagement activities undertaken in relation to the Main North Road master plan and the key themes that emerged from this process. The information provided in this report will then be used along with a range of other information sources to develop the master plan.

1.2 What were the objectives of the engagement?

The objectives of the engagement were to:

• To engage with the community at the start of the master planning process

• To consult with a wide cross section of the community, local businesses and community groups.

In particular the engagement sought to understand:

2

www.urps.com.au

Introduction

URPS


• Current usage, satisfaction and what is valued more generally about the services, facilities, experiences and functionality of Main North Road; and

• Ideas for how services, facilities, experiences and functionality of the corridor could be different in the future.

1.3 What engagement activities were undertaken?

The following community engagement activities were undertaken:

• Community survey

• Engagement with students

• Business door knocking

• Face-to-face meetings with identified stakeholders and community groups/clubs.

Sections 2-5 of this report summarise these engagement activities in more detail and the information collected.

1.4 Additional Engagement Activities

In addition to these community engagement activities, staff from Council met with representatives from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure to discuss a range of strategic planning and transport issues, and Northpark Shopping Centre as a major landowner and shopping centre in the study area. The outcomes of these meetings have been documented by Council staff and form separate inputs to the master plan.

3

www.urps.com.au

URPS Community Engagement Report Community Survey

2.0 Community Survey 2.1 Why did we undertake a community survey?

A community survey was identified as an easy and effective method to gather information from residents, businesses and visitors to the area. Surveys are particularly useful at the start of a process, such as a master plan, when there are no firm plans and the purpose is to elicit comments about what is important to people, and their ideas for the future.

Surveys are also a convenient way for people to participate, and can be completed in a manner of minutes through the online surveymonkey platform, or in paper copy at the Council Civic Centre or Library.

2.2 What did we ask?

The survey contained a total of 13 questions. The first 5 questions asked participants about their current use, satisfaction and observations about Main North Road today. This was followed by 3 questions which sought information about the way in which services, facilities, experiences and functionality of the corridor could be different in the future. The final 5 questions collected information about who participated in the process.

These were a mixture of prompted responses where people were asked to ‘tick a box’, as well as open ended questions to gather unprompted information.

A copy of the survey form is included in Appendix A.

The following sections contain a summary of the information gathered from the surveys. In the survey analysis, percentages refer to the percentage response to each question, noting that some people did not complete every question.

2.3 Who participated?

In total, 170 people completed the community survey. Of these:

• 153 people completed the online survey

• 17 completed a hard copy survey and returned it to the Civic Centre or Library.

Of those who participated:

• 46% were male and 54% were female

• Most were in the “working age” cohorts of 31-50 and 51-65 years (refer Figure 2-1)

• 60% of respondents came from the suburb of Prospect, 10% from Nailsworth, 5% from Medindie/Medindie Gardens and 4% from Sefton Park

• Most (73%) were residents of the City of Prospect, followed by visitors (13%) and business owner/operators (8%) (refer Figure 2-2)

• Of respondents who were residents, approximately two thirds have lived in the area for more than ten years (refer Table 2-1).

4

www.urps.com.au

Community Survey

URPS


Figure 2-1: Age profile of respondents.

Figure 2-2: Profile of repsondents

Table 2-1: Length of residence of respondents who are residents of the City of Prospect.

If you are a resident, how long have you lived in the City of Prospect?

Less than one year 7% 1-5 years 12% 6-10 years 15% Greater than ten years 67%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Less than 18 18-30 years 31-50 years 51-65 years Greater than 65years

PERC

ENTA

GE

OF

RESP

ON

DEN

TS

AGE GROUP

Age profile of respondents

73%

6%

8%

13%

Profile of Respondents

Resident

I work in the City of Prospect

I own or operate a business in theCity of Prospect

I visit the City of Prospect

5

www.urps.com.au


2.4 What did we learn?

2.4.1 Current use of Main North Road Main North Road is an important local road for those living and working in the surrounding area, who use it to access local destinations as well as to leave the area. This is evident in Figure 2-3 below which shows that:

• 72% of respondents use the road for ‘travelling locally’

• 71% use the road for ‘going to shops, businesses, medical services’

• 65% use the road for ‘commuting to city or northern suburbs’

• 49% use the road for ‘going to Prospect Oval, Library or Nailsworth Primary’.

In addition, around a quarter of respondents use bus stops along the road.

Figure 2-3: Curent usage of Main North Road.

People use a variety of modes of transport to move along Main North Road. Nearly all respondents (95%) travel along the road in a car, nearly half (44%) reported to walking and more than a third (36%) stated that they utilise bus services. Around 16% indicated that they cycle along the road.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PERC

ENTA

GE

OF

RESP

ON

DEN

TS

In what ways do you currently use Main North Road?

6

www.urps.com.au

Community Survey

URPS


2.4.2 Satisfaction with Main North Road today Participants were asked to identify what they value most about Main North Road in an unprompted manner, providing an indication of levels of satisfaction with the appearance, function and services available along the road.

A number of people identified traffic flow and connectivity as a highly valued aspects of Main North Road today, with comments such as:

“Provides a thoroughfare which takes traffic away from Prospect Road. Should stay this way”

“It generally provides a fast flowing four-lane route to the city and to the northern suburbs and country areas”

“It gets me to where I need to go”.

Participants also identified that they value the businesses, shops and services that are available along Main North Road, for example:

“Shops, businesses, library are all approachable and accessible”

“There are many types of businesses along that strip, which is very convenient if you live nearby”

“Has some useful services e.g. library & digital hub & gallery, medical centre, garden centre”

“Availability of buses”.

For some, the appearance of the road is valued, with comments including:

“Heritage buildings - trees – parks”

“It is clean and spacious”.

Participants were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction with 12 aspects of Main North Road today. Table 2-2 summarises the outcomes and includes a numerical rating average based on the levels of satisfaction expressed by respondents.

This demonstrates that the aspects of Main North Road today which display the highest level of satisfaction are the availability of services (average rating 3.0 which equates to “somewhat satisfied”) and quality of community facilities (2.9).

The aspects of Main North Road with the lowest levels of satisfaction are amount and quality of landscaping, and trees and shade, both of which had an average rating of 1.8. Safety for cyclists, opportunities to cross the road and appearance of buildings also received low ratings, at 2.0.

7

www.urps.com.au


Table 2-2: Satisfaction with key aspects of Main North Road.

Highly satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Strongly dissatisfied

Response count

Rating Average

Ease of driving along the road

23 80 40 22 165 2.6

Comfort when walking 8 60 48 41 157 2.2

Trees and shade 4 21 69 68 162 1.8 Amount and quality of landscaping

2 26 69 65 162 1.8

Opportunities to cross the road

7 39 71 53 170 2.0

Safety for cyclists 9 36 53 50 148 2.0

Bus shelters 12 75 48 14 149 2.6

Amount of car parking 8 67 52 23 150 2.4

Appearance of buildings 4 35 69 50 158 2.0 Range of shops and businesses

23 64 51 21 159 2.6

Quality of community facilities (e.g. Oval, Library)

41 80 32 10 163 2.9

Availability of others services (e.g. medical)

32 91 29 5 157 3.0

2.4.3 What could be changed about Main North Road today Participants were asked to identify the one thing about Main North Road that they would like to see changed.

Many people identified the need to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, with comments including:

“I would provide safer footpaths for pedestrians with better separation from adjacent road traffic”

“Proper bike paths with no parking on main north road”

“Safer and more frequent crossing locations for pedestrians - potentially a median or more refuges”

“Build footbridges to replace the existing pedestrian crossings at North Park & the library”.

Some people consider improved landscaping and greenery to be their priority change to Main North Road, for example:

“More greenery and landscaping to make it look more beautiful”

“Tree lined road would be terrific!”.

Similarly, a number of people identified suggested changes to the streetscape, such as

“Eliminate stobie poles as Prospect Road has done and more brighter lighting on shops”

8

www.urps.com.au

Community Survey

URPS


“More diverse paving treatments”

“More sculptures that relate to the history, e.g. RM Williams, North Adelaide footy club, WW1 veterans…”

Many people consider it important to limit on-street parking to improve traffic flows, suggesting:

“Stop cars from parking on Main North Rd to improve traffic flow”

“Limit parking between Nottage Tce and Robe Tce particularly in front of car yards”.

Some people offered possible improvements to traffic management, such as:

“Sink the road at Northpark to go under Regency, then make a pedestrian/cycle path to ease east/west connectivity”

“Widen the road to accommodate more traffic in years to come”

“Better space for buses to pull in without interruption to cyclists and traffic”

“Install many digital billboards to highlight the traffic and commuting time to reach city or northern suburbs”.

Changes to the built form were the priorities for change for many, with comments including:

“Upgrade tired and outdated buildings”

“Allow high rise buildings to 7-8 storeys”

“Impose an unbreakable limit of three stories on the height of buildings”

“Make it feel less like a concrete corridor”.

““To encourage businesses, large and small, to maintain more attractive frontages to their buildings, especially the cement car parking areas”.

2.4.4 Vision for the future A number of themes emerged when people were asked to describe their vison for the future of Main North Road.

Many people described the overall impression that the road will make, and its symbolic role as the gateway to North Adelaide, with comments including:

“A truly welcoming entry into Adelaide from the north”

“The road should make a statement that you are in a sophisticated area prior to entering the city”

“Transform Main North Road to better reflect the quality of the exclusive suburbs it passes through”.

9

www.urps.com.au


Many people described the activities, experiences and land uses they would like to see in the future, including:

“A pleasant tree-lined boulevard with a mixed use of office buildings, apartments, shops and cafes”

“More after hour business especially cafe & restaurant”

“Make a place to enjoy as well as a major thoroughfare”

“More like the hub of Prospect Road, better restaurants, a bar or two, smaller specialty shops with homewares and funky fresh and organic places”

“Promote it as a fast food, supermarket, and services region, in contrast to Prospect Road”

“Remove all car yards. Four-five storey buildings that in themselves are well designed”.

“Diversity of heights of buildings with roof top gardens”

“Heritage tram barn should be turned into a cafe/restaurant and quality development as it is not used to its full potential”

“Cultural/residential/community/commercial 'blocks' interlinking with each other and allowing easy pedestrian/motorist accessibility to each other…create 'villages' adjacent to 'villages' where families, single people and those wonderful people called 'the ageing' coexist”.

Some people focused on community spaces in their vision, identifying:

“I believe the tram barn could be re-purposed as a great art gallery and fabulous meeting space for local residents and community groups”

“A new cultural destination of a modern 6 storey library/digital/gallery/community centre hub … overlooking Prospect Oval”.

For many people, greenery was the defining characteristic of their vision, commenting:

“I would like to see a visually greener boulevard with more trees”

“Trees (like Cross Road/Portbrush Road) would improve aesthetics”.

Similarly, some people identified the value providing art and sculptures, for example:

“More public art and sculpture, landscaping to make a more appealing area to travel in or through”

“Make it more like a boulevard than a highway…...including artwork or sculptural landscaping”.

Public transport featured in the vision of some respondents, who commented:

“Tramlines to return down O’Connell to Main North Road”

10

www.urps.com.au

Community Survey

URPS


“This is a more useful and practical route for any future trams”

“Perhaps installing a full-time bus lane both sides of the road with full-time “no parking” could help within a sensible budget”

“More mature trees. Seats in shade while waiting for buses. Often most bus users are older people”.

Improving conditions for pedestrians was identified by a number of respondents with comments including:

“Pedestrian friendly. Disability friendly”

“Plenty of laneways for pedestrian inter-connection”

“A more positive experience to walk or cycle along Main North Road through more shade, separation of pedestrians from the edge of the road, softening of hard, dirty streetscape with trees”

“Elevated walkways between Sefton Plaza and North Park Shopping Centre”

A number of people considered traffic management in describing their vision with words such as:

“3 lanes of traffic each way”

“Investment in more intelligent traffic flow technology”

“Underpass or overpass for Regency Road”

“Reduce speed limit to 50 Kph, but compensate with uninterrupted traffic flows, clear footpaths and make crossings over entrances and side streets easier and safer to negotiate”

“Needs to be a slower road to encourage pedestrians, cyclists and shopping”.

2.4.5 Support for possible ideas Participants were also asked to rate their level of agreement with 9 possible ideas about what could be achieved through the master plan. Table 2-3 summarises the outcomes, showing that the ideas that had the highest level of agreement were:

• Increase the amount of landscaping between buildings and the road

• Improve the efficiency of the road for vehicles

• Attract diverse businesses

• Improve cycling infrastructure.

Ideas with the lowest level of agreement were encourage housing around Prospect Oval and, to a lesser extent, provide more shops to meet daily needs of residents and encourage a greater range of activities and events.

11

www.urps.com.au


Table 2-3: Levels of support for possible ideas for Main North Road

Agree Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree Unsure Response count

Attract diverse businesses 106 34 12 3 155 Encourage housing around Prospect Oval

55 40 44 14 153

Provide more shops to meet daily needs of residents

81 41 26 6 154

Attract cafes, restaurants and other after hours activities

98 26 28 3 155

Encourage a greater range of activities and events

86 40 22 7 155

Increase the amount of landscaping between buildings and the road

132 10 12 2 156

Improve the efficiency of the road for vehicles

114 29 9 3 155

Increase public transport services

101 43 6 4 154

Improve cycling infrastructure 104 26 19 6 155

2.4.6 Other comments Many of the issues raised in the other comments component of the survey have already been summarised in the previous sections. New matters identified included:

• Support for the description of Main North Road focus area in Council’s strategic plan

• Suggestion to work with the City of Port Adelaide Enfield to provide shared services/facilities

• Desire for the Prospect Library to be relocated to the old Tram Barn or adjacent Prospect Oval

• Desire for Council to prioritise the Prospect Library relocation and upgrade of Memorial Gardens over the Main North Road master plan

• Concern about the impacts of particulates on the health of residents living in apartments on arterial roads

• Consider awards for businesses who install significant landscaping or make other improvements to the visual appearance of the street

• Desire for increased frequency of bus services and new east-west public transport services

• Suggestion to emphasise the historical aspects of Main North Road in the master plan.

A number of specific traffic management issues were also identified, including

• Review the alignment of lanes and car parking near Main North Road/Robe Tce intersection

• Considering re-instating southbound right turns into Edgeworth Street

• Consider banning U-turns which are unsafe and slow traffic.

12

www.urps.com.au

Engagement with students

URPS


3.0 Engagement with students 3.1 Why did we engage with students?

An engagement process was designed and implemented to gather input from students of Nailsworth Primary School. Involvement of students was important as they are:

• Regular users of Main North Road given the location of the school and the fact that many are likely to reside in the local area

• Citizens with equal rights to participate in consultation processes, but less likely to participate in other methods, such as the community survey or through community groups.

Engagement of students is also important to harness their creative ideas, and demonstrate to them the planning and decision making processes of Council.


The engagement process involved undertaking a face-to-face session with students from the Student Representative Council (SRC), as well as a follow up activity for these students to take back and complete with their own classes.

With the SRC, a semi-structured process provided students with an introduction to the City of Prospect, the roles of Council and why Council is looking at Main North Road. This was followed by a brainstorming session with students about how they use Main North Road, their experience of the road, and their ideas for the future.

At the end of the session, SRC representatives were provided with a short activity to complete in each of their classes, seeking similar information from their classmates.


Approximately 20 SRC representatives and buddies participated in the SRC session. Seven classes completed the in-class activity (approximately 175 students).


3.4.1 Session with the Student Representative Council Experience of Main North Road

Students use Main North Road as a passenger in a car, as well as the footpath and pedestrian crossing in walking to and from school. Some students also walk, cycle or skateboard along the footpath going to Prospect Oval or the shops and medical centre, or to get on or off the bus.

Many students commented on traffic, safety and the general busyness of the road, commenting that when they are riding in the car, its “bumpy”, “ugly to look at” and they are “always caught in traffic”.

13

www.urps.com.au

URPS Community Engagement Report Engagement with students

Those who walk along the footpath commented that it takes a long time to cross the road, and that it is “always noisy”. There were a number of comments about the footpath, including that there is litter, it is “easy to trip over the lumps from tree roots” and there is “sticky sap from trees”.

Ideas for the future

Students commented that the road could be made to look “prettier”, through “using bright colours” providing statues or a graffiti wall.

Students also suggested that it would be safer to cross the road, and faster to get to school if there were more pedestrian crossings, or even a bridge or underpass. They also suggested making the footpath wider.

Students suggested planting more trees. They thought that the middle of the road could be planted with trees or “lighting to make the road prettier” and provide shade.

3.4.2 Activity completed in each class Current use of Main North Road

Table 3-1 contains a summary of the data collected in all 7 seven classes, showing that the main ways students are currently using Main North Road are as passengers in cars or as pedestrians.

Ways that you use Main North Road now?

Number of students

Walking 82

As a passenger in a car 132

Catching the bus 35

Riding your bike 28

Any other ways 10 (scooters and skateboards)

Things your classmates dislike about Main North Road

A number of comments were made about the high volume of traffic along Main North Road and the many impacts of this, for example

“Accidents and break downs block the whole lane”

“Not enough lanes – traffic jams”

“Noisy”

“Crashes”

“People driving when it’s a red light”

“Bit hard to do right turns”

“Pollution”

14

www.urps.com.au

Engagement with students

URPS


“Too many greenhouse gases”.

Students expressed a dislike for the condition of the footpaths, the crossing times and number of pedestrian crossings and general walking environment, for example

“Footpath too close to the road”

“Footpath is cracked, rough and uneven”

“Pedestrian crossings take too long”

“Jaywalking”

“Long way between pedestrian crossings”.

A few students commented about the difficulty of riding a bike along Main North Road, for example

“Cars park in the bike lane”

“Bike lane is too narrow”

“Bumpy surface when riding a bike”.

Students also expressed dislike for certain aspects of the road’s appearance, identifying

“Graffiti”

“Need to renovate and decorate buildings”.

Ideas for making Main North Road a better place

Students had a number of suggestions to improve traffic movement along the road, including

“More traffic lanes”

“Coordinate traffic lights”

“More curves along the road”

“Lower speed limit”.

To improve the conditions for pedestrians, students identified the following

“Pedestrian under/overpass to help traffic”

“More pedestrian crossings”

“Repave the footpath”

“Escalator footpath”.

A number of students provided ideas that address waste management, such as

15

www.urps.com.au

URPS Community Engagement Report Engagement with students

“More bins…and more signs to encourage people to put rubbish in the bins”

“Clean up more often”.

Finally, some students suggested improvements that would improve the overall appearance and experience of the road, such as

“More trees”

“Signs with lots of happy faces”

“Statues”

“Hotdog vendors at traffic lights”

“More houses”

“Less food places”.

16

www.urps.com.au

Business door knocking

URPS


4.0 Business door knocking 4.1 Why did we door knock local businesses?

Local businesses are important stakeholders in the study area, representing major land uses and providing important destinations for residents and visitors. Going to businesses and having a face-to-face conversation is important as business owners and operators often have limited time to participate in more formal engagement processes.


The business door knocking involved casual conversations seeking to understand their experiences of Main North Road, what is most important for business, ideas for the future of Main North Road and their future intentions.


A total of 31 businesses participated in the business door knocking, oriented around three clusters, as shown in Figure 4-1. Within these clusters all businesses fronting Main North Road were entered into, but some were unable to participate in the conversations. Some of these conversations were short and lasted only a few minutes, while others were more detailed.

The businesses that participated in the engagement varied from cafes and food outlets, to professional services, shops, home making centres, automotive parts and gyms.

In the case of Cluster One, there was targeted conversations with retail tenants inside Northpark, Regency Plaza and Sefton Plaza Shopping Centres as well as those businesses fronting Main North Road. It is noted that Regency Plaza and Sefton Plaza sit outside the Council boundary, however these were included because these businesses serve many residents within the City of Prospect.

17

www.urps.com.au

URPS Community Engagement Report Business door knocking


4.4.1 Cluster One Businesses in cluster one were predominantly retail shops.

Businesses in the cluster repeatedly identified the presence of other businesses in the area as important to their own. The businesses fronting Main North Road itself identified the passing foot traffic as another valued element.

Participants commented that the Regency Road intersection should be treated as the gateway to inner Adelaide and its appearance significantly improved with, for example, with an entry statement or installing lights in the trees. As one business that directly fronts Main North Road put it, “if Council improves the appearance of the area, so will we”.

A number of businesses commented about traffic management around the Northpark Shopping Centre, especially the way cars exit Northpark onto Main North Road, only to encounter a red pedestrian light. In response, it was suggested that the pedestrian lights be relocated further south, so that cars exiting Northpark can use red pedestrian lights to their advantage when exiting the car park.

Participants also identified the current location of the bus stop outside Northpark as a problem because it is located on a narrow strip of footpath, which regularly is choked by abandoned trolleys, which sometimes causes people to walk on the road. It was suggested by a number of businesses that it be relocated further south to where the taxi-rank is currently located, and that the taxi rank be relocated to another location in the centre. If the bus stop is relocated, it is important that its new location allows buses to pull in off the road corridor so as to not block the carriageway.

There were many comments provided about the fence that separates the two carriageways. While some people thought that it should be removed, it was accepted by most as important for safety and that priority should be on improving pedestrian conditions through faster crossing times, better footpaths/landscaping and removal of stobie polls to open up the area. The footpath north of Northpark is particularly narrow and uneven, and is difficult for people with mobility aids to negotiate.

Some site-specific observations included:

• The need for landowners of the properties fronting Main North Road (north of Northpark) to repair the poor condition carpark, and a desire for Council to encourage action due to landowner reluctance

• Address the line marking at the north of Main North Road, where it is changes from three lanes into two

• One privately owned business north of Northpark is interested in redeveloping their site, including the provision of above ground floor offices or apartments, but would only be able to do so if Council could support new signage on the building façade.

18

www.urps.com.au

Business door knocking

URPS


4.4.2 Cluster Two Cluster Two businesses value the exposure that Main North Road provides to their businesses in the form of passing traffic. One business, which generally has a wide catchment, however, observed that even though they serve people from all over Adelaide, they value local business and for this reason, improvements to the appearance of the road and footpath are important.

A consistent theme was to improve the environment for pedestrians, given that people walk along this section of Main North Road to access Prospect Oval, Nailsworth Primary and the new Basilico Café. This could be done through widening the footpath and providing additional trees and shade.

Businesses in this cluster discussed the way people can turn on/off the road at length, noting that the ability for cars to easily enter/exit Main North Road can be a key factor in determining whether customers will stop or not.

A number of businesses in this cluster commented about the recently opened Basilico Café, the positive effect it has had on the surrounding area and a desire to see more businesses like it be established. This new café is open for breakfasts, lunch and coffees and is serving both local businesses and residents from the surrounding area.

Some businesses suggested relocating the pedestrian crossing, currently south of Kintore Avenue/Ellen Street further north so that it is closer to Prospect Oval. Others disagreed, commenting that it would bring the lights too close to the next crossing further north at Nailsworth Primary School. The Kintore Avenue/Ellen Street pedestrian crossing was also identified as having a very slow crossing time.

4.4.3 Cluster Three A large number of businesses in cluster three commented that they are ‘destination’ businesses that rely upon people coming to them, rather than causal passer-bys. For these businesses, what is most valued about Main North road is its relatively central location, close to the CBD and easily accessible for people living in Adelaide’s northern suburbs. The visibility and being seen by the passing traffic is also highly valued.

Businesses commented about the poor urban amenity in the area and desire for greening and improved footpaths. For some businesses, this is important for trade and one business commented that their shopfront on Main North Road does not generate as much trade as businesses elsewhere because of the lack of foot traffic. For others, this is less important since people are making a special trip in the car to visit the business. For this reason, maintaining efficient vehicle flows was identified by many participants as being of paramount importance.

In this cluster, a number of people identified the lack of destinations for employees, especially food outlets to be a problem. Options are limited to Subway or the Windmill Hotel, and this means that many people do not go out at lunchtime. The lack of eating/coffee options is not good for some businesses, such as the fitness centre, whose clients have no option but leave the area for a post-work out coffee.

The lack of crossing points and poor pedestrian conditions more generally also prevents employees walking around the area. Footpaths in this cluster are particularly narrow and lack trees. One business commented that they have administered first aid to a pedestrian struck while crossing the road.

19

www.urps.com.au

URPS Community Engagement Report Business door knocking

A number of people discussed the limited options to turn right, commenting that although these are inconvenient, especially for new customers or passing trade, regular customers generally know where to turn and/or do a U-turn.

One business identified stormwater management as a challenge in the area, and that the master plan should seek to improve draining to prevent pooling of water or localised flooding after extreme rainfall events.

None of the businesses in this cluster indicated that they had major redevelopment plans.

Some site-specific observations included:

• The bus stop immediately south of College Avenue is too close to the corner, and it would be preferable if it was moved further north

• Trees on Sherbourne Road (adjacent Main North Road) drop yellow berries that are a nuisance and present a safety hazard.

20

www.urps.com.au

Face-to-face meetings

URPS


5.0 Face-to-face meetings 5.1 Why did we door conduct face-to-face meetings?

There are a number of stakeholders, such as community groups and key landowners, who may have particular views about Main North Road. Face-to-face meetings provided the opportunity to understand the views, interests and ideas of these identified stakeholders.


The line of questioning was very similar to other engagement methods, that is, seeking to understand current usage, satisfaction and what is valued more generally about Main North Road, as well as comments about ways in which Main North Road could be different in the future. At the meetings, we sought to understand these things from the particular perspective of each stakeholder.


Meetings were held with:

• Clayton Church Homes on 16 December 2015

• Friends of Prospect Library on 22 December 2015

• North Adelaide Football Club on 18 November 2015

• North Road Cemetery on 8 December 2015

• Prospect Local Environment Group on 10 December 2015

• Prospect Residents Association on 3 December 2015.

Meetings were also sought with Prospect Cricket Club, Prospect Active Walkers and Sefton Plaza Shopping Centre, however invitations to participate were either declined or not responded to.

Staff from Council met with representatives from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and Northpark Shopping Centre, and the outcomes of these meetings have been documented by Council staff and form separate inputs to the master plan.


5.4.1 Clayton Church Homes Clayton Church Homes own and operate the aged care facility at 156 Main North Road, Prospect. This facility shares its western boundary with Prospect Oval. There are two easements over the southern portion of the property, providing a “right of way on foot only” and “free and unrestricted right of way” that allow people to access Prospect Oval (Ken Farmer Gates) from Main North Road.

Clayton Church Homes have plans to commence a modest redevelopment of the facility in the near future. This redevelopment will include a new two storey component and a modified building footprint

21

www.urps.com.au

URPS Community Engagement Report Face-to-face meetings

which will result in changes to the car parking and vehicle access arrangements. The portion of the building closest to Main North Road will remain unchanged.

Clayon Church Homes explored the possibility of a more substantial redevelopment, including constructing multistorey residential apartments (retirement living collocated with an aged care facility) to maximise the development potential created by the new planning policy for the Urban Corridor Zone. However in this instance, the proposed development was not feasible, in part because of the perceived lower amenity of Main North Road and the impact of this on the sale of retirement living apartments.

As part of the redevelopment, there is the potential to create a stronger pedestrian linkage through the carpark to Prospect Oval. Clayton Church Homes are willing to work with Council to achieve this and are interested in partnerships with respect to the cost of the paving and landscaping.

More generally, Clayton Church Homes are supportive of the master plan for Main North Road and efforts to improve the overall amenity and function of Main North Road. They would in particular value improved opportunities for pedestrians to cross Main North Road in the vicinity of their facility, as the nearest crossings are located at Kintore/Ellen Streets, or Nailsworth Primary School. A volunteer was recently struck while crossing the road directly out the front of the facility. Clayton Church Homes would also appreciate any efforts to lower traffic volumes/truck movements because of the noise.

5.4.2 Friends of Prospect Library Three members of Friends of Prospect Library participated in the meeting.

New Library

While acknowledging that the planning for a new library is a separate Council project, it was suggested that the location of the new library should be written into the master plan, and seen as a nucleus around which a cafe and other community gathering spaces could be developed. The Friends expressed preference for the new library:

• To incorporate significant landscaping

• To contain underground or hidden car parking

• To be located in the vicinity of Main North Road

• To create a community atmosphere

• To demonstrate green walls and other best practice building design measures to set an example for other new developments in the area.

Landscaping

Members commented that Main North Road is devoid of quality landscaping, and that better quality landscaping would significantly improve the overall appearance of Main North Road. As one participant commented, “trees really do hide a multitude of sins”. Participants suggested that if there is insufficient space on footpaths for street tees, consideration should be given to planting trees in the median strip.

22

www.urps.com.au


URPS


It was also identified that new buildings should be set back from the road far enough so that a modest landscaping area can be provided in all new private development. The Friends suggested that Council could explore ways to ensure consistent landscaping in the public realm and private developments, as a consistent approach to landscaping has the potential to enhance the appearance of the area. Similarly it was suggested that Council could provide a planting guide that contains information for land owners about plants being grown in the public realm that may also be suitable for their own properties.

Pedestrian movement

The Friends commented that Main North Road does not provide a particularly pleasant pedestrian environment, and that there are opportunities to improve this through shade or even arbours that connect key destinations. They also suggested that pedestrian crossings should give priority to pedestrians over cars, with shorter waiting times and longer crossing times for pedestrians outside of peak hours when cars should have priority.

In those places that are not near a pedestrian crossing, the Friends suggested providing pedestrian refuges in the middle of the road to improve safety.

Building appearance

Participants commented that there are a number of buildings along Main North Road of very poor appearance that have not been updated or renovated for a long time. It was suggested that Council could incentivise improvements to buildings of very poor appearance. Doing so is not only important for those buildings but for the road as a whole, and may encourage new investment/business.

The Friends identified that visual appearance largely depends on the individual businesses. For example, older car yards are unsightly, while more modern vehicle centres may well be appropriate. Similarly, there are examples of relatively modest businesses improving their appearance through fresh paint.

Car parking

The Friends commented that there is a lack of car parking in some places along Main North Road, especially older developments. Further, it is not always safe or possible to stop on Main North Road due to traffic. It was also observed that many car parking areas are unshaded.

5.4.3 North Adelaide Football Club The NAFC consider the Prospect Oval precinct to be very important to the overall Main North Road environment. Although the oval does not directly face the road, many visitors access it directly from Main North Road via the Clayton Church Homes aged care facility and the Ken Farmer gates.

Overall, it was thought that the entire Prospect Oval precinct, including the memorial gardens, is not as well known as it could be, by both locals and those visiting the area.

The NAFC suggested that more needs to be done to draw people into the oval precinct via this entrance, beyond the very limited signage. Currently, large numbers of patrons park on the eastern side of Main North Road and cross the road (without crossing lights) and enter the oval. A more appropriate entrance could be done through signage (potentially problematic being a DPTI road) or via landscaping treatments.

23

www.urps.com.au


The NAFC is supportive of ideas that bring new users to the precinct, such as encouraging higher density housing around the oval or encouraging new shops and restaurants along Main North Road. It was suggested that those who attend games at the oval are much more likely to visit Prospect Road businesses than any on Main North Road. Given the number of visitors to the oval, the NAFC suggested that Main North Road near the oval could sustain restaurants, cafes or similar businesses serving food and drinks.

The NAFC has a good relationship with City of Prospect, including the lease arrangements. Although many football clubs have exclusive ovals, allowing public access to the oval with the club having a lease works well and any impacts, such as resident complaints, can generally be managed.

The club would like to see the physical condition in the precinct improved. The club supported the Prospect Oval Master Plan, which has not been fully implemented.

More broadly, it was suggested that the entire Main North Road corridor would benefit from improved public investment in streetscape improvements and landscaping, as well as private investment in new buildings. It was noted that there has not been significant investment/change in the road, unlike other arterial roads. It was thought that the road lacks activity, vibrancy and colour that is displayed in similar inner city arterial roads elsewhere.

5.4.4 North Road Cemetery North Road Cemetery is located east of Main North Road at Nailsworth, with the road “turning its back” on the cemetery. Access is provided from Main North Road via Cemetery Avenue. The main access is via Derlanger Avenue to the east of the cemetery.

Access from Main North Road is not currently promoted by the cemetery as they keep their gates closed to prevent through traffic. Gates are only opened for special occasions, such as large funerals.

On street parking along Cemetery Avenue is time restricted which theoretically means that visitors could enter from Main North Road, park and then enter the cemetery on foot. In reality, however, the parking restrictions are not policed and there are many ‘spillover’ vehicles from the surrounding businesses, especially Main North Nissan. There is also parking on footpaths and inappropriate truck parking on Cemetery Avenue.

North Road Cemetery welcomes pedestrians and cyclists using the cemetery to pass through the area, and has historically experienced very limited vandalism from visitors. They see the use of the cemetery in this way as important in generating interest in the cemetery and its history, and increasing general awareness of its existence.

North Road Cemetery has a rich history. It is one of only three state heritage listed cemeteries in South Australia which means that headstones cannot be destroyed/replaced. Despite its relatively small size, it is the burial place of a large number of historical figures. The cemetery sees this as a future opportunity and would like to develop tours that tell the stories of these figures.

24

www.urps.com.au


URPS


The cemetery representatives expressed that there are limited opportunities for major change on Main North Road given the volumes of traffic, although they acknowledged the importance of investment in the public realm in attracting new businesses. Cafes, restaurants or pubs were thought to be generally lacking on the road corridor.

Given the cemetery’s desire to increase awareness about its presence and history, they would support the redevelopment of sites located between the cemetery and Main North Road which include glimpses or sight lines between the road and building.

5.4.5 Prospect Local Environment Group Three members of the Prospect Local Environment Group participated in the meeting.

Poor environmental quality undermining quality of life

PLEG are concerned about the impact of Main North Road traffic on quality of life, especially health, because of the particulates and other vehicle emissions. They note that Australia has low levels of monitoring of vehicle emission monitoring compared with other places. They also explained that, according to RAA data, Main North Road has among the slowest traffic movement speeds in metropolitan Adelaide and high levels of congestion. This means there are high numbers of idle vehicles, which worsens the vehicle emissions. The worst traffic flows are between Clifton Street and Nottage Terrace.

Quality of life has also been eroded by new developments, such as petrol stations, not providing appropriate emissions control technology.

Traffic management needed

The group suggested that traffic management studies/works are needed to improve vehicle flows. Investigations need to consider Main North Road in the context of surrounding roads, especially given the changes to Prospect Road. It also should include local area traffic management, with the goal of finding the best ways to prevent people taking short cuts through residential streets.

Mitigate emissions through greening

The group suggested that one of the best ways to mitigate air emissions is through a comprehensive greening program. This would involve landscaping in the public realm (e.g. in the median strip, alongside the footpath, provision of street trees) as well as through encouraging private development to incorporate green walls. The group contend that Council needs to find ways to encourage developers to contribute more towards pocket parks/greening to help improve the entire neighbourhood.

Attract offices, cafes and restaurants

PELG expressed a desire for car yards to be redeveloped with bolder development, such as office buildings that incorporate significant greening. They also suggested trying to attract more cafes/restaurants by creating an environment where people would want to spend time- i.e. by providing a better pedestrian/streetscape experience and through reducing vehicle numbers.

25

www.urps.com.au


Inadequate public transport

PLEG contend that car use on Main North Road is exacerbated by poor public transport. Although a ‘go zone’, participants identified that buses are often full by the time they pass through the area, meaning passengers can be left waiting for the next bus. The group also suggested more circular bus routes through the metropolitan area, and the ability to carry bikes on buses.

Although acknowledging that public transport servicing is a State Government responsibility, the group suggested that Council could advocate for better services. Council could also improve the quality of bus shelters, and promote public transport by running events such as “ride the bus to work day”.

Improve conditions for pedestrians

PLEG commented that footpaths are in very poor condition. In many places, they are too narrow for people to pass, especially people in wheelchairs or those with prams. The many obstructions on the footpath also make it hard for visually impaired people to safely navigate the footpath.

PLEG consider that additional pedestrian crossings are needed somewhere between Nottage Tce and Cooper Street, and between Thomas Street and Third Avenue. The existing pedestrian crossings need to be adjusted to have faster crossing times because people have to wait a long time and end up crossing before the lights change, which is unsafe.

Change the balance of road space and lower the speed limits

Given the problems with vehicle traffic and emissions, public transport and walking/cycling along Main North Road, the group suggested that the balance of road space needs to be adjusted in favour of public transport, walking and cycling. They suggested a fundamental principle for the master plan should be equal rights for all road users.

This would entail wider footpaths, maintaining bike lanes (separated from pedestrians), and peak hour bus lanes to help buses bypass traffic in gridlock.

PLEG also suggested lowering the speed limit to 50km/h to ensure a safer environment for pedestrians, and one that is more conducive to walking.

An overarching strategy would also be encouraging all road users to respect each other, which would be the result of community education activities.

Consider a tram

PLEG suggested that the master plan should consider the possibility of a tram running along Main North Road. They commented that the road is wider and better suited to a tram than Prospect Road, and given the traffic volumes/congestion, would have a bigger impact. In addition, a tram would be an important strategy to reduce vehicle emissions, create a more people-friendly environment and improving quality of life for residents.

26

www.urps.com.au


URPS


Explore car sharing/pooling

Although it may not work for everyone, PLEG suggested exploring the best ways to encourage car sharing/car pooling.

A long term vision

The group expressed a desire for the master plan to create a long term vision, one that considers what the road will be like in the future, and is not just about “prettying up the road”.

This vision should be people focused, improve quality of life, mitigate pollution and anticipate new changes by, for example, getting the infrastructure right for electric or driverless cars.

5.4.6 Prospect Residents Association Ten members of the Prospect Residents Association participated in the meeting.

Experiences of Main North Road

• Footpaths are too narrow in a number of places along Main North Road

• Stobie polls are located very close to the road carriageway, making the walking environment worse for pedestrians

• The lack of trees and inadequate landscaping is what distinguishes Main North Road from other major arterial roads

• Car yards are problematic because their impacts, especially car parking, spill onto surrounding streets. This is true of both small and larger car yards

• Those residents living east of Main North road feel physically disconnected from the rest of the Council area – and there are limited opportunities to safely and easily cross the road

• The current location of Nailsworth Library at the school site is valued by surrounding residents as it is located east of Main North road

• There is insufficient car parking at Prospect Oval, with surrounding streets filling up with visitor car parking on match days

• Right-hand turn lanes are highly valued.

Concerns about increased densities and development assessment process

While acknowledging that Main North Road has already been rezoned to facilitate multi-storey mixed use development, PRA expressed the following concerns:

• The way developers are continually pushing boundaries and exceeding the development plan provisions in terms of height and density

• High density development elsewhere in the Council area has not provided enough car parking.

27

www.urps.com.au


Main North Road is not suitable for residential development

The group held the view that residential development is not suitable for Main North Road because a healthy living environment cannot be provided due to vehicle noise and emissions. The group also thought that residential development may worsen existing car parking problems and result in more vehicles being parked on surrounding side streets.

Ideas for the future of Main North Road

• Maintain the primary function of the road corridor, which is as a major transport corridor moving heavy volumes of traffic

• Maintain two traffic lanes in each direction, especially given the changes to Prospect Road and Churchill Road which mean that more traffic will use Main North Road

• Consider additional turning lane from Main North Road into Nottage Tce

• Find ways to prevent car parking spilling into surrounding residential streets

• Provide additional greenery/landscaping

• Improve the footpath condition, ensuring consistent footpath condition/treatments

• Provide additional pedestrian crossing points to improve east-west movement, such as a pedestrian overpass, possibly at Prospect Oval

• Consider banning on-road parking on one side of Main North Road to create space for wider footpaths and landscaping

• Cyclists should be encouraged to ride along other routes, as Main North Road is not suitable for cycling due to the volume of traffic

• Consider relocating all powerlines underground to create more space on footpaths and improve appearance of road

• Adjust Development Plan policy to ensure a mandatory setback of new development by a few metres to provide additional landscaping space

• Traffic management works are needed to improve vehicle flows and prevent banking up of traffic during peak periods

• Consider safety fences in high risk locations.

28

www.urps.com.au

Summary and Community Design Brief

URPS


6.0 Summary and Community Design Brief The City of Prospect has looked to its community at the start of the master planning process for Main North Road. The consultation has sought a conversation with residents, local businesses, visitors and community groups about current experiences of Main North Road, and ways in which the road could look, feel and function in the future.

There was active and in-depth community participation in the community survey, business door-knocking, key stakeholder meetings and with the students at Nailsworth Primary, which has resulted in detailed information about Main North Road that is summarised in this report.

For the purposes of the master plan, a Community Design Brief which contains principles and actions for consideration by City of Prospect in the preparation of the master plan has been prepared. The design brief is based upon the common themes from the engagement, having regard to those matters which are within the role of Council and scope of the master plan. Where there was not commonality in the views expressed during the consultation, the differing views are acknowledged for further consideration by Council.

Each point in the community design brief is accompanied by a short explanation based on the consultation findings.

6.1 Community Design Brief

1. Enhance the role of Main North Road as a local destination while also maintaining its function as a major arterial road.

Through the consultation, participants expressed the value of Main North Road as a place to access shops, community facilities and public transport, while also being a convenient arterial road connecting them to the Adelaide CBD and northern suburbs.

2. Improve traffic flows along Main North Road.

Participants expressed a desire for Main North Road to maintain its core function as an arterial road with two lanes in each direction, moving large volumes of traffic each day. People expect the road to continue to have a different traffic function than Prospect and Churchill Roads, and desire that existing traffic pressure points are improved. There were mixed views regarding traffic speeds – some people indicated that speeds should remain at 60kph, while others suggested lowering the speed limit to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

3. Improve conditions for pedestrians and provide better opportunities to safely cross the road.

44% of respondents to the community survey indicated that they walk along Main North Road, indicating its importance for pedestrians. The need to improve conditions for walking was identified regularly and consistently through the consultation, such as wider, obstruction-free footpaths, consistent paving materials and separation from the road carriageway where possible. Participants

29

www.urps.com.au

URPS Community Engagement Report Summary and Community Design Brief

also expressed a desire for more opportunities to safely cross the road, and for faster crossing time at existing pedestrian crossings.

4. Increase landscaping and greenery.

A strong and consistent message in the consultation was the need to provide additional landscaping, trees and greenery. A range of suggestions were offered, including a boulevard of trees, trees and/or landscaping along the median strip and providing a landscaping buffer between footpaths and the road. Acknowledging the narrow footpath width, many people suggested working with private landowners to improve landscaping in private development.

5. Ensure a sense of arrival/gateway at each entrance to Main North Road.

Participants commented that the land uses, built form and street scaping along Main North Road is not fitting for its strategic location as the entrance to Inner Adelaide (at the Regency Road end) and gateway to North Adelaide (at the Robe Terrace end). There is therefore a need to provide a more substantial sense of arrival at each end of the road.

6. Consider the best way to accommodate cyclists along Main North Road.

A range of views were expressed during the consultation regarding cycling along Main North Road. Some consider that the road is, and never will be, suitable for cycling and therefore cyclists should be encouraged to find alternative routes. Others expressed a desire for improved cycling infrastructure, including controls that limit on-street parking that blocks bike lanes.

7. Provide infrastructure to support public transport.

Respondents indicated high levels of usage and place a high value on the bus services along Main North Road. People suggested that the public transport experience can be enhanced through better seating and shelter at bus stops, and providing pull-in bays so that buses do not block traffic flow.

8. Resolve car parking problems.

There are a range of existing car parking problems, such as insufficient car parking in existing and new development and car parking from businesses and community facilities spilling onto the street and surrounding residential streets.

9. Improve building appearance and encourage redevelopment of underutilised sites.

Participants identified that many buildings along Main North Road are unsightly, have not experienced investment in recent times and do not represent the highest and best use of land. It was suggested that there is a need to incentivise the redevelopment of these sites/buildings.

10. Encourage investment in new shops, cafes and restaurants.

The lack of cafes, restaurants and land uses that provide destinations ‘after hours’ was acknowledged during the consultation, as was the value for local cafes such as Coffee Barun and Basilico. Businesses contacted through the door knocking identified that such local shops, cafes and restaurants are also important to meet the needs of employees.

30

www.urps.com.au

Summary and Community Design Brief

URPS


11. Reinforce highly valued community facilities.

There are major community facilities near or along Main North Road, including Prospect Oval and sporting hub, Nailsworth Primary School and Prospect Library, which were highly valued by participants. Participants expressed a desire for the Prospect Library to be retained along Main North Road, with the Old Tram Barn or Prospect Oval locations highly valued.

12. Repurpose the Old Tram Barn.

Participants expressed that the Old Tram Barn is being underutilised as a Council depot and that it should be repurposed for community use, possibly incorporating some complementary commercial activities.

13. Promote the history and heritage of Main North Road.

The history and heritage of Main North Road is rich, but not well known. Opportunities exist to ‘tell the stories’ of the area’s history and heritage. There are particular opportunities associated with the North Road Cemetery and RM Williams.

14. Address traffic management around Northpark Shopping Centre.

Participants consider that Northpark will function better through modifying the direct access from Main North Road and potentially relocating the bus stop, taxi rank and pedestrian crossing.

15. Explore the potential for role of technology to improve traffic management.

People suggested that the master plan should consider the role that technology, such as signs showing current travel times and infrastructure for driverless cars, could play in improving traffic management.

31

www.urps.com.au

URPS Community Engagement Report Appendix A

Appendix A Survey Form

Welcome

Main North Road Today

*

*

City of Prospect is imagining the future of Main North Road, thinking about what it might look like, what sortsof things we will do there, how we will move along the road and how it might be different from today.

We are currently collecting ideas from residents, businesses and visitors of our City in the form of a survey.Council will use information gathered from the survey to develop the first stage of a Master Plan for MainNorth Road.

1. In what ways do you currently use Main North Road?

2. How do you move along Main North Road?

3. What do you value most about Main North Road?

Commuting to city or northern suburbs

Travelling locally

Waiting at the bus stops

Working/operating a business

Going to shops, businesses, medical services etc

Going to the Prospect Oval, Library or Nailsworth Primary

Other (please specify)

By car

Walking

Cycling

Riding the bus


*4. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of Main North Road?Highly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Strongly dissatisfied

Ease of driving along theroad

Comfort when walking

Trees and shade

Amount and quality oflandscaping

Opportunities to cross theroad

Safety for cyclists

Bus shelters

Amount of car parking

Appearance of buildings

Range of shops andbusinesses

Quality of communityfacilities (e.g. Oval, Library)

Availability of othersservices (e.g. medical)

Main North Road in Twenty Years Time

*

*

Highly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Strongly dissatisfied

5. If you could change one thing about Main North Road today, what would it be?

6. What are your ideas or vision for the future of Main North Road?

7. Please indicate your level of support for the following ideas about the future of MainRoad:

Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Unsure

Attract diverse businesses

Encourage housing aroundProspect Oval

Provide more shops to meetdaily needs of residents

Attract cafes, restaurantsand other after hoursactivities

Encourage a greater rangeof activities and events

Increase the amount oflandscaping betweenbuildings and the road

Improve the efficiency of theroad for vehicles

Increase public transportservices

Improve cyclinginfrastructure

8. Do you have any other comments to make?

Thank you

*

*

Thank you for completing the survey.

More information about the project is available at the website http://www.prospect.sa.gov.au/mainnorth

If you have other ideas that couldn't fit in this survey, please email them to [email protected]

To finish, we would appreciate some information about you so we can understand who has completed thesurvey.

9. Please complete the following details:Street name:

Suburb:

10. Gender

11. How old are you?

12. Which of the following best describes your situation?

13. If you are a resident, how long have you lived in the City of Prospect?

Male

Female

Undisclosed

Less than 18

1830 years

3150 years

5165 years

Greater than 65 years

Resident

I work in the City of Prospect

I own or operate a business in the City of Prospect

I visit the City of Prospect


Less than one year

15 years

610 years

Greater than ten years

Table of Notices of Motion to the Local Government Association General Meetings since 2011

LGA General Meeting

Date

City of Prospect Motion Carried/Lost Action by LGA

29/4/2011

E-Voting Local Government Elections That the Local Government Association petition the State Government to include online voting as an option in future Local Government elections.

Carried This issue has been referred to OSLGR for consideration and has also been included in a report on the Local Government Elections being prepared by the LGA and the Office of State/Local Government Relations. Further comment from the LGA: This matter has been the subject of on-going discussions with the Minister for Local Government, the Electoral Commissioner of SA and the LGA over a period of some years. The Electoral Commissioner advised at the time that she was part of an Australia-wide group of Electoral Commissioners which was investigating the possibilities of e-voting. However, to date the security and authenticity-checking issues continue to be a stumbling block to implementation. The LGA recently consulted councils on the issue again as part of the discussion paper released by the Office of Local Government in2015. The LGA submission will be considered by the LGA board at its meeting of 28 January 2016. The feedback from councils supported the introduction of e-voting over time, but overwhelmingly wanted to wait until the security issues were addressed.

Discouraging Candidates in Local Government Elections from Publishing Misleading, Incorrect or False Material That the Local Government Association:

1. petition the State Government to amend the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 to require, where the Electoral Commissioner finds misleading, incorrect or false electoral material has been distributed, a retraction in specific terms and of specific manner and form, equitable to the impact and format and distribution of the original misleading material and also the prominent publication of the complete findings of the Electoral Commissioner regarding the misleading, incorrect or false material, in the early pages of The Adelaide Advertiser, and the papers (ie Messenger Newspaper) local to the distribution of the misleading, incorrect or false material and further to consider the addition of pecuniary penalties; and

2. determine, in consultation with Councils, an appropriate timeline considered appropriate for retractions.

Carried The LGA has written to the Electoral Commissioner seeking her views, prior to raising the matter with the Minister for State/Local Government Relations and asking for the Act to be amended. No response has been received to date. This matter has also been included as part of a joint report on the Local Government elections with the Office of State/Local Government Relations. Further comment from the LGA: The Electoral Commissioner raised no objection and the matter was included in the LGA’s submission to the Minister for Local Government in 2013, with a view to having the matter included in the Local Government (Elections) Amendment Bill. However that Bill did not proceed. This issue has again been canvassed in the technical amendments attachment to the OLG discussion paper and once again forms part of the LGA’s submission to be considered by the LGA board on 28 January 2016.


13/4/2012

Providing Leadership and Building Capacity Facilitating Research & Development That the Local Government Association develop a Local Government Guidelines template to enable the uptake of teleworking by Councils and employees in South Australia.

Carried A guide for teleworking in Local Government is being developed in conjunction with the LGA Workers Compensation Scheme including templates to assist Councils to introduce telework options in its workforce. It is anticipated that the guide and templates will be available in December 2012. A draft version will be distributed through the human resource network in October 2012.

26/10/2012

Reduce the Voting Age at Local Government Elections to 16 That the Annual General Meeting requests the LGA to investigate whether there is sufficient evidence across Local Government to call on the South Australian government to reduce the age to enrol to vote and nominate at Local Government elections to 16 years of age.

Lost No action required.

11/04/2014

Asset Management Register That the LGA investigate the feasibility of developing and maintaining a centralised asset register, for Councils that may wish to use it.

Carried This was addressed (among other related matters) in a report to the Board meeting of 25 September 2014 under the heading “Asset Management Support Unit‟. Resolution was adopted. No further comment from the LGA.

Design Review Process for Development Applications That the Ordinary General Meeting requests the LGA to investigate whether there is sufficient evidence across Local Government to recommend to the Expert Panel on Planning Reform that Councils should have legislative authority to require design review as part of the development assessment process to ensure quality design outcomes and recover any associated fees from the applicant on a full cost recovery basis.

Carried This reform idea has been submitted to the Expert Panel on Planning Reform in two endorsed LGA submissions. No further comment from the LGA.

Funding for Digital Literacy Training That the Local Government Association investigate whether there is sufficient evidence across Local Government to lobby the Federal Government to provide ongoing funding to provide digital literacy training at locations already established as part of the Digital Hubs Program.

Lost No action required


eVoting That the Ordinary General Meeting: 1. endorse the principle of e-voting for local government elections on a trial basis for interested councils;

2. request the LGA to seek expressions of interest from Councils which are interested in participating in a trial; and

3. request ALGA to petition the Federal Government to provide funding to establish necessary procedural specifications and technological infrastructure required for e-voting in trial sites. AMENDMENT Moved Onkaparinga Seconded Mount Gambier that the Ordinary General Meeting: 1. endorse the principle of e-voting for local government elections on a trial basis for interested councils;

2. request the LGA to negotiate with the Electoral Commission of SA (ECOSA) regarding the establishment of e-voting and a potential trial; and

3. subject to success of (2) request the LGA to work with the ECOSA to:

- request the LGA to seek expressions of interest from Councils which are interested in participating in a trial; and

- request the ALGA to petition the Federal Government to provide funding to establish necessary procedural specifications and technological infrastructure required for e-voting in trial sites.

Carried (with Amendment)

The LGA wrote to the Electoral Commissioner for SA seeking support. The Electoral Commissioner advised that a trial of e-voting would require legislative change and also a commitment of funds to develop an appropriate set of technical specs. The Commissioner also advised that she is currently involved in negotiations to engage in an e-voting trial with State Governments. The LGA has written to the Minister for Local Government and asked for an amendment to the Local Government (Elections) Act to facilitate a trial. Further comment from the LGA: See above – this issue has moved on and no money was forthcoming for a trial. Feedback from councils now suggests that they prefer to wait until the security and authenticity checking arrangements have been addressed.

Amendment to the LG (Elections) Act 1999 That the Ordinary General Meeting ask the LGA to lobby the State Government to amend the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 to require any Mayor or Council Member who is standing for State or Federal elections, to take leave from Council from the date the writs are issued until completion of the election.

Carried The LGA wrote to the Minister for Local Government in April 2014 and received a response on 3 June advising that the matter has been referred to the review of the Local Government Act for inclusion in that process. Further comment from the LGA: The Local Government (Elections) Act is expected to be reviewed this year, which will provide an opportunity to include this matter.

30/10/2015

Disability Employment Targets That the Annual General Meeting requests the LGA to investigate whether there is sufficient evidence across Local Government to initiate Disability Employment targets across the local government sector.

Carried No action to date


Documents available on line That the Annual General Meeting requests the Local Government Association to investigate whether there is sufficient evidence across Local Government to request that Local Government Act 1999 be clarified around the interpretation of ‘available’ in relation to documents and registers being made available to the public to include being available online as an alternative to hard copy.

Carried Comment from the LGA: The LGA has considered this matter and consulted with select councils. The matter does not need further clarification as the word ‘available’ has its ordinary dictionary meaning. The section requires a council to ensure that there is access to prescribed documents and registers at the principal office of the council and includes making them available in electronic form. This can be achieved by making available copies online, provided that this is done in an accessible way at the front counter. Most councils use a ‘stand alone’ computer to achieve this outcome.