IWC Neighbourhood Community Insight Report 2019 by RK_IWC

INNER WEST COUNCIL NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMUNITY INSIGHTS REPORT April 2019 ™

About Place score and this research 3 How do we collect and use the data? 5 About the respondents 6 Executive summary 7 District Plan alignment 8 LSPS vision directions 9 LSPS vision directions 9 LGA strengths and priorities 10 Liveability summary (1/2) 11 Liveability summary (2/2) 12 How do you compare? 13 Community ideas for change (1/2) 14 Community ideas for change (2/2) 15 Community ideas regarding development 16 Your LGA Data at a glance 17 Neighbourhood Care Factor 18 Neighbourhood Liveability 24 Neighbourhood profiles 31 Neighbourhood profiles: Introduction 32 Annandale 33 Ashfield and Surrounds 39 Balmain and Surrounds 45 Dulwich Hill 51 Haberfield 57 Leichhardt 63 Lewisham-Petersham 69 Marrickville 75 Newtown-Enmore 81 Rozelle-Lilyfield 87 Stanmore-Camperdown 93 Summer Hill 99 Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters 105 Local Strategic Planning Statement 111 LSPS Introduction 112 District Plan alignment 114 LSPS Vision directions 115 LSPS Vision directions 115 LSPS Context 116 LSPS Liveability directions 117 LSPS Productivity directions 118 LSPS Sustainability directions 119 LSPS Transport and accessibility directions 120 Community ideas regarding development 121 Planning Tool box 122 Planning tool box Introduction 123 Economy & centres 125 Facilities 131 Movement 137 Public spaces 143 Residential & built form 150 Sustainability 156 Local Character Statements 163 Local Character Statement Introduction 164 A nnandale 165 A shfield 167 Balmain and Surrounds 169 Dulwich Hill 171 Haberfield 173 Leichhardt 175 Lewisham-Petersham 177 Marrickville 179 Newtown-Enmore 181 Rozelle-Lilyfield 183 Stanmore-Camperdown 185 Summer Hill 187 Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters 189 Reference documents 191 Reference List 192

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT PLACE SCORE AND THIS RESEARCH

Place Score offers two sophisticated data collection tools, Care Factor and Place Experience (PX) Assessments. Like a ‘place census’, Care Factor captures what your community really values, while PX Assessments measure the community’s lived experience.

Together they help you identify what is important, how a place is performing and what the focus of change should be. An attribute with a high Care Factor but a low PX Assessment should be a priority for investment.

There are many benefits in using Place Score for your project research: Community segmentation; geographic and demographic Insights that can be used for multiple projects over a number of years: strategic planning and implementation projects

Quantitative data for evidence based planning to measure the impact of investment over time

Identification of place attributes that the community all cares about as well as potential conflicts to minimise risk

WHERE AND WHEN WAS THIS DATA COLLECTED?

Between 4 February and 6 March 2019 Place Score collected Neighbourhood Care Factor surveys and PX Assessments for the Inner West Council. This data is the basis for your Neighbourhood Community Insights Report.

Surveys were available in: English, Italian, Greek, Simplified Chinese, Spanish, and Vietnamese.

NEIGHBOURHOOD CARE FACTOR SURVEY

Which place attributes are most important to you in your ideal neighbourhood?

- 1805 respondents, with 1701 being local residents

- Respondents were asked ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’

- 1203 people shared their ideas.

- Online and face-to-face data was collected between 4 February and 6 March 2019.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PX ASSESSMENTS

HOW THE PLACE SCORE SYSTEM WORKS:

Care Factor captures what attributes your community ‘values’...

PX Assessment captures how your community ‘rates’ each attribute...

How is each place attribute impacting your personal enjoyment of your neighbourhood?

- 1091 local residents, workers and visitors completed a Neighbourhood PX Assessment

- Respondents were asked ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’

- 867 people shared their ideas.

- Online and face-to-face data was collected between 4 February and 6 March 2019.

A total of 2,896 responses were collected during the research.

A place attribute with a high Care Factor but a low PX Score should be prioritised.

www.placescore.org

ABOUT PLACE SCORE AND THIS RESEARCH

STRATEGIC PLANNING USING PLACE SCORE

Place Score provides a rigourous evidence base for decision making by providing four different data sets:

1. CARE FACTOR - what your community thinks is most important in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’. Like a ‘place census’ you can use this data to understand community values in a specific location or for a particular demographic group

2. PX ASSESSMENT - how your community rates the liveability of their current neighbourhood. This measures performance and can be used as a baseline from which to compare the place after investment and over time.

3. PLACE PRIORITIES - by aggregating the Care Factor and the PX Assessment data we can identify what place attributes people both care about and think are performing poorly (priorities), and those that are performing well (retain and protect).

4. OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS - your community’s ideas for changes that will make their lives better. This provides the opportunity to ‘hear the voice of the community’.

Place Score has tailored the Neighbourhood Care Factor and PX Assessment reporting to reflect the requirements of the Greater Sydney Commission and Department of Planning. Place Score’s standardised insights provides a “common language” across the LEP update process, assuring a clear line of sight from the District Plan to the Local Environmental Plan.

This report is designed to assimilate your community’s inputs directly into each of the key areas of the LEP Update to help simplify Council’s task:

• Local Strategic Planning Statement

• Local Character Statement

• LEP key themes (eg Residential)

www.placescore.org

CONNECTING PLACE SCORE TO STRATEGIC PLANNING

The Care Factor and PX Assessment include 50 neighbourhood attributes. Because liveable neighbourhoods are a complex system of the both tangible and intangible, and the private and the public, not all Place Score attributes align directly with the LEP Update process. The following table summarises how Place Score has built the base structure for this report - by coding our attributes against the requirements set out in sample documents and guidelines.

PLAN DIRECTION / THEME

PLACE SCORE ATTRIBUTES

PLACE SCORE OPEN QUESTION ANALYSIS

movement, economy, housing, character, public domain, community behaviours, social connections and safety, natural environment, development and change)

NOTES:

A response to the ‘Infrastructure and Collaboration’ directions from the Greater Sydney Commission’s District Plan has not been included in this report as there was low levels of attribute alignment. Where a Place Score attribute could have been aligned with this direction there was also an overlap with the ‘Productivity’ direction. For the purpose of this report ‘Productivity’ was favoured as the more valuable direction for the community. Local Character Statement categories are based on example reports for St Leonards & Crows Nest and Telopea provided by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.1

Planning Tool Box themes are based upon Place Score attributes and Council preferences.

(TOTAL OF

50)

Greater Sydney Commission Directions / Local Strategic Planning Statement Liveability 28 attributes Open question analysis (Built form,

Productivity 12 attributes Sustainability 10 attributes Local Character Statement Built form 5 Attributes Land use 12 attributes Place 24 attributes Landscape 5 attributes Movement 4 attributes Planning Tool Box Economy and centres 5 attributes Planning Tool Box Open Question Analysis (Economy

centres, facilities, movement,

spaces,

and

Facilities 5 attributes Movement 4 attributes Public spaces 7 attributes Residential and built form 8 attributes Sustainability 5 attributes

facilities,

and

public

residential

built form, sustainability)

HOW DO WE COLLECT AND USE THE DATA?

PLACE SCORE COLLECTS THREE DIFFERENT DATA SOURCES:

DATA

CARE

‘Which place attributes are most important to you in your ideal neighbourhood?’ Respondents selected their 3 most important attributes in five categories to reveal what they value.

THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT WAYS THE DATA IS REPORTED:

1. Raw data (e.g. Care Factor top 10)

2. Combined Care Factor and PX data (e.g. Liveability priorities)

3. Raw and/or combined data coded against NSW Planning / Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) requirements or a specific topic (e.g. Local Character ‘Place’)

PLACE EXPERIENCE ASSESSMENT (PX)

‘How is each place attribute impacting your personal enjoyment of your neighbourhood?’

Respondents rated the performance of each attribute in five categories in relation to their neighbourhood.

OPEN-ENDED QUESTION (OPENS)

‘What is your big or small idea to make your neighbourhood better for you?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?

Respondents were given 25 words to express their ideas for each question, responses have been classified according different themes by Place Score.

Notes:

SECTION PAGES DATA SOURCE DATA REPORTING1 CF PX OPENS NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILES (P.31-110) Strengths and Priorities Yes Yes No Combined Care Factor and PX data Top 10 Care Factor Yes No No Raw data Liveability No Yes No Raw data Ideas for change No No Yes Raw data LOCAL STRATEGIC PLANNING STATEMENT (P.111-121) Region and District Plan Alignment Yes Yes No Raw and/or combined data coded against NSW Planning requirements or a specific topic Vision Directions Yes Yes Yes Raw and/or combined data coded against NSW Planning requirements or a specific topic Context Yes No No Raw data coded against NSW Planning / GSC requirements Directions Yes Yes Yes Raw and/or combined data coded against NSW Planning / GSC requirements Who wants Change? No No Yes Raw data PLANNING TOOL BOX (P.122-162) Directions Yes Yes Yes Raw and/or combined data coded against NSW Planning / GSC requirements Community Priorities for Investment Yes Yes No Raw and/or combined data coded against NSW Planning / GSC requirements Priorities, Strengths and community concerns Yes Yes Yes Raw and/or combined data coded against NSW Planning / GSC requirements Community ideas for change No No Yes Raw and/or combined data coded against NSW Planning / GSC requirements LOCAL CHARACTER STATEMENT (P.163-190) Local Character Attributes Yes Yes Yes Raw and/or combined data coded against NSW Planning / GSC requirements Local Character Directions Yes Yes Yes Raw and/or combined data coded against NSW Planning / GSC requirements

SOURCE

ASKED

QUESTION

FACTOR

(CF)

1Section’s introduction and footnotes include further details regarding the different methodologies.

ABOUT THE RESPONDENTS

CONFIDENCE LEVEL:

Unless noted otherwise, a 95% confidence level with a margin of error of ±5 (% or pts) can be expected for all Care Factor and PX Data

CARE FACTOR DATA

Data was collected via online and face-to-face surveys during the period 4 February and 6 March 2019. A total of 1701 local residents participated.

GENDER n=1701

PX DATA

Data was collected via online and face-toface surveys during the period 4 February and 6 March 2019. A total of 1091 people participated.

n=1091

GENDER

2016 CENSUS DATA

This column captures the make-up of our population in accordance with the 2016 census.

GENDER

Notes: 1Place Score does not actively collect surveys from people aged under 15. When collecting face to face data, Place Score are unable to survey people under the age of 15 years without parental consent.

COUNTRY OF BIRTH Australia 72.2% United Kingdom 9.2% New Zealand 2.7% U.S.A 1.8% Italy 1.1% 0.5% 64.7% 34.9% 4 AGE1 3.2% 39.3% 41.2% 16.3% 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+

COUNTRY OF BIRTH Australia 71.1% United Kingdom 10.2% New Zealand 2.7% U.S.A 1.7% France 1.0% 0.4% 64.5% 35.1% 4 AGE1 4.1% 37.7% 39.6% 18.6% 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+

COUNTRY OF BIRTH Australia 58.1% England 4.4% China 3.5% New Zealand 2.3% Italy 1.8% N/A% 51.3% 48.7% 13 AGE1 45% 13% 28% 13% 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ N=105,715

Demographic Low Target Achieved Remark CF LGA n = 380 for ±5% at 95% Confidence n = 1701 Above target 15-24 yrs 13% ±5% 3.2% 4.8% below target margin 25-44 yrs 45% ±5% 39.3% 0.8% below target margin 45-64 yrs 28% ±5% 41.2% 8.2% over target margin 65+ yrs 13% ±5% 16.3% On target Male 48.7% ±5% 34.9%

51.3% ±5% 64.7% 8.4% over target margin Smallest sample (Haberfield) n = 90 for ±10% at 95% Confidence n = 67 Achieved

Confidence for Haberfield. PX LGA n = 280 for ±3.5pts at 95% Confidence n = 1091 Above target 15-24 yrs 13% ±5% 4.1% 3.9% below target margin 25-44 yrs 45% ±5% 37.7% 2.3% below target margin 45-64 yrs 28% ±5% 39.6% 6.6% above target margin 65+ yrs 13% ±5% 18.6% 0.6% above target margin Male 48.7% ±5% 35.1% 8.6% below target margin

51.3% ±5% 64.5%

over target margin Smallest sample (Haberfield) n = 70 for ±7pts at 95% Confidence n = 36 Achieved

Haberfield.

8.8% below target margin Female

±10% at 90%

Female

8.2%

±7pts at 85% Confidence for

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THIS SECTION PROVIDES AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS FOR YOUR COUNCIL

DISTRICT PLAN ALIGNMENT

The Greater Sydney Commission’s Region and District Plans set out 10 directions. Your community’s neighbourhood liveability priorities have been categorised below to align with these directions. This provides you with a direct line of sight between your community engagement and State Government planning.

DISTRICT PLAN DIRECTIONS

A city for people

- No community priority

COMMUNITY PRIORITIES

Liveability

Housing the city

A city of great places

- No community priority

- Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

Productivity

A well-connected city

Jobs and skills for the city

A city in its landscape

Sustainability

An efficient city

A resilient city

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

- Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

- Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

- Protection of the natural environment

- Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

- Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

- Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)

www.placescore.org

Notes:

Community Priorities are determined by aggregating the Neighbourhood Care Factor and PX Assessment results; high Care Factor ranking + low PX Assessment rating = Community Priority. There are no attributes associated with Infrastructure and Collaboration as defined in the District Plan. ‘No community priority’ means that your community did not identify a Place Score attribute as being a priority within that direction. For more details regarding the methodology behind these results follow this link

LSPS VISION DIRECTIONS

A VISION FOR INNER WEST NEIGHBOURHOODS

The Local Strategic Planning Statement needs to capture the future desired state of your local government area and high level directions that will deliver the District Plan objectives. These three key directions, as identified through the Place Score research summarising inputs from 2792 responses, can provide the foundation for the neighbourhood elements of the vision in the LSPS.

LGA SUCCESS FACTORS: LGA PRIORITIES FOR LIVEABILITY: COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE:

What is valued by the community now and positively impacting liveability:

Neighbourhood centres that are close to residential areas and provide a choice of amenity and local business to service day to day needs; both contributing to a sense of safety for all

What is valued by the community now and negatively impacting liveability:

The key themes summarised from the open ended questions:

Great green spaces (that are well maintained) and a better walking and cycling network to connect places and increase opportunities for social connections

“The diversity of small local businesses are amazing! I’d love it if a bookshop was added to the mix, or a movie theatre!“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

• Protect fine grain retailers by limiting amalgamation opportunities in traditional main street environments

• Ensure densifying residential areas are supported by retail clusters that are connected by safe and comfortable walking paths

“Quality public space free from traffic noise, pollution. Clean, modern space, clean streets, easily walkable.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

• Consider materials that look clean (not grey) and are easy to maintain over time

• Improvements around the quality and maintenance of footpaths should be considered - keep the needs of a wheelchair or pram user in mind

• Ensure that night-time activities are provided within walking distance of homes, but manage noise and visitor movement

“More street tree shade, more trees in parks, a greater sense of safety cycling on the road, more neighbourly small events in parks.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD.

• Access to well maintained open space and the natural environment is highly valued

• Ensuring there are safe spaces for community gatherings, activities and connections is important

• Retail and leisure, local businesses and commercial occupancy are also a concern

Notes:

The condition and quality of public spaces and natural elements, active and public modes of transportation and the night-time economy could all be improved

Quotes sourced from your community ideas for change. Bullet point considerations have been developed by Place Score as examples of actions that can work towards delivering the proposed vision elements.

LGA STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES identify the aspects of your neighbourhood that are important to people but are currently under-performing. Improving these attributes will have the most significant impact on your community.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

9 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

3 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 ranks worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

™

www.placescore.org

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF.1A threshold difference of 10 ranks between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

7 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

5 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

4 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

6 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

9 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

8 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

11 Protection of the natural environment

15 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

20 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

9 2 3 1 7 5 4 6 9 8 11 15 20 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank PX Rating

LIVEABILITY SUMMARY (1/2)

NEIGHBOURHOOD PX SCORES AND PRIORITIES

The Inner West Council provided Place Score with 11 Neighbourhood areas to collect PX Assessment data for.

Included in the table below is the Inner West’s average PX Score, as well as the score for each neighbourhood. Currently, the average Sydney Metro Neighbourhood PX is the same.

When the Care Factor and PX Assessment data is aggregated, we are able to identify the community’s liveability priorities for each neighbourhood. The lower the PX Score for the neighbourhood, the higher the overall priority for investment to improve liveability.

environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

BALMAIN AND SURROUNDS Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove 74 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

DULWICH HILL Dulwich Hill 67 Protection of the natural environment

HABERFIELD1 Haberfield 71 Protection of the natural environment

LEICHHARDT Leichhardt 69 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

LEWISHAM-PETERSHAM Lewisham, Petersham 66 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Protection of the natural environment

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

PX Scores vary between 0 and 100. Scores above 70 are very good, 50-70 there is room for significant improvement, <50 urgent investment required. Liveability priorities have a high Care Factor and a low PX Score - People care highly about them, but they are perceived as performing poorly.

Grayed cells identify the overall liveability priorities, while green cells identify a neighourhood’s liveability priorities that differ from the overall top three priorities. 1Confidence level of 85% with a margin of error of ±7. NEIGHBOURHOOD INCLUDING PX LIVEABILITY PRIORITY 1 LIVEABILITY PRIORITY 2 LIVEABILITY PRIORITY 3 OVERALL AVERAGE All of Inner West Council 69 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.) ANNANDALE Annandale 74 Protection of the natural environment General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.) ASHFIELD AND SURROUNDS Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Hurlstone Park 61 Elements of natural

LIVEABILITY SUMMARY (2/2)

NEIGHBOURHOOD PX SCORES AND PRIORITIES

The Inner West Council provided Place Score with 11 Neighbourhood areas to collect PX Assessment data for.

Included in the table below is the Inner West’s average PX Score, as well as the score for each neighbourhood. As a comparison, the average Sydney Metro Neighbourhood PX Score is currently 69.

of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Rozelle-Lilyfield Rozelle, Lilyfield 73 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Protection of the natural environment Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

Stanmore-Camperdown1 Stanmore, Camperdown 70 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Summer Hill Summer Hill 69 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters Sydenham, Tempe, St Peters 58 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Protection of the natural environment Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Grayed cells identify the overall liveability priorities, while green cells identify a neighourhood’s liveability priorities that differ from the overall top three priorities. 1Confidence level of 90% with a margin of error of ±7. NEIGHBOURHOOD INCLUDING PX LIVEABILITY PRIORITY 1 LIVEABILITY PRIORITY 2 LIVEABILITY PRIORITY 3 OVERALL AVERAGE All of Inner West Council 69 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.) Marrickville Marrickville 69 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.) Newtown-Enmore Newtown, Enmore 70 General condition

HOW DO YOU COMPARE?

YOUR LGA OFFERS THE SAME LEVEL OF LIVEABILITY AS THE SYDNEY METRO AVERAGE

Your PX Scores acts as a benchmark to track liveability performance over time and allows for comparison against other locations.

Notes:

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 PXScoresofall50attributesof InnerWestLGA comparedwithSydneyMetroAverage. AboveSydneyMetroAvg. BelowSydneyMetroAvg. MarginofError SydneyMetroAvg.

Scores: Follow this link to see how all 50 Place Score attributes are performing compared to the Sydney metro average. Each attribute is scored out of 100. The ‘‘Margin or Error’ grey area illustrates attributes that are within the margin of error, meaning you should be cautious as they could be a bit lower, higher or the same as the Sydney metro average. Sydney metro sample used n=2133 (March 2019) Potts Point 81 Bardwell Park 85 Inner West Average North Ryde 69 Sydney Metro Average 69 Schofields 45 69

TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES COMPARED TO THE SYDNEY METRO AVERAGE ARE: DIFFERENCE FROM SYDNEY AVERAGE Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.) +5.5 Local history, historic buildings or features +3.8 Cultural and/or artistic community +3.4 Unusual or unique buildings and/or public space design +2.7 Sense of character or identity that is different from other neighbourhoods +2.7 YOUR BOTTOM 5 ATTRIBUTES COMPARED TO THE SYDNEY METRO AVERAGE ARE: DIFFERENCE FROM SYDNEY AVERAGE Physical comfort (including noise, smells, temperature etc.) -5.9 Protection of the natural environment -4.9 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.) -4.6 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.) -4.6 Family and community services (aged, disability and home care, protection and support services etc.) -4.2 TOP 5 BOTTOM 5

YOUR

COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES, ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 2070 answers were collected. Here is what your community said:

• Improve active transport infrastructure (23.4%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (11.8%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (7.7%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (6.3%)

• Improve accessibility (2.7%)

• More and/or better parks and greenery (31.6%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (10.1%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (2.8%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (1.5%)

• Improve management of private green spaces (0.4%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (17.9%)

• More and/or better community activities and engagement (10.9%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (10.3%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (6.7%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (2.7%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (11.4%)

• More and/or better local businesses (6.1%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (3.5%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (2.6%)

• More and/or better tourism infrastructure and management (0.05%)

• Reduce night-time economy (0.05%)

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. ‘‘Other’ refers to respondents who completed the survey but did not reside in one of the surveyed neighbourhood. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

™ Place Score©2019 | P.14 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Overall Annandale Ashfield and Surrounds Balmain and Surrounds Dulwich Hill Haberfield Leichhardt Lewisham−Petersham Marrickville Newtown−Enmore Rozelle−Lilyfield Stanmore−Camperdown Summer Hill Sydenham−Tempe− St Peters Other

842

575

393

377

answers (40.7%) referred to movement 807 answers (39%) referred to the natural environment

answers (27.8%) referred to community behaviours

answers (19%) referred to social connections and safety

answers (18.2%) referred to the economy

MOVEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS SOCIAL CONNECTIONS & SAFETY ECONOMY

COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS WERE ABOUT THESE THEMES

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (7.4%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (4.3%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (3.6%)

• More and/or better community facilities (2.3%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (1.2%)

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (11.2%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature etc.) (6.5%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (6.4%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (4.1%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (2.1%)

• Improve appearance of built form (3.3%)

• Limit heights (2.7%)

• Limit density (2%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (2%)

• Increase density (0.5%)

• Increase heights (0.05%)

• Improve housing affordability (3.4%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (2.4%)

• Diversify range of housing types and sizes (1%)

• Improve quality of housing (0.7%)

• Protect property value (0.05%)

362 answers (17.5%) referred to facilities 216 answers (10.4%) referred to character 189 answers (9.1%) referred to built form 141 answers (6.8%) referred to housing

Notes:

350 answers (16.9%) referred to the public domain

www.placescore.org

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. ‘Other’ refers to respondents who completed the survey but did not reside in one of the surveyed neighbourhood. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

HOUSING CHARACTER FACILITIES BUILT FORM PUBLIC DOMAIN % l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

COMMUNITY IDEAS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE

ANTI DEVELOPMENT SENTIMENT IS STRONGER IN SYDENHAM-TEMPE-ST PETERS, MARRICKVILLE, DULWICH HILL, SUMMER HILL AND LEICHHARDT

10% of community ideas in the above neighbourhoods were against development and change. While the numbers are lower in all other neighbourhoods (less than 10%), there are still more community ideas against development and change, rather than in support.

Overall percentage of ‘development and change’ related answers

REDUCE

136 people (6.6%) across the LGA

“No more overdevelopment, more public facilities, rejuvenate the tree canopy.“

MALE, 55-64 YEARS OLD

“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“Maintain the charm and character of Marrickville. That is what makes Marrickville special. No more High Rises [...] Keep the heritage of Marrickville intact. “

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“Affordable housing for a range of wants and needs. Might not be popular but more apartments supported by local infrastructure is needed.“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“I’d ensure that all council funding, projects and regard was equal with all areas of the amalgamated council.“

MALE, 55-64 YEARS OLD

INCREASE DEVELOPMENT

“More green spaces and less high rise unit blocks and over development.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“Get rid of Westconnex and return the suburb to the people.“

FEMALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

Notes:

“I think the Inner West Council needs to reduce their heritage regulations for DAs and allow more apartments and greater density of housing.“

FEMALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

“I wish the council would do more to support residents affected by the construction of Westconnex and the new m5.“

MALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses.‘Other’ refers to respondents who completed the survey but did not reside in one of the surveyed neighbourhood.

23 people (1.1%) across the LGA

www.placescore.org

Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed. Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ n=2070

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Annandale Ashfield and Surrounds Balmain and Surrounds Dulwich Hill Haberfield Leichhardt Lewisham−Petersham Marrickville Newtown−Enmore Rozelle−Lilyfield Stanmore−Camperdown Summer Hill Sydenham−Tempe− St Peters Other AGAINST CHANGE 69 people (3.4%) across the LGA FOR CHANGE 59 people (2.9%) across the LGA COMPLAINTS ABOUT CO UNCIL 58 people (2.8%) across the LGA MORE AND/OR BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE TO

POPULATION GROWTH AND CHANGE (1.74%) 36 people (1.7%) across the LGA

MANAGE

DEV ELOPMENT

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

LEGEND

YOUR LGA DATA AT A GLANCE

Care Factor requires respondents to prioritise different aspects of a neighbourhood to identify what they personally care the most about.

Overall, most people in your LGA selected the following Place Attributes:

#1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

A PX Assessment asks respondents to rate how different aspects of their current neighbourhood are impacting their ‘lived place experience’, resulting in a PX Score that captures neighbourhood liveability. Here is how community rated the liveability of their current neighbourhoods:

Notes: Full data and breakdowns are available in the next sections. Care Factor percentages are based on the percentage of respondents that selected an attribute (n=1701). PX Scores vary between 0 and 100. Scores above 70 are very good, 50-70 there is room for significant improvement, <50 urgent investment required.Map tiles by Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. *Confidence level of 85% with a margin of error

for Stanmore-Camperdown.

www.placescore.org

90%

of ±7 for Haberfield and a confidence level of

74 73

71* 66

70* 74 69 69 67 69 58

ATTRIBUTE % OF n

YOUR LGA’S AVERAGE

SCORE IS:

RANK

61 70

NEIGHBOURHOOD CARE FACTOR

YOUR CARE FACTOR DATA ACTS AS A ‘PLACE CENSUS’, IDENTIFYING WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY IN THEIR IDEAL NEIGHBOURHOOD. THIS DATA IS ALSO AVAILABLE VIA YOUR ONLINE DASHBOARD.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLACE VALUES

YOUR COMMUNITY VALUES NEIGHBOURHOODS THAT ARE:

WELL MAINTAINED

Your community highly values the condition of public open spaces, so much so that it is the number one Care Factor in every surveyed neighbourhoods but Haberfield. The quality of public spaces (footpaths, street trees, parks) was also selected by many members of your community as being important to them.

HUMAN SCALED

Your community’s ideal neighbourhood offers safe and easy active transport options that connect their residence to nearby amenities, every day shops or parks.

LANDSCAPED AND GREEN

Your community cares about their neighbourhood offering natural features, views, vegetation and quality landscaping.

VIBRANT AND SAFE

Your community values having things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.), but also cares about their neighbourhood providing a feeling of safety for all, during both day and night.

DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN NEIGHBOURHOOD VALUES

25-44 YEARS

30% of people aged 25-44 care about ‘Spaces suitable for play (from toddlers to teens)’ compared to only 13% of people aged 45-64.

45-64 YEARS

36% of people aged 45-64 care about ‘Local history, historic buildings or features’ compared to only 23% of people aged 25-44

AUSTRALIAN BORN 46% of people born in Australia care about ‘Protection of the natural environment’ compared to only 36% of people born in United Kingdom.

UK BORN 49% of people born in United Kingdom care about 'Overall visual character of the neighbourhood' compared to only 38% of people born in Australia.

MEN 35% of Men care about ‘Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)’ compared to only 27% of Women.

WOMEN 37% of Women care about ‘Evidence of community activity (volunteering, gardening, art, community-organised events etc.)’ compared to only 25% of Men.

Differences: While there are some minor differences between demographics, most of the Care Factor differences are between different neighbourhoods.

Notes:

OLD

Results on this page are based on the overall Care Factor data for the LGA. n=1701

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLACE VALUES

The Care Factor survey asks respondents to select what is most important to them in each of five Place Dimensions.

The Place Dimensions and associated Place Attributes reveal what attracts and attaches people to a neighbourhood, as well as the barriers to entry or connection.

YOUR LGA TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

Your LGA top 10 Care Factors are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in the ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

=#9

Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

=#9

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

THE FIVE PLACE DIMENSIONS ARE:

CARE

www.placescore.org

Notes: Care Factor percentages are based on the percentage of respondents that selected an attribute, the ranking is based on the level of alignmnet in your community.

n=1701

How well a neighbourhood is managed, maintained and improved. It considers care, pride, personal and financial investment in the area.

CARE

LOOK & FUNCTION

Physical characteristics of a neighbourhood: how it looks and works, the buildings, public space and vegetation.

SENSE OF WELCOME

T he social characteristics of a neighbourhood, and how inviting it feels to a range of people regardless of age, income, gender, ethnicity or interests. THINGS TO DO

THINGS TO DO

Activities, events and inviting spaces to spend time in a neighbourhood that might lead to a smile or a new friend.

UNIQUENESS

Physical, social, cultural or economic aspects of an area that make a neighbourhood interesting, special or unique.

UNIQUE

™

& FUNCTION

LOOK

SENSE OF WELCOME

RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLACE VALUES

YOUR COMMUNITY IS GENERALLY ALIGNED WITHIN YOUR TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

The following tables illustrate the differences in values between demographic groups. The circled numbers refer to the LGA’s top 10 Care Factors, while the grid colour identifies each demographic’s top three attributes.

#1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute

Notes:

Care Factor percentages are based on the percentage of respondents that selected an attribute, the ranking is based on the level of alignment in your community. 1Demographic breakdown data should be used with caution as smaller samples (<80) do not meet the 95% confidence level. n=1701

www.placescore.org

ALL 1701 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 593 72% 53% 49% 50% 49% 52% 47% 49% 41% 42% Female 1100 69% 56% 54% 50% 49% 46% 47% 44% 47% 46% Intersex 8 75% 38% 25% 25% 25% 38% 25% 38% 25% 75% Protection of the natural environment (88%) Age 0-24 54 44% 54% 52% 44% 54% 69% 39% 30% 50% 48% 25-44 669 69% 51% 50% 46% 49% 51% 50% 46% 40% 45% 45-64 701 72% 53% 53% 53% 49% 50% 45% 47% 49% 44% 65+ 277 71% 67% 53% 51% 48% 32% 47% 44% 44% 45% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 1228 70% 55% 53% 51% 48% 49% 47% 44% 46% 44% United Kingdom 157 66% 57% 51% 43% 47% 54% 44% 48% 42% 48% New Zealand 46 74% 57% 37% 70% 65% 54% 46% 52% 52% 48% Ancestry (Top 3) European (including United Kingdom) 720 70% 53% 53% 51% 47% 51% 47% 48% 47% 43% Australasian 704 72% 57% 54% 50% 52% 48% 47% 45% 44% 46% Mixed 132 60% 53% 38% 43% 50% 44% 43% 36% 39% 50% #7 #8 =#9 =#9 #6 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1 Density Rural/Suburban (Low density) 35 71% 46% 46% 40% 46% 51% 34% 54% 54% 40% Overall visual character of the neighbourhood (57%) Inner-urban (Low-medium density) 824 70% 54% 50% 54% 48% 49% 45% 47% 45% 43% Inner-urban (Medium-high density) 792 70% 56% 54% 46% 49% 47% 50% 44% 44% 46% City (High density) 50 68% 56% 50% 40% 58% 44% 46% 44% 40% 56% Sense of belonging in the community (56%) DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1 #5 #7 #8 #9 =#10 #6 =#2 =#2 #1 =#9 =#9 =#2

LEGEND #4 =#4 =#6 =#6 #10 =#6 =#2 =#2 #1 =#4 =#6 =#6 #10 =#6 =#2 #1

#5 #6 #3 #2 #5 #8 =#9 =#9 #3 #2 #4

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLACE VALUES

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURHOODS (1/2)

The communities in each of your neighbourhoods value different place attributes than the LGA Top 10. This table illustrates which of the LGA Top 10 attributes are less/more valued in each neighbourhood.

General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

Less valued than LGA

More valued than LGA

Not in a neighbourhood’s top 10

Top 10 attributes for each Neighbourhood that are not in LGA Average Top 10 (We care about this more than everyone else...)

#4 Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.), #5 Protection of the natural environment, #8 Sense of belonging in the community

#9 Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.),

Protection of the natural environment Balmain and

#6 Overall visual character of the neighbourhood, #8 Local history, historic buildings or features

#3 Protection of the natural environment, #5 Locally owned and operated businesses Haberfield

#6 Protection of the natural environment, #7 Overall visual character of the neighbourhood, #8 Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.), #9 Sense of belonging in the community, #10 Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.) Leichhardt

Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)*

#4 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

Notes:

™

www.placescore.org

The top row of this table identifies your LGA’s top 10 Care Factors. The rows below it illustrate the rank each of the LGA’s top 10 CF holds in each neighbourhood. The blue column on the right identifies attributes that are in a neighbourhood’s top 10 CF but are not in the LGA’s top 10 CF. 1Confidence level of attributes’ rank is below the 95% threshold.

LEGEND

LGA TOP 10 RANK #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 = #9 = #9

Annandale #1 #2 #2 #6 #7

#14 #11 #10 #9 #19

Surrounds #1 #8 #12 #4 #2 #17 #4 #3 #7 #4

Ashfield and

Surrounds #1 #2 #4 #7 #3 #5 #10 #16

#10 #8

Dulwich

#1 #5 #2 #7 #11 #4 #10 #8 #9

Hill

#16

#4 #2 #2 #1 #10 #20 #12 #12 #5 #21

#1 #3 #5 #11 #4 #2 #9 #7 #6 #7 #10

#1 #3 #5 #2 #7 #9 #5 #8 #15 #10

LewishamPetersham

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLACE VALUES

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURHOODS (2/2)

General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

Less valued than LGA

More valued than LGA

Not in a neighbourhood’s top 10

Top 10 attributes for each Neighbourhood that are not in LGA Average Top 10 (We care about this more than everyone else...)

#6 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.), #8 Mix or diversity of people in the area, #8 Protection of the natural environment

#4 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.), #10 Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.), #10 Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

#5 Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.), #6 Protection of the natural environment, #8 Overall visual character of the neighbourhood

#9 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.), #9 Locally owned and operated businesses

#4 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.), #6 Locally owned and operated businesses, #10 Sense of belonging in the community Sydenham-

#5 Protection of the natural environment, #8 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

www.placescore.org

Notes:

™

LEGEND

TOP 10 RANK #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 = #9 = #9

LGA

Marrickville #1 #3 #5 #8 #3 #2 #8 #7 #8 #8

#1 #7 #4 #9 #20 #2 #3 #12 #7 #6

Newtown-Enmore

Rozelle-Lilyfield #1 #4 #2 #8 #2 #12 #6 #8 #20 #11

Camperdown #1 #2 #4 #5 #15 #8 #3 #9 #7 #6

Stanmore-

Hill #1 #3 #2 #6 #19 #4 #9 #10 #15 #8

Summer

Tempe-St Peters #1 #2 #9 #3 #5 #7 #9 #4 #12 #9

NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVEABILITY

THE PX SCORE IS A NUMBER BETWEEN ZERO AND 100 THAT MEASURES YOUR COMMUNITY’S LIVED PLACE EXPERIENCE. IT ALLOWS YOU TO IDENTIFY WHAT ATTRIBUTES ARE CONTRIBUTING POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY TO HOW LIVEABLE A NEIGHBOURHOOD IS, PROVIDING YOU WITH AN IMPORTANT TOOL FOR PRIORITISING INVESTMENT.

NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVEABILITY

YOUR COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED THEIR NEIGHBOURHOODS AS:

NOT FAR OFF GREAT

With an average PX score of 69, your community perceives there is some room for improvement when it comes to how liveable their neighbourhood is.

NOT EQUAL

With Annandale and Balmain scoring a high 74/100 and Sydenham-Tempe-St Peter scoring low 58/100, your community identified disparities in terms of liveability across your LGA.

WELL CONNECTED

Overall, your neighbourhoods are perceived as well connected to other suburbs and as offering great access to local amenities.

EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN

Your community perceives that the current range of housing prices and tenures is contributing negatively to the liveability of their neighbourhoods.

NEITHER GREEN OR CAR FRIENDLY

‘Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.) ’ and ‘Ease of driving and parking ’ are perceived as performing poorly.

Notes: PX Scores vary between 0 and 100. Scores above 70 are very good, 50-70 there is room for significant improvement, <50 urgent investment required. Map tiles by Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. *Confidence level of 85% with a margin of error of ±7 for Haberfield and a confidence level of 90% for Stanmore-Camperdown. 74 73

Here is how community rated the liveability of their current neighbourhoods: 71* 66 69 YOUR LGA’S AVERAGE PX SCORE IS: 70* 74 69 69 67 69 58 61 70

NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVEABILITY

WHO IS SATISFIED WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD?

This table identifies the PX Scores of your neighbourhoods filtered by different demographics. It allows you to see how different cohorts rate the current state of their neighbourhood. Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed

™ Place Score©2019 | P.26 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Location n Total PX Score Men Women Diff. Identity 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ LGA Average 1091 69 68 69 56 73 69 68 68 Annandale 78 74 76* 74 NA 79 77* 76* 70* Ashfield and Surrounds 116 61 56 62 NA 67 60 59 62* Balmain and Surrounds 113 74 74 72 NA 55 75* 74 70 Dulwich Hill 79 67 67* 69 52 62 68* 67 70* Haberfield1 36 71 76 71* NA 71 65 73* 76 Leichhardt 86 69 64* 72 NA 74 72* 67 71* Lewisham-Petersham 70 66 68* 64 70 71 63 66* 74* Marrickville 126 69 70 71 38 81 71 70 67* Newtown-Enmore 74 70 70 70 NA 61 72 69 66* Rozelle-Lilyfield 92 73 69 73 NA 74 74* 73 67* Stanmore-Camperdown2 63 70 68* 71 NA 63 73* 70* 68* Summer Hill 68 69 68* 68 NA 83 72 60* 65* Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters 72 58 61* 56 64 78 57 59* 54*

LEGEND Notes: PX Scores vary between 0 and 100. Scores above 70 are very good, 50-70 there is room for significant improvement, <50 urgent investment required. 1 1Confidence level of 85% with a margin of error of ±7 2Confidence level of 90% with a margin of error of ±7.*Sample size is less than 30, should be used with caution as standard error is more than ±5pts. Scores with less than 10 respondents have a standard error of more than ±10pts.

NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVEABILITY

ANNANDALE HAS THE HIGHEST LIVEABILITY PX

OF

74 SYDENHAM-TEMPE-ST PETERS HAS THE LOWEST LIVEABILITY PX OF 58

This page identifies how each place dimension is performing as well as the best and worse performing attributes for each neighbourhood. Each Place Dimension is scored out of 20 with a total PX rated out of 100.

LGA AVERAGE

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#3 Welcoming to all people

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#49 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#48 Ease of driving and parking

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#2 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#3 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#49 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

#48 Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#2 Welcoming to all people

#3 Mix or diversity of people in the area

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#49 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

#48 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#2 Local history, historic buildings or features

#3 Sense of character or identity that is different from other neighbourhoods

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Ease of driving and parking

#49 Family and community services (aged, disability and home care, protection and support services etc.)

#48 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

www.placescore.org

Notes:

CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 14 THINGS TO DO 14 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 69

CARE 14 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 15 SENSE OF WELCOME 15 LOOK & FUNCTION 15 74 ANNANDALE

CARE 11 UNIQUENESS 12 THINGS TO DO 12 SENSE OF WELCOME 13 LOOK & FUNCTION 13 61 ASHFIELD AND SURROUNDS

CARE 14 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 15 SENSE OF WELCOME 15 LOOK & FUNCTION 15

74 BALMAIN AND SURROUNDS

PX Scores vary between 0 and 100. Scores above 70 are very good, 50-70 there is room for significant improvement, <50 urgent investment required. /100 20 20 20 20 20

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#2 Mix or diversity of people in the area

#3 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#49 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#48 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Sense of character or identity that is different from other neighbourhoods

#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#3 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#49 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

#48 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#3 Welcoming to all people

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Ease of driving and parking

#49 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#48 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#2 There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

#3 Welcoming to all people

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#49 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#48 Ease of driving

PX Scores vary between 0 and 100. Scores above 70 are very good, 50-70 there is room for significant improvement, <50 urgent investment required. 1Confidence level of 85% with a margin of error of ±7.

NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVEABILITY

CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 13 THINGS TO DO 13 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 67 DULWICH HILL

CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 14 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 15 71 HABERFIELD1

CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 14 THINGS TO DO 14 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 69 LEICHHARDT

and

CARE

UNIQUENESS 13 THINGS TO DO 13 SENSE OF WELCOME 13 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 66 LEWISHAMPETERSHAM

parking

NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVEABILITY

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Mix or diversity of people in the area

#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#3 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Ease of driving and parking

#49 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#48 Child services (child care, early learning, after school care, medical etc.)

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#2 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

#3 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Ease of driving and parking

#49 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#48 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#2 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

#3 Welcoming to all people

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#49 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

#48 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#3 There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#49 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#48 Ease of driving and parking

PX Scores vary between 0 and 100. Scores above 70 are very good, 50-70 there is room for significant improvement, <50 urgent investment required. 1Confidence level of 90% with a margin of error of ±7.

CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 14 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 13 69 MARRICKVILLE

CARE 12 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 15 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 70

NEWTOWN-ENMORE

CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 15 SENSE OF WELCOME 15 LOOK & FUNCTION 15 73 ROZELLE-LILYFIELD

CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 14 THINGS TO DO 15 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 70 STANMORE-

CAMPERDOWN1

NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVEABILITY

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#3 There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Ease of driving and parking

#49 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#48 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

Notes:

YOUR HIGHEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated highest overall:

#1 There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

#2 Mix or diversity of people in the area

#3 Welcoming to all people

YOUR LOWEST RATED PLACE ATTRIBUTES

The following place attributes rated most poorly overall:

#50 Physical comfort (including noise, smells, temperature etc.)

#49 Ease of driving and parking

#48 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

www.placescore.org

PX Scores vary between 0 and 100. Scores above 70 are very good, 50-70 there is room for significant improvement, <50 urgent investment required.

CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 14 THINGS TO DO 14 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 69 SUMMER HILL

CARE 11 UNIQUENESS 12 THINGS TO DO 12 SENSE OF WELCOME 12 LOOK & FUNCTION 11 58 SYDENHAMTEMPE-ST PETERS

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILES

THIS SECTION PROVIDES A SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED FOR SELECTED NEIGHBOURHOODS IN YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA.

EACH PROFILE INCLUDES:

A - NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

B - NEIGHBOURHOOD TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

C - NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVEABILITY

D - NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILES: INTRODUCTION

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR:

NEIGHBOURHOOD: INCLUDING:

Annandale Annandale

Ashfield and Surrounds Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Hurlstone Park

Balmain and Surrounds Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove

Dulwich Hill Dulwich Hill

Haberfield Haberfield

Leichhardt Leichhardt

Lewisham-Petersham Lewisham, Petersham

Marrickville Marrickville

Newtown-Enmore Newtown, Enmore

Rozelle-Lilyfield Rozelle, Lilyfield

Stanmore-Camperdown Stanmore, Camperdown

Summer Hill Summer Hill

Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters Sydenham, Tempe, St Peters

EACH NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE INCLUDES:

A - Neighbourhood Strengths and Priorities

B - Neighbourhood Top 10 Care Factors

C - Neighbourhood Liveability

D - Neighbourhood Community Ideas for Change

Notes:

Map tiles by Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

1. ANNANDALE

1A ANNANDALE STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES identify the aspects of your neighbourhood that are important to people but are currently underperforming. Improving these attributes will have the most significant impact on your community.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

7 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

2 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

10 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

6 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

8 Sense of belonging in the community

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

www.placescore.org

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

5 Protection of the natural environment

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

4 Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)

9 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

16 Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

14 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

11 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

29 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

23 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

33 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

2 7 2 10 6 8 5 1 4 9 16 14 11 29 23 33 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank PX Rating

1B ANNANDALE TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

wellness services etc.)

=#2

#10

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)

Protection of the natural environment

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

Sense of belonging in the community

Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Grey highlight = small sample size ‘Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten’ only showed for samples of 10 and more 1Demographic breakdown data should be used as a ‘snapshot’ as smaller samples do not meet the 95% confidence level.

Different from LGA top 10 CF #1

#1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute LEGEND ALL 96 #1 =#2 =#2 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 24 83% 67% 54% 46% 46% 71% 58% 38% 42% 46% Female 72 75% 58% 62% 60% 54% 42% 44% 50% 47% 44% Age 0-24 4 50% 50% 50% 100% 50% 75% 50% 0% 50% 50% 25-44 35 69% 54% 63% 57% 49% 34% 54% 43% 54% 40% 45-64 30 90% 57% 60% 63% 57% 57% 40% 60% 50% 67% 65+ 27 78% 74% 59% 41% 52% 56% 48% 44% 30% 26% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 71 79% 63% 63% 56% 58% 48% 49% 38% 49% 42% New Zealand 4 75% 50% 50% 75% 0% 50% 75% 75% 25% 25% United Kingdom 3 67% 33% 33% 67% 33% 33% 33% 100% 67% 67% Ancestry (Top 3) Australasian 50 82% 64% 64% 60% 46% 54% 52% 46% 50% 38% European (including United Kingdom) 30 80% 53% 73% 60% 53% 43% 37% 43% 40% 53% Mixed 10 30% 60% 20% 40% 70% 40% 40% 60% 50% 40% Evidence of community activity (volunteering, gardening, art, community-organised events etc.) (80%), Mix or diversity of people in the area (70%) RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) =#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and

Notes:

1C ANNANDALE LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS GAVE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF: WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

#2 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#3 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

#4 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

#5 Welcoming to all people

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#49

Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

#48

Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

#47 Local employment opportunities (within easy commute)

#46 Family and community services (aged, disability and home care, protection and support services etc.)

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

™ Place Score©2019 | P.36 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 14 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 15 SENSE OF WELCOME 15 LOOK & FUNCTION 15 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Diff. Identity 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 74 76* 74 NA 79 77* 76* 70* RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #1 Access to

and wellness services etc.)

neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

PX Scores vary between 0 and 100. Scores above 70 are very good, 50-70 there is room for significant improvement, <50 urgent investment required. *Sample size is less than 30 with standard error is more than ±5pts. Scores with less than 10 respondents have a standard error of more than ±10pts. n=78

1D ANNANDALE IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES, MAINTENANCE AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 101 answers were collected in Annandale. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better parks and greenery (43.6%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (7.9%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (4%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (1%)

• Improve management of private green spaces (1%)

• Improve active transport infrastructure (17.8%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (10.9%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (9.9%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (8.9%)

• Improve accessibility (1%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (25.7%)

• More and/or better community activities and engagement (3%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (13.9%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (4%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (3%)

• More and/or better local businesses (3%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (11.9%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (6.9%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (3%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (2%)

• More and/or better community facilities (1%)

Notes:

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

www.placescore.org

Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

™

48 answers (47.5%) referred to the natural environment 43 answers (42.57%) referred to movement 29 answers (28.7%) referred to community behaviours 21 answers (20.8%) referred to the economy 20 answers (19.8%) referred to facilities % l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male* Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born* NATURAL ENVIRONMENT MOVEMENT COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS ECONOMY FACILITIES

1D ANNANDALE IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 101 answers were collected in Annandale. Here is what you community said:

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature etc.) (8.9%)

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (7.9%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (13.8%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (1%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (1%)

17 answers (16.8%) referred to the public domain 16 answers (17.8%) referred to social connections and safety

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (6.9%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (3%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (2%)

• Improve appearance of built form (4%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (1%)

• Limit heights (1%)

• Improve housing affordability (2%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (1%)

9 answers (8.9%) referred to character 6 answers (5.9%) referred to the built form 3 answers (3%) referred to housing

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male* Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born*

www.placescore.org Notes:

% PUBLIC DOMAIN SOCIAL CONNECTIONS & SAFETY CHARACTER BUILT FORM HOUSING

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

(INCLUDING ASHBURY, ASHFIELD, CROYDON, CROYDON PARK, HURLSTONE PARK)

2. ASHFIELD AND SURROUNDS

2A ASHFIELD AND SURROUNDS STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

8 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

6 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

9 Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

2 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

3 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

9 Protection of the natural environment

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

3 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

3 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

7 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

12 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

14 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

17 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

www.placescore.org

PX Rating

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

8 6 9 2 3 9 1 33 7 12 14 17 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank

2B ASHFIELD AND SURROUNDS TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.) =#9 Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.) =#9

Protection of the natural environment

Notes:

attribute #2 attribute #3

LEGEND

attribute

from LGA top 10 CF #1 Grey highlight = small sample size ‘Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten’ only showed for samples of 10 and more 1Demographic breakdown data should be used as a ‘snapshot’ as smaller samples do not meet the 95% confidence level. ALL 260 #1 #2 =#3 =#3 =#3 #6 #7 #8 =#9 =#9 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 100 67% 52% 47% 42% 54% 45% 43% 43% 45% 49% Female 160 66% 54% 51% 54% 48% 51% 50% 48% 42% 39% Age 0-24 8 62% 50% 38% 25% 25% 62% 50% 50% 12% 25% 25-44 130 64% 60% 50% 52% 52% 46% 42% 47% 45% 44% 45-64 93 72% 48% 48% 48% 45% 48% 52% 39% 45% 42% 65+ 29 62% 41% 55% 52% 66% 59% 55% 62% 38% 48% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 182 65% 54% 50% 52% 50% 50% 45% 46% 42% 45% United Kingdom 15 73% 40% 60% 20% 67% 47% 53% 53% 40% 40% Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.) (60%) China 8 88% 75% 25% 75% 50% 88% 62% 50% 62% 38% Ancestry (Top 3) European (including United Kingdom) 100 62% 47% 56% 47% 56% 48% 49% 44% 43% 40% Australasian 90 73% 62% 48% 52% 51% 50% 42% 54% 43% 46% Asian 28 82% 43% 43% 57% 36% 46% 57% 54% 46% 29% RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) #2 Elements of natural environment (natural

=#3 Access and safety of walking,

and/or public

(signage,

etc.) =#3 Quality of public space (footpaths,

=#3 Walking/jogging/bike

housing to communal amenity (shops,

etc.)

Sense

Landscaping

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

Different

features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

cycling

transport

paths, lighting

verges, parks etc.)

paths that connect

parks

of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night) #7

and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Access

2C ASHFIELD AND SURROUNDS LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS

GAVE THEIR

NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF:

WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#2 Welcoming to all people

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

#3 Mix or diversity of people in the area

#4 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

#5 There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#50 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#49

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

#48 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

#47 Unusual or unique buildings and/or public space design

#46 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

Under 10 respondents

PX 70+ Performing well

PX 50-69 Room for improvement

PX <50 Urgent care needed

LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Intersex/ Unspecified 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 61 56 62 NA 67 60 59 62* RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

2D ASHFIELD AND SURROUNDS IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES, ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 253 answers were collected in Ashfield and Surrounds. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better parks and greenery (38%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (11.1%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (3.1%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (0.4%)

• Improve active transport infrastructure (24.5%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (10.3%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (6.3%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (6.3%)

• Improve accessibility (2%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (19.4%)

• More and/or better community activities and engagement (13.8%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (14.6%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (3.2%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (2.7%)

• More and/or better community facilities (2%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (2%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (13%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (7.1%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (2.7%)

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born

www.placescore.org Notes:

Percentages

113 answers (44.7%) referred to the natural environment 95 answers (37.6%) referred to movement 80 answers (31.6%) referred to community behaviours 60 answers (23.7%) referred to facilities 56 answers (22.1%) referred to social connections and safety

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT MOVEMENT COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS FACILITIES SOCIAL CONNECTIONS & SAFETY Community

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

2D ASHFIELD AND SURROUNDS IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF COMMUNITY IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 253 answers were collected in Ashfield and Surrounds. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (10.3%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature etc.) (7.1%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (8.3%)

• More and/or better local businesses (4.4%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (3.6%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (2.8%)

• Improve appearance of built form (2.8%)

• Limit heights (2.8%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (2%)

• Limit density (1.2%)

• Increase density (0.4%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (5.5%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (2%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (1.6%)

• Improve housing affordability (2.7%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (1.6%)

• Improve quality of housing (1.6%)

• Diversify range of housing types and sizes (1.2%)

• Protect property value (0.4%)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.44 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born

41 answers (16.2%) referred to the public domain 36 answers (14.2%) referred to the economy 21 answers (8.3%) referred to the built form 17 answers (6.7%) referred to character 15 answers (5.9%) referred to housing % PUBLIC DOMAIN ECONOMY BUILT FORM CHARACTER HOUSING Community

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

Percentages

are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

(INCLUDING BALMAIN, BALMAIN EAST, BIRCHGROVE)

3. BALMAIN AND SURROUNDS

3A BALMAIN AND SURROUNDS STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

8 Local history, historic buildings or features

8 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

3 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

6 Overall visual character of the neighbourhood

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

www.placescore.org

PX Rating

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

10 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

5 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

7 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

10 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

4 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

20 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

22 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

17 Protection of the natural environment

24 Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

88 2 3 6 1 10 5 7 10 4 20 22 17 24 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1

Rank

3B BALMAIN AND SURROUNDS TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

#10

Notes:

attribute #2 attribute #3

LEGEND

attribute

LGA

10 CF #1 Grey highlight = small sample size ‘Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten’ only showed for samples of 10 and more 1Demographic breakdown data should be used as a ‘snapshot’ as smaller samples do not meet the 95% confidence level. ALL 132 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 =#8 =#8 #10 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 50 70% 54% 70% 52% 50% 44% 42% 52% 54% 52% Female 81 74% 74% 62% 65% 53% 56% 51% 42% 41% 40% Age 0-24 2 0% 0% 50% 50% 100% 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 25-44 26 62% 69% 69% 65% 62% 54% 35% 35% 54% 42% 45-64 72 74% 65% 62% 65% 56% 50% 57% 47% 46% 47% 65+ 32 84% 69% 66% 44% 34% 50% 38% 53% 44% 44% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 85 73% 65% 67% 60% 52% 54% 44% 45% 41% 44% United Kingdom 21 67% 71% 62% 52% 67% 57% 33% 48% 48% 43% South Africa 4 75% 50% 50% 75% 50% 25% 100% 0% 75% 75% Ancestry (Top 3) European (including United Kingdom) 65 74% 72% 68% 55% 55% 51% 52% 40% 49% 51% Australasian 55 73% 58% 69% 64% 49% 53% 44% 51% 44% 38% Mixed 5 40% 40% 40% 40% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) #2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.) #3 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.) #4 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Overall visual character of the neighbourhood

Access and

and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Local

Sense

(for all ages,

day or night)

DEMOGRAPHIC

BREAKDOWN1 Different from

top

safety of walking, cycling

=#8

history, historic buildings

features =#8

of personal safety

genders,

Landscaping

and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

3C BALMAIN AND SURROUNDS LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS

GAVE THEIR

NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF:

WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

#2 Local history, historic buildings or features

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

Sense of character or identity that is different from other neighbourhoods

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

#5 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#49 Family and community services (aged, disability and home care, protection and support services etc.)

#48 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#47

Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

#46 Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed

LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Intersex/ Unspecified 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 74 74 72 NA 55 75* 74 70 RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #1 Access to

and

etc.)

neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health

wellness services

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #50 Ease

of driving and parking

3D BALMAIN AND SURROUNDS IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES, ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE

170 answers were collected in Balmain and Surrounds. Here is what you community said:

• Improve active transport infrastructure (22.4%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (13.5%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (8.8%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (4.7%)

• Improve accessibility (1.2%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (20%)

• More and/or better community activities and/or engagement (11.2%)

• More and/or better parks and greenery (23.5%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (7.7%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (1.8%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (1.2%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (12.4%)

• More and/or better local businesses (11.8%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (3.5%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (2.4%)

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (10%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature...) (5.3%)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.49 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born

70 answers (41.2%) referred to movement 51 answers (30%) referred to community behaviours 47 answers (27.7%) referred to the natural environment 39 answers (22.9%) referred to the economy 25 answers (14.7%) referred to the public domain % MOVEMENT COMMUNITY

ECONOMY

BEHAVIOURS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

PUBLIC DOMAIN Community

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

3D BALMAIN AND SURROUNDS IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 170 answers were collected in Balmain and Surrounds. Here is what you community said:

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (7.1%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (4.1%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (2.4%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (5.3%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (4.7%)

• More and/or better community facilities (1.2%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (1.2%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (0.6%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (5.3%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (4.7%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (1.8%)

• Improve appearance of built form (1.8%)

• Limit heights (1.2%)

• Improve housing affordability (2.4%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (0.6%)

22 answers (12.9%) referred to social connections and safety 20 answers (11.8%) referred to facilities 16 answers (9.41%) referred to character 5 answers (2.9%) referred to the built form 5 answers (2.9%) referred to housing

Community

Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born

www.placescore.org

SOCIAL CONNECTIONS AND SAFETY FACILITIES CHARACTER BUILT FORM HOUSING

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

4. DULWICH HILL

4A DULWICH HILL STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

5 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

7 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

2 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

5 Locally owned and operated businesses

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

3 Protection of the natural environment

4 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

10 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

9 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

8 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

13 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

20 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

22 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

11 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

www.placescore.org

PX Rating

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

5 7 2 5 3 4 1 10 9 8 13 20 22 11 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank

4B DULWICH HILL TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

#3 Protection of the natural environment

#4 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

=#5 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

=#5

Locally owned and operated businesses

#10

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

Different from LGA top 10 CF #1

™ Place Score©2019 | P.53 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: #1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute LEGEND ALL 151 #1 #2 #3 #4 =#5 =#5 #7 #8 #9 #10 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 47 68% 51% 60% 60% 55% 47% 43% 47% 36% 45% Female 102 60% 63% 50% 48% 49% 54% 55% 48% 50% 45% Age 0-24 7 29% 57% 43% 71% 71% 57% 43% 29% 29% 14% 25-44 56 70% 55% 52% 59% 52% 57% 39% 43% 38% 52% 45-64 65 65% 58% 60% 54% 42% 46% 58% 54% 51% 40% 65+ 23 52% 65% 43% 22% 70% 48% 57% 48% 57% 52% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 114 62% 58% 57% 55% 54% 51% 54% 46% 46% 42% United Kingdom 15 47% 53% 33% 40% 60% 53% 20% 33% 40% 40% Overall visual character of the neighbourhood (60%), Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.) (60%) Italy 3 100% 33% 67% 33% 0% 0% 33% 100% 67% 67% Ancestry (Top 3) Australasian 72 65% 54% 54% 46% 54% 60% 60% 46% 46% 40% European (including United Kingdom) 63 65% 62% 46% 60% 52% 43% 41% 49% 46% 48% Mixed 5 40% 40% 100% 60% 60% 40% 20% 20% 40% 40% RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) #2 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

4C DULWICH HILL LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS GAVE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF:

WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

#2 Mix or diversity of people in the area

Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#4 Welcoming to all people

#5 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#49

Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#48

Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

#47

Unusual or unique buildings and/or public space design

#46

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

Local employment opportunities (within easy commute)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.54 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 13 THINGS TO DO 13 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Diff. Identity 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 67 67* 69 52 62 68* 67 70* RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #1 Connectivity (proximity to

centres, shops etc.)

other neighbourhoods, employment

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

4D DULWICH HILL IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES, ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 166 answers were collected in Dulwich Hill. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better parks and greenery (30.1%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (8.4%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (4.8%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (2.4%)

• Improve management of private green spaces (0.6%)

• Improve active transport infrastructure (18.1%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (10.8%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (9%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (3.6%)

• Improve accessibility (1.8%)

• More and/or better community activities and engagement (16.3%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (12.7%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (9.6%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (5.4%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (4.2%)

• More and/or better community facilities (0.6%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (12.1%)

• More and/or better local businesses (10.8%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (1.8%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (1.8%)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.55 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old* Australian born Overseas born

65 answers (39.2%) referred to the natural environment 61 answers (36.7%) referred to movement 48 answers (28.9%) referred to community behaviours 32 answers (19.3%) referred to the economy 32 answers (19.3%) referred to facilities % NATURAL ENVIRONMENT MOVEMENT COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS FACILITIES ECONOMY

Percentages

Community

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

4D DULWICH HILL IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 166 answers were collected in Dulwich Hill. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (15.7%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature...) (4.2%)

• Improve appearance of built form (6%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (5.4%)

• Limit heights (4.2%)

• Limit density (3%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (9%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (5.4%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (1.2%)

31 answers (18.7%) referred to the public domain 25 answers (15.1%) referred to the built form 25 answers (15.1%) referred to social connections and safety

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (6%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (6%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (1.8%)

• Improve housing affordability (3.6%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (3%)

• Improve quality of housing (2.4%)

• Diversify range of housing types and sizes (0.6%)

21 answers (12.7%) referred to character 13 answers (7.8%) referred to housing

™ Place Score©2019 | P.56 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old* Australian born Overseas born

PUBLIC DOMAIN BUILT FORM SOCIAL CONNECTIONS AND SAFETY CHARACTER HOUSING

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

5. HABERFIELD

5A HABERFIELD STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

7 Overall visual character of the neighbourhood

10 Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.)

2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

9 Sense of belonging in the community

10 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

5 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

Please note: these results should be used as a ‘snapshot’. Care Factor and PX data samples for Haberfield are below the recommended standard 95% confidence level.

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

6 Protection of the natural environment

1 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

4 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

8 Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)

2 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

16 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

20 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

25 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

12 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

26 Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

www.placescore.org

7 10 2 9 10 5 6 1 4 8 2 16 20 25 12 26 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank PX Rating

5B HABERFIELD TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood atttibutes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

#10

banks etc.)

General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Protection of the natural environment

Overall visual character of the neighbourhood

Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)

Sense of belonging in the community

Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

Grey highlight = small sample size.

‘Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten’ only showed for samples of 10 and more

1Demographic breakdown data should be used as a ‘snapshot’ as smaller samples do not meet the 95% confidence level.

Please note: these results should be used as a ‘snapshot’. Care Factor data sample for Haberfield provides a 90% confidence level with a margin of error of ±10%

Different from LGA top 10 CF #1

™ Place Score©2019 | P.59 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: #1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute LEGEND ALL 67 #1 =#2 =#2 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 21 67% 71% 57% 67% 33% 33% 52% 52% 43% 33% Female 46 70% 59% 65% 59% 72% 61% 48% 43% 46% 46% Age 0-24 4 50% 75% 75% 25% 75% 75% 25% 0% 25% 0% 25-44 12 67% 42% 67% 42% 58% 67% 25% 25% 25% 33% Locally owned and operated businesses (75%) 45-64 37 73% 65% 62% 70% 57% 54% 57% 57% 46% 57% 65+ 14 64% 71% 57% 64% 64% 29% 57% 50% 64% 21% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 47 70% 72% 62% 62% 68% 53% 51% 45% 47% 49% Italy 5 60% 40% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20% 60% 20% United Kingdom 5 60% 60% 80% 40% 40% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% Ancestry (Top 3) European (including United Kingdom) 33 67% 52% 67% 70% 61% 52% 55% 58% 52% 45% Australasian 26 73% 69% 54% 54% 62% 54% 42% 35% 42% 46% Mixed 5 40% 100% 80% 60% 40% 40% 40% 60% 40% 20% RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.) =#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.) =#2 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy,

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

5C HABERFIELD LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS GAVE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF: WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

Please note: these results are to be used as a ‘snapshot’. PX data sample for Haberfield provides an 85% confidence level with a margin of error of ±7

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#49

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

#4 Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

#48

Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

#47 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

#46

Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.60 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 14 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 15 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Intersex/ Unspecified 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 71 76 71* NA 71 65 73* 76 RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #1

different from

Sense of character or identity that is

other neighbourhoods

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

4D HABERFIELD IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES, ACTIVE TRANSPORT, AND RETAIL AND LEISURE OPTIONS

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 74 answers were collected in Haberfield. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better parks and greenery (40.5%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (6.8%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (6.8%)

• Improve active transport infrastructure (25.7%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (8.1%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (6.8%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (4.1%)

• Improve accessibility (2.7%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (14.9%)

• More and/or better local businesses (9.5%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (8.1%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (2.7%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (13.5%)

• More and/or better community activities and/or engagement (8.1%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (9.5%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (6.8%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (1.4%)

• More and/or better community facilities (1.4%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (1.4%)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.61 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male* Female 25−44 yrs old* 45−64 yrs old Australian born Overseas born*

32 answers (43.2%) referred to the natural environment 26 answers (35.1%) referred to movement 17 answers (23%) referred to the economy

answers (18.9%) referred to facilities 15 answers (20.27%) referred to community behaviours % NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

ECONOMY

Community

Percentages

MOVEMENT

COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS FACILITIES

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

4D HABERFIELD IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 74 answers were collected in Haberfield. Here is what you community said:

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (17.6%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (6.8%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (6.8%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (6.8%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (1.4%)

13 answers (17.57%) referred to character 11 answers (14.9%) referred to social connections and safety

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (8.1%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature...) (4.1%)

• Improve appearance of built form (4.1%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (1.4%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (2.7%)

• Improve housing affordability (1.4%)

www.placescore.org

9 answers (12.2%) referred to the public domain 3 answers (4.1%) referred to the built form 3 answers (4.1%) referred to housing

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male* Female 25−44 yrs old* 45−64 yrs old Australian born Overseas born*

CHARACTER SOCIAL CONNECTIONS & SAFETY PUBLIC DOMAIN BUILT FORM HOUSING

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

6. LEICHHARDT

6A LEICHHARDT STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

5 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

3 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

7 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

9 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

6 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

4 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

10 Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)

2 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

7 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

14 Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

22 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

22 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

www.placescore.org

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

5 3 7 1 9 6 4 10 2 7 14 2222 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank PX Rating

6B LEICHHARDT TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#4 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

#5 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

#6 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

=#7

#10

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)

Different from LGA top 10 CF #1

™ Place Score©2019 | P.65 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: #1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute LEGEND ALL 139 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 =#7 =#7 #9 #10 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 40 72% 60% 60% 32% 50% 42% 48% 42% 45% 48% Female 99 71% 64% 57% 59% 49% 52% 46% 49% 43% 41% Age 0-24 6 33% 67% 50% 83% 67% 83% 83% 33% 17% 33% 25-44 49 78% 67% 53% 45% 43% 43% 47% 45% 51% 31% Welcoming to all people (53%) 45-64 58 69% 69% 60% 52% 57% 55% 48% 48% 40% 50% 65+ 26 73% 38% 62% 54% 42% 38% 35% 54% 46% 54% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 102 74% 64% 58% 54% 50% 52% 45% 46% 41% 41% United Kingdom 15 47% 87% 40% 40% 60% 53% 47% 60% 40% 40% Sense of connection to/feeling support from neighbours or community (60%) Italy 6 67% 67% 67% 17% 50% 17% 33% 33% 100% 67% Ancestry (Top 3) European (including United Kingdom) 76 71% 62% 55% 51% 49% 57% 47% 46% 47% 45% Australasian 46 76% 74% 61% 48% 54% 41% 48% 46% 43% 41% Mixed 8 50% 50% 50% 50% 62% 38% 38% 62% 0% 38% RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) #2 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.) #3 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes,

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

6C LEICHHARDT LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS GAVE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF:

WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

#50 Ease of driving and parking

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops,

Welcoming to all people

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

#49

Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#48

Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#47 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

#46

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

Unusual or unique buildings and/or public space design

™ Place Score©2019 | P.66 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 14 THINGS TO DO 14 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Diff. Identity 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 69 64* 72 NA 74 72* 67 71* RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #1 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

and wellness services etc.)

health

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

6D LEICHHARDT IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES,TRANSPORT OPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE

179 answers were collected in Leichhardt. Here is what you community said:

• Improve active transport infrastructure (21.2%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (17.3%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (7.3%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (6.2%)

• Improve accessibility (2.2%)

• More and/or better parks and greenery (33%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (7.3%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (3.4%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (1.7%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (15.6%)

• More and/or better community activities and/or engagement (12.3%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (12.85%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (5%)

• More and/or better local businesses (5%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (3.9%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (7.8%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (5%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (3.9%)

• More and/or better community facilities (3.4%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (0.6%)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.67 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born

74 answers (41.3%) referred to movement 68 answers (38%) referred to the natural environment 49 answers (27.4%) referred to community behaviours 40 answers (22.4%) referred to the economy 34 answers (19%) referred to facilities % MOVEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Percentages

COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS ECONOMY FACILITIES Community

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

6D LEICHHARDT IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 179 answers were collected in Leichhardt. Here is what you community said:

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (10.6%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (8.9%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (1.1%)

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (12.8%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature etc.) (5.6%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (7.3%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (4.5%)

• Improve appearance of built form (5%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (3.4%)

• Limit heights (1.7%)

• Limit density (0.6%)

• Improve housing affordability (3.4%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (1.7%)

• Diversify range of housing types and sizes (0.6%)

Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born

www.placescore.org

34 answers (19%) referred to social connections and safety 32 answers (17.9%) referred to the public domain 19 answers (10.6%) referred to character 14 people (7.8%) referred to the built form 10 answers (5.6%) referred to housing % SOCIAL CONNECTIONS

PUBLIC

BUILT

HOUSING Community

Percentages

& SAFETY

DOMAIN CHARACTER

FORM

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

7. LEWISHAM-PETERSHAM

7A LEWISHAM-PETERSHAM STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

10 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

4 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

3 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

7 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

2 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

8 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

5 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

5 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

9 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

15 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

14 Protection of the natural environment

15 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

www.placescore.org

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

10 4 3 7 2 8 1 55 9 15 14 15 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank

PX Rating

7B LEWISHAM-PETERSHAM TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

#4 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

=#5

#10

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

Different from LGA top 10 CF

#1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute LEGEND ALL 131 #1 #2 #3 #4 =#5 =#5 #7 #8 #9 #10 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 53 74% 58% 58% 49% 53% 47% 43% 45% 47% 42% Female 77 73% 65% 56% 53% 48% 53% 52% 49% 42% 42% Age 0-24 5 80% 40% 60% 80% 40% 80% 40% 20% 60% 80% 25-44 53 75% 70% 60% 58% 58% 53% 43% 47% 53% 43% 45-64 55 71% 58% 49% 44% 40% 47% 49% 47% 42% 40% Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.) (53%) 65+ 18 72% 56% 67% 44% 56% 44% 61% 56% 17% 28% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 95 76% 63% 48% 49% 49% 54% 49% 47% 42% 39% United Kingdom 14 71% 50% 79% 50% 64% 29% 36% 29% 64% 43% Locally owned and operated businesses (64%) New Zealand 5 80% 100% 100% 40% 80% 40% 60% 40% 60% 40% Ancestry (Top 3) European (including United Kingdom) 54 76% 59% 48% 46% 41% 48% 43% 50% 50% 43% Australasian 53 70% 68% 60% 51% 55% 53% 55% 43% 40% 40% Asian 9 67% 56% 56% 56% 56% 67% 56% 67% 33% 44% RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) #2 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.) #3

Notes:

7C LEWISHAM-PETERSHAM LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS GAVE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF:

WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

#2 There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

#3 Welcoming to all people

#4 Mix or diversity of people in the area

#5 Overall visual character of the neighbourhood

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#49 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#48 Ease of driving and parking

#47 Family and community services (aged, disability and home care, protection and support services etc.)

#46 Protection of the natural environment

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

™ Place Score©2019 | P.72 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 13 THINGS TO DO 13 SENSE OF WELCOME 13 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Diff. Identity 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 66 68* 64 70 71 63 66* 74* RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #1

(proximity

centres,

etc.)

Connectivity

to other neighbourhoods, employment

shops

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

7D LEWISHAM-PETERSHAM IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES,ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE

141 answers were collected in Lewisham-Petersham. Here is what you community said:

• Improve active transport infrastructure (31.2%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (13.5%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (11.4%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (8.5%)

• Improve accessibility (5%)

• More and/or better parks and greenery (32.6%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (8.5%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (1.4%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (1.4%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (12.1%)

• More and/or better local businesses (10.6%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (5%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (2.1%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (14.9%)

• More and/or better community activities and/or engagement (7.8%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (9.9%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (7.8%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (2.8%)

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old* Australian born Overseas born

www.placescore.org Notes:

(49.6%)

(22.7%)

% MOVEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY COMMUNITY

Community

Percentages

answers

referred to movement

answers (36.2%) referred

the natural environment

answers

referred to the economy 32 answers (22.7%) referred to community behaviours

answers (19.2%) referred to social connections and safety

BEHAVIOURS SOCIAL CONNECTIONS & SAFETY

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

are

rounded

the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

7D LEWISHAM-PETERSHAM IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 141 answers were collected in Lewisham-Petersham. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (12.1%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature...) (7.1%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (5.7%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (3.6%)

• More and/or better community facilities (2.8%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (2.1%)

26 answers (18.4%) referred to the public domain 20 answers (14.2%) referred to facilities

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (7.8%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (5%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (2.1%)

• Limit density (2.1%)

• Limit heights (2.1%)

• Increase density (1.4%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (1.4%)

• Improve appearance of built form (0.7%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (2.8%)

• Improve housing affordability (2.1%)

17 answers (12.1%) referred to character

11 answers (7.8%) referred to the built form 7 answers (5%) referred to housing

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

™ Place Score©2019 | P.74 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old* Australian born Overseas born

PUBLIC DOMAIN FACILITIES CHARACTER BUILT FORM HOUSING

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

8. MARRICKVILLE

8A MARRICKVILLE STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

8 Mix or diversity of people in the area

5 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

3 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

8 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

8 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

3 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

8 Protection of the natural environment

6 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

8 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

7 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

8 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

2 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

19 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

www.placescore.org

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

8 5 3 8 1 8 3 8 6 8 7 8 2 19 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank PX Rating

8B MARRICKVILLE TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE

General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.) =#3

=#3

Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.) =#8

=#8

Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.) =#8

Mix or diversity of people in the area

LEGEND

Notes: #1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

Different from LGA top 10 CF #1

ALL 214 #1 #2 =#3 =#3 #5 #6 #7 =#8 =#8 =#8 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 90 71% 60% 49% 54% 49% 43% 53% 48% 46% 41% Female 121 63% 53% 50% 49% 45% 46% 37% 40% 43% 45% Age 0-24 7 43% 43% 57% 57% 14% 29% 43% 71% 57% 29% 25-44 95 68% 59% 45% 49% 44% 49% 44% 43% 42% 41% 45-64 83 67% 59% 51% 49% 53% 41% 45% 43% 45% 47% 65+ 29 59% 38% 62% 55% 45% 45% 41% 38% 41% 41% Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)(55%) Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 160 65% 59% 50% 46% 45% 44% 41% 46% 42% 46% United Kingdom 17 65% 41% 41% 59% 53% 59% 59% 18% 59% 35% Welcoming to all people(65%), Protection of the natural environment(65%) New Zealand 5 80% 40% 80% 100% 40% 40% 60% 60% 60% 20% Ancestry (Top 3) Australasian 101 70% 54% 51% 51% 45% 49% 44% 41% 44% 48% European (including United Kingdom) 74 64% 57% 42% 51% 57% 45% 47% 49% 45% 39% Mixed 20 65% 70% 65% 60% 35% 45% 50% 35% 55% 25%

8C MARRICKVILLE LIVEABILITY

THEIR

WHAT

IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

#49

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

shops etc.)

#5 There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#48

Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

Child services (child care, early learning, after school care, medical etc.)

#47

Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#46

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.78 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 14 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 13 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Diff. Identity 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 69 70 71 38 81 71 70 67*

RESIDENTS GAVE

NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF:

RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

Mix or diversity of people in the area

to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks

#2 Access

#3 Local

etc.) #4 Connectivity (proximity

other neighbourhoods, employment centres,

BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

RATE

#50 Ease of driving and parking

8D MARRICKVILLE IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES, ACTIVE TRANSPORT AND MAINTENANCE1

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 258 answers were collected in Marrickville. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better parks and greenery (29.5%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (12.8%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (2.7%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (1.6%)

• Improve management of private green spaces (1.6%)

• Improve active transport infrastructure (21.3%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (12%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (3.9%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (2.7%)

• Improve accessibility (1.6%)

Community

• More and/or better care and maintenance (13.6%)

• More and/or better community activities and/or engagement (8.9%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (11.24%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (4.26%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (4.26%)

• Limit heights (7.4%)

• Limit density (6.2%)

• Improve appearance of built form (5.4%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (3.1%)

• Increase density (0.4%)

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 0−24 yrs old* 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born

Notes:

102 answers (39.5%)

(35.7%)

(20.9%)

(19.8%)

50 answers (19.4%)

% NATURAL ENVIRONMENT MOVEMENT COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS SOCIAL CONNECTIONS & SAFETY BUILT FORM

referred to the natural environment

answers

referred to movement

answers

referred to community behaviours

answers

referred to social connections and safety

referred to the built form

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.1It should be noted that Marrickville is the only Inner West neighbourhood where the ‘Built form’ is part of the top 5 most common themes.

8D MARRICKVILLE IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 258 answers were collected in Marrickville. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (12.8%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature etc.) (7.4%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (5.4%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (5%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (4.3%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (3.1%)

• More and/or better community facilities (0.39%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (12.4%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (3.5%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (2.7%)

• More and/or better local businesses (2.3%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (5.8%)

• Improve housing affordability (5.4%)

• Diversify range of housing types and sizes (1.2%)

• Improve quality of housing (0.8%)

48 answers (18.6%) referred to the public domain 43 answers (16.7%) referred to facilities 43 answers (16.7%) referred to the economy 34 answers (13.2%) referred to housing

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (8.9%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (3.9%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (3.1%)

34 answers (13.2%) referred to character

™ Place Score©2019 | P.80 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 0−24 yrs old* 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born

% PUBLIC

DOMAIN FACILITIES ECONOMY HOUSING CHARACTER

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

9. NEWTOWN-ENMORE

9A NEWTOWN-ENMORE STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

8 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

10 Welcoming to all people

4 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

10 Mix or diversity of people in the area

2 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

4 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

10 Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

www.placescore.org

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

3 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

6 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

10 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

10 Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

8 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

6 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

15 Protection of the natural environment

17 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

20 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

8 10 4 10 2 4 10 1 3 6 1010 8 6 15 17 20 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank PX Rating

9B NEWTOWN-ENMORE TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

(proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

=#4 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

=#6

Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

=#6

=#8

=#10

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

Grey highlight = small sample size

‘Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten’ only showed for samples of 10 and more

1Demographic breakdown data should be used as a ‘snapshot’ as smaller samples do not meet the 95% confidence level.

Different from LGA top 10 CF #1

#1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute LEGEND ALL 108 #1 #2 #3 =#4 =#4 =#6 =#6 =#8 =#8 #10 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 40 80% 55% 52% 48% 52% 40% 48% 42% 48% 52% Female 68 68% 53% 51% 51% 49% 53% 49% 50% 47% 40% Age 0-24 3 0% 100% 33% 67% 0% 67% 0% 33% 0% 33% 25-44 47 74% 47% 51% 66% 51% 40% 45% 40% 45% 30% 45-64 45 73% 56% 53% 40% 51% 53% 49% 51% 49% 47% Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.) (53%) 65+ 13 77% 62% 54% 23% 54% 54% 69% 62% 62% 92% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 70 64% 51% 54% 43% 51% 49% 39% 43% 44% 43% United Kingdom 13 77% 54% 46% 62% 46% 62% 85% 54% 46% 54% Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.) (62%) United States 6 83% 67% 50% 50% 50% 50% 67% 67% 67% 33% Ancestry (Top 3) European (including United Kingdom) 55 76% 44% 55% 56% 53% 49% 53% 44% 47% 49% Australasian 36 61% 64% 50% 36% 50% 47% 42% 44% 50% 39% Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.) (56%) Mixed 10 70% 80% 50% 70% 50% 40% 30% 50% 40% 50% Cultural and/or artistic community (70%), Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.) (70%) RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) #2 Things to

dining,

#3 Quality

Connectivity

Notes:

do in the evening (bars,

cinema, live music etc.)

of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) =#4

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

9C NEWTOWN-ENMORE LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS GAVE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF:

WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

#4 There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

#5 Welcoming to all people

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#49

Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#48 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

#47 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

#46 Protection of the natural environment

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

™ Place Score©2019 | P.84 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 12 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 15 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Diff. Identity 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 70 70 70 NA 61 72 69 66* RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #1 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

#50 Ease of driving and parking

9D NEWTOWN-ENMORE IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE, GREEN SPACES AND MAINTENANCE

151 answers were collected in Newtown-Enmore. Here is what you community said:

• Improve active transport infrastructure (31.8%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (11.9%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (6.6%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (4%)

• Improve accessibility (3.3%)

• More and/or better parks and greenery (29.1%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (8.6%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (2.6%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (1.3%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (19.9%)

• More and/or better community activities and/or engagement (11.9%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (13.3%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (6%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (4.6%)

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (14.6%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature etc.) (4.6%)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.85 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old* Australian born Overseas born

65 answers (43%) referred to movement 55 answers (36.4%) referred to the natural environment 46 answers (30.5%) referred to community behaviours 36 asnwers (23.8%) referred to social connections and safety 29 answers (19.2%) referred to the public domain % MOVEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS SOCIAL CONNECTIONS & SAFETY PUBLIC DOMAIN Community

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

Percentages

are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

9D NEWTOWN-ENMORE IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 151 answers were collected in Newtown-Enmore. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (7.3%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (2.7%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (2%)

• More and/or better community facilities (2%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (0.7%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (8%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (4.6%)

• More and/or better local businesses (2.65%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (2%)

• More and/or better tourism infrastructure and management (0.7%)

• Reduce night-time economy (0.7%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (4.6%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (1.3%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (0.7%)

• Improve housing affordability (3.3%)

• Diversify range of housing types and sizes (1.3%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (0.7%)

• Limit density (1.3%)

• Limit heights (1.3%)

• Improve appearance of built form (0.7%)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.86 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old* Australian born Overseas born

(13.9%)

(4.6%)

to housing 3

(2%)

% FACILITIES ECONOMY CHARACTER HOUSING BUILT FORM

answers

referred to facilities

people (12.6%) referred to the economy

answers (6%) referred to character

answers

referred

answers

referred

the built form

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

10. ROZELLE-LILYFIELD

10A ROZELLE-LILYFIELD STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

4 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

8 Overall visual character of the neighbourhood

2 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

8 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

5 Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

6 Protection of the natural environment

2 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

6 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

8 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

16 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

19 Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

22 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

16 Evidence of community activity (volunteering, gardening, art, community-organised events etc.)

29 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

www.placescore.org

PX Rating

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

4 8 2 8 5 1 6 2 6 8 16 19 22 16 29 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank

10B ROZELLE-LILYFIELD TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

#4 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

=#6

=#8

Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)

Protection of the natural environment

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Overall visual character of the neighbourhood

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Different from LGA top 10 CF #1

™ Place Score©2019 | P.89 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: #1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute LEGEND ALL 104 #1 =#2 =#2 #4 #5 =#6 =#6 =#8 =#8 =#8 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 30 67% 67% 60% 50% 43% 40% 57% 50% 33% 47% Female 74 72% 50% 53% 55% 54% 50% 43% 45% 51% 46% Age 0-24 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 25-44 37 62% 59% 35% 54% 54% 54% 46% 41% 43% 51% 45-64 49 73% 53% 61% 47% 51% 45% 45% 53% 51% 51% Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.) (53%) 65+ 17 76% 53% 82% 76% 47% 35% 53% 35% 41% 24% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 67 72% 54% 57% 52% 54% 49% 45% 42% 45% 45% United Kingdom 20 70% 40% 45% 45% 40% 40% 65% 60% 45% 65% United States 4 50% 75% 50% 75% 50% 75% 0% 50% 25% 50% Ancestry (Top 3) European (including United Kingdom) 47 74% 51% 55% 51% 55% 57% 47% 53% 47% 57% Australasian 42 74% 60% 55% 48% 45% 33% 60% 43% 43% 40% Mixed 7 43% 71% 43% 86% 43% 57% 0% 14% 57% 14% RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) =#2 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.) =#2

10C ROZELLE-LILYFIELD LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS GAVE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF: WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

#50

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

#49

Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

Welcoming to all people

#48

Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

#5 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#47 Ease of driving and parking

#46

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.90 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 15 THINGS TO DO 15 SENSE OF WELCOME 15 LOOK & FUNCTION 15 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Diff. Identity 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 73 69 73 NA 74 74* 73 67* RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #1 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

10D ROZELLE-LILYFIELD IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES, MAINTENANCE AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 135 answers were collected in Rozelle-Lilyfield. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better parks and greenery (36.3%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (17.8%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (3%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (0.7%)

• Improve management of private green spaces (0.7%)

• Improve active transport infrastructure (20.7%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (14.8%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (11.1%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (8.9%)

• Improve accessibility (0.7%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (24.4%)

• More and/or better community activities and/or engagement (9.6%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (9.6%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (5.2%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (3.7%)

• More and/or better community facilities (1.5%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (0.74%)

65 answers (48.2%) referred to the natural environment 59 answers (43.7%) referred to movement 44 answers (32.6%) referred to community behaviours 27 answers (20%) referred to facilities

Community

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (12.6%)

• More and/or better local businesses (5.2%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (3%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (0.7%)

24 answers (17.8%) referred to the economy

™ Place Score©2019 | P.91 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT MOVEMENT COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS FACILITIES ECONOMY

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

Percentages

are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

10D ROZELLE-LILYFIELD IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 135 answers were collected in Rozelle-Lilyfield. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (9.6%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature etc.) (8.2%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (8.9%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (7.4%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (2.2%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (7.4%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (5.2%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (1.5%)

• Limit density (1.5%)

• Limit heights (1.5%)

• Improve appearance of built form (1.5%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (1.5%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (1.5%)

• Improve housing affordability (1.5%)

24 answers (17.8%) referred to the public domain

24 answers (17.8%) referred to social connections and safety

15 answers (11.1%) referred to character 8 answers (5.9%) referred to the built form 4 answers (3%) referred to housing

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born

www.placescore.org Notes:

PUBLIC DOMAIN SOCIAL CONNECTIONS AND SAFETY CHARACTER BUILT FORM HOUSING

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

11. STANMORE-CAMPERDOWN

11A STANMORE-CAMPERDOWN STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

9 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

9 Locally owned and operated businesses

2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

6 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

8 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

4 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold

Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

Please note: these results should be used as a ‘snapshot’. PX data sample for StanmoreCamperdown provides a 90% confidence level with a margin of error of ±7pts.

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

3 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

7 Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

5 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

9 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

15 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

20 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

20 Protection of the natural environment

24 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

26 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

Rating

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

www.placescore.org

99 2 6 8 4 3 7 1 5 9 15 20 20 24 26 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank PX

11B STANMORE-CAMPERDOWN TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood atttibutes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

verges, parks etc.)

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

#5 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

=#9

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

Locally owned and operated businesses

Grey highlight = small sample size

‘Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten’ only showed for samples of 10 and more 1Demographic breakdown data should be used as a ‘snapshot’ as smaller samples do not meet the 95% confidence level.

Different from LGA top 10 CF #1

™ Place Score©2019 | P.95 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: #1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute LEGEND ALL 100 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 =#9 =#9 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 32 66% 56% 47% 50% 50% 47% 41% 50% 50% 31% Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.)(53%) Female 68 82% 66% 60% 54% 53% 51% 49% 43% 40% 49% Age 0-24 1 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 25-44 40 75% 55% 57% 38% 55% 40% 32% 42% 60% 48% 45-64 36 78% 69% 53% 53% 47% 58% 58% 58% 28% 44% 65+ 23 83% 65% 57% 78% 57% 57% 52% 30% 39% 30% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 84 76% 63% 55% 55% 52% 51% 50% 50% 44% 43% United Kingdom 3 100% 100% 67% 67% 67% 33% 0% 33% 0% 33% India 2 100% 50% 50% 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 50% 100% Ancestry (Top 3) Australasian 47 79% 62% 57% 57% 53% 51% 47% 45% 47% 40% European (including United Kingdom) 37 78% 68% 57% 49% 54% 43% 46% 51% 38% 46% Mixed 10 60% 60% 40% 40% 50% 70% 60% 30% 40% 40% RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) #2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.) #3 Quality of public space (footpaths,

11C STANMORE-CAMPERDOWN LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS GAVE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF:

WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

Please note: that these results should be used as a ‘snapshot’. PX data sample for StanmoreCamperdown provides a 90% confidence level with a margin of error of ±7pts.

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health

There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

#4 Welcoming to all people

#5 Sense of character or identity that is different from other neighbourhoods

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#50 Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#49

Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#48 Ease of driving and parking

#47 Family and community services (aged, disability and home care, protection and support services etc.)

#46 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

™ Place Score©2019 | P.96 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 14 THINGS TO DO 15 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Intersex/ Unspecified 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 70 68* 71 NA 63 73* 70* 68* RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #1 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

and

services etc.)

wellness

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

9D STANMORE-CAMPERDOWN IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES, ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 128 answers were collected in Stanmore-Camperdown. Here is what you community said:

• Improve active transport infrastructure (22.7%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (11.7%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (9.4%)

• Improve accessibility (7.%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (3.1%)

• More and/or better parks and greenery (30.5%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (11.7%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (4.7%)

• Improve management of private green spaces (0.8%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (20.3%)

• More and/or better community activities and/or engagement (7%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (9.4%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (7.8%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (4.7%)

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (11.7%)

• More and/or better local businesses (6.3%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (3.1%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (1.6%)

51 answers (39.8%) referred to movement 48 answers (37.5%) referred to the natural environment 35 answers (27.3%) referred to community behaviours 26 answers (20.31%) referred to social connections and safety

22 answers (17.2%) referred to the economy

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born*

www.placescore.org Notes:

MOVEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS SOCIAL CONNECTIONS & SAFETY ECONOMY

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

9D STANMORE-CAMPERDOWN IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 128 answers were collected in Stanmore-Camperdown. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (9.4%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature...) (6.3%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (3.9%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (3.9%)

• More and/or better community facilities (3.1%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (3.1%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (1.6%)

20 answers (15.6%) referred to the public domain

19 answers (14.8%) referred to facilities

Community

Percentages

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (6.3%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (3.9%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (3.1%)

• Improve appearance of built form (3.9%)

• Increase density (3.1%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (2.3%)

• Limit heights (0.8%)

• Diversify range of housing types and sizes (4.7%)

• Improve housing affordability (3.1%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (1.6%)

• Improve quality of housing (0.8%)

16 answers (12.5%) referred to character 11 answers (8.6%) referred to the built form 11 answers (8.6%) referred to housing

™ Place Score©2019 | P.98 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old Australian born Overseas born*

PUBLIC DOMAIN FACILITIES CHARACTER BUILT FORM HOUSING

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

12. SUMMER HILL

12A SUMMER HILL STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

4 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

10 Sense of belonging in the community

3 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

8 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

2 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

6 Locally owned and operated businesses

10 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

9 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

4 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

6 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

17 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

17 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

15 Protection of the natural environment

19 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

25 Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

19 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

www.placescore.org

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

4 10 3 8 2 6 10 1 9 4 6 1717 15 19 25 19 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank PX Rating

12B SUMMER HILL TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

neighbourhood’.

Different from LGA top 10 CF #1

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

=#6

#9 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

=#10

Sense of belonging in the community

™ Place Score©2019 | P.101 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: #1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute LEGEND ALL 98 #1 #2 #3 =#4 =#4 =#6 =#6 #8 #9 #10 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 30 80% 53% 53% 63% 60% 53% 40% 47% 47% 47% Female 68 76% 63% 62% 44% 46% 47% 53% 47% 44% 43% Age 0-24 3 100% 100% 33% 67% 100% 33% 67% 33% 67% 0% 25-44 48 75% 60% 54% 58% 54% 44% 52% 54% 50% 46% 45-64 35 77% 51% 63% 43% 43% 54% 43% 43% 40% 49% Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.) (54%) 65+ 12 83% 75% 75% 33% 42% 58% 50% 33% 33% 33% Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 73 77% 63% 59% 52% 51% 52% 48% 45% 44% 40% United Kingdom 8 100% 38% 88% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 62% 50% Overall visual character of the neighbourhood (62%), Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.) (62%), Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.) (62%) New Zealand 5 80% 40% 20% 40% 60% 40% 40% 60% 40% 60% Ancestry (Top 3) European (including United Kingdom) 45 73% 58% 56% 51% 58% 60% 42% 38% 51% 47% Australasian 41 83% 66% 56% 46% 41% 39% 59% 51% 44% 39% Mixed 8 62% 25% 88% 75% 62% 38% 25% 88% 38% 50% Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.) (75%) RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE

General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) #2 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.) #3 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining,

live music etc.)

=#4

cinema,

Access and

and/or public

paths,

etc.)

safety

walking, cycling

transport (signage,

lighting

=#6 Locally owned and operated businesses

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal

12C SUMMER HILL LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS GAVE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF: WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

#50 Ease of driving and parking

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

#2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health

There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

#4 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

#5 Mix or diversity of people in the area

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#49

Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#48

Range of housing prices and tenures (low to high $, buy or rent etc.)

#47 Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

#46 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

™ Place Score©2019 | P.102 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 13 UNIQUENESS 14 THINGS TO DO 14 SENSE OF WELCOME 14 LOOK & FUNCTION 14 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Diff. Identity 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 69 68* 68 NA 83 72 60* 65* RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS #1 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

and wellness services etc.)

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

12D SUMMER HILL IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER GREEN SPACES, MAINTENANCE AND PRIVATE VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE

121 answers were collected in Summer Hill. Here is what you community said:

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (15.7%)

• Improve active transport infrastructure (13.2%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (5%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (4.1%)

• Improve accessibility (3.3%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (19%)

• More and/or better community activities and/or engagement (18.2%)

• More and/or better parks and greenery (24.8%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (11.6%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (4.1%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (12.4%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (7.4%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity

• More and/or better community facilities (7.4%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (6.6%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (6.6%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (3.3%)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.103 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old* Australian born Overseas born

(4.1%)

42 answers (34.7%) referred to movement 42 people (34.7%) referred to community behaviours 41 answers (33.9%) referred to the natural environment 29 people (24%) referred to social connections and safety 26 people (21.5%) referred to facilities % MOVEMENT COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL

Community

CONNECTIONS & SAFETY FACILITIES

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

12D SUMMER HILL IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 121 answers were collected in Summer Hill. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (12.4%)

• More and/or better local businesses (4.1%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (4.1%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (0.8%)

• Limit density (5%)

• Limit heights (4.1%)

• Increase density (1.7%)

• Improve appearance of built form (1.7%)

• Increase heights (0.8%)

• Improve housing affordability (7.4%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (5%)

• Diversify range of housing types and sizes (2.5%)

• Improve quality of housing (0.8%)

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (8.3%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature etc.) (3.3%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (5%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (2.5%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (2.5%)

20 answers (16.5%) referred to the economy 16 answers (13.2%) referred to the built form 16 answers (13.2%) referred to housing 14 answers (11.6%) referred to the public domain 11 answers (9.1%) referred to character

™ Place Score©2019 | P.104 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old* Australian born Overseas born

ECONOMY BUILT FORM HOUSING PUBLIC DOMAIN CHARACTER

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE

13. SYDENHAM-TEMPE-ST PETERS

13A SYDENHAM-TEMPE-ST PETERS STRENGTHS AND PRIORITIES

These tables and graph illustrate your neighbourhood strengths, liveability improvement priorities and secondary priorities.

STRENGTHS should be celebrated and protected.

SECONDARY PRIORITIES identify attributes to look-out for, they are negatively affecting liveability and can become more significant issues if more people start caring about them.

CF NEIGHBOURHOOD STRENGTHS

9 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

8 Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

LEGEND

Horizontal: Top 10 CF threshold

Diagonal: Threshold showing attributes which PX rating is performing 10 pts worse than their CF ranking1 (PX=CF+10)

Equal CF rank and PX Score (PX=CF)

Notes:

CF LIVEABILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

5 Protection of the natural environment

3 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

9 Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

4 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

9 Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

5 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

7 Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

CF SECONDARY PRIORITIES

15 Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

www.placescore.org

CF - Care Factor ranking out of 50 - the lower the number the higher the number of people who think this attribute is important. Neighbourhood Strengths have a high CF and high PX. Liveability Priorities are the poorest performing CF ranked in the overall top 10. Secondary Priorities are the worst performing overall outside of the Top 10 CF. 1A threshold difference of 10 pts between the CF rank and PX rating is used to assure that displayed priorities are not within the margin of error.

9 8 1 5 3 9 4 9 5 7 2 15 1 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 1 CF Rank PX Rating

13B SYDENHAM-TEMPE-ST PETERS TOP 10 CARE FACTORS

WHAT RESIDENTS MOST CARE ABOUT

Neighbourhood attributes are ranked based on how many people selected each attribute as being important to them in their ‘ideal neighbourhood’.

paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

=#5 Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

=#5

=#9

Protection of the natural environment

Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

Grey highlight = small sample size

‘Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten’ only showed for samples of 10 and more

1Demographic breakdown data should be used as a ‘snapshot’ as smaller samples do not meet the 95% confidence level.

Different from LGA top 10 CF #1

™ Place Score©2019 | P.107 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: #1 attribute #2 attribute #3 attribute LEGEND ALL 102 #1 #2 #3 #4 =#5 =#5 #7 #8 =#9 =#9 Highest rated attributes if not in the overall top ten Male 35 80% 54% 63% 66% 54% 40% 51% 57% 49% 54% Female 66 62% 59% 52% 47% 52% 59% 52% 45% 48% 45% Age 0-24 3 33% 100% 33% 33% 100% 100% 67% 33% 100% 67% 25-44 41 73% 51% 56% 54% 59% 51% 46% 59% 54% 54% 45-64 43 70% 56% 53% 56% 53% 58% 53% 49% 49% 40% Mix or diversity of people in the area (56%) 65+ 15 60% 67% 60% 53% 27% 33% 53% 33% 27% 60% Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night) (60%), Sense of belonging in the community (60%) Country of birth (Top 3) Australia 78 71% 58% 56% 55% 53% 54% 56% 51% 54% 46% United Kingdom 8 62% 62% 62% 50% 25% 38% 25% 38% 50% 62% Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night) (62%) Canada 2 50% 100% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0% Ancestry (Top 3) Australasian 44 73% 61% 55% 61% 57% 50% 50% 64% 61% 39% European (including United Kingdom) 41 63% 63% 54% 44% 46% 56% 63% 39% 49% 51% Mixed 11 91% 45% 64% 55% 55% 45% 18% 45% 9% 73% Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night) (64%), Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.) (64%), Mix or diversity of

in the area

RANK ATTRIBUTE % OF PEOPLE #1 General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) #2 Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops,

and

Access

people

(64%)

health

wellness services etc.) #3

and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN1

13C SYDENHAM-TEMPE-ST PETERS LIVEABILITY

RESIDENTS GAVE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD A SCORE OF:

WHAT IS IMPACTING OUR LIVED EXPERIENCE TODAY

These tables identify the highest and lowest rated attributes that are contributing to neighbourhood liveability.

#1 There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

#50 Physical comfort (including noise, smells, temperature etc.)

PLACE DIMENSIONS

Your PX Score is made up of 5 key place dimensions, each rated out of 20, that influence people’s attraction and attachment to place.

#2 Mix or diversity of people in the area

#49 Ease of driving and parking

#3 Welcoming to all people

#4 Spaces for group or community activities and/or gatherings (sports, picnics, performances etc.)

#5 Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

LIVEABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC

#48

Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

#47 Evidence of recent public investment (roads, parks, schools etc.)

#46 Protection of the natural environment

This table identifies the Neighbourhood PX Scores as rated by different demographic groups.

™ Place Score©2019 | P.108 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: CARE 11 UNIQUENESS 12 THINGS TO DO 12 SENSE OF WELCOME 12 LOOK & FUNCTION 11 Under 10 respondents PX 70+ Performing well PX 50-69 Room for improvement PX <50 Urgent care needed LEGEND Total PX Score Men Women Diff. Identity 0-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 58 61* 56 64 78 57 59* 54* RATE TOP 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

RATE BOTTOM 5 LIVEABILITY CONTRIBUTORS

13D SYDENHAM-TEMPE-ST PETERS IDEAS FOR CHANGE (1/2)

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE MORE AND/OR BETTER ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE, GREEN SPACES AND MAINTENANCE

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 146 answers were collected in Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters. Here is what you community said:

• Improve active transport infrastructure (32.9%)

• Improve private vehicle infrastructure (13.7%)

• Reduce private vehicle infrastructure (11%)

• Improve public transport infrastructure (8.9%)

• Improve accessibility (3.4%)

• More and/or better parks and greenery (28.1%)

• More and/or better sustainable actions and behaviours (13%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the fauna and flora (2.1%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the topography and landscape (1.4%)

• More and/or better care and maintenance (17.8%)

• More and/or better community activities and/or engagement (4.1%)

• Improve comfort (noise, smell, temperature...) (13%)

• More and/or better open spaces and/or furniture (11%)

• Improve sense of safety and/or physical safety (14.4%)

• Improve sense of belonging and interactions between residents (4.8%)

• More and/or better consideration and inclusion of diversity (0.7%)

™ Place Score©2019 | P.109 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old* Australian born Overseas born

% MOVEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY BEHAVIOURS PUBLIC DOMAIN SOCIAL CONNECTIONS & SAFETY

Percentages

79 answers (54.1%) referred to movement 60 answers (41.1%) referred to the natural environment

answers (21.2%) referred to community behaviours

answers (20.6%) referred to the public domain

answers (18.5%) referred to social connections and safety

Community

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order

from

left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed.

are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

13D SYDENHAM-TEMPE-ST PETERS IDEAS FOR CHANGE (2/2)

LESS THAN 20% OF IDEAS RELATED TO THESE THEMES

Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ 146 answers were collected in Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters. Here is what you community said:

• More and/or better retail and leisure options (9.6%)

• More and/or better local businesses (4.8%)

• Increase night-time and weekend economy (3.4%)

• Improve employment and/or commercial buildings occupancy (2.1%)

• More and/or better arts and culture facilities (4.8%)

• More and/or better play and sports facilities (3.4%)

• More and/or better education and childcare facilities (2.7%)

• More and/or better community facilities (2.1%)

• More and/or better health related facilities (0.7%)

23 answers (15.8%) referred to the economy 19 answers (13%) referred to facilities

• Improve appearance of built form (4.1%)

• Limit density (2.1%)

• Limit heights (2.1%)

• Improve transitions and/or relationship between interfaces (1.4%)

• Celebrate and/or protect the neighbourhood’s identity (4.8%)

• Improve overall quality of public domain (3.4%)

• Celebrate and/or protect heritage (2.7%)

• Maintain range of housing types and sizes (2.1%)

• Improve quality of housing (1.4%)

• Improve housing affordability (1.4%)

• Diversify range of housing types and sizes (0.7%)

13 answers (8.9%) referred to the built form

13 answers (8.9%) referred to character

7 answers (4.8%) referred to housing

™ Place Score©2019 | P.110 Inner West Council LEP CIR | April 2019 www.placescore.org Notes: l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Male Female 25−44 yrs old 45−64 yrs old 65+ yrs old* Australian born Overseas born

ECONOMY FACILITIES HOUSING BUILT FORM CHARACTER

Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. *Small sample (n=<30). Demographics with less than 10 respondents are not displayed. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

LOCAL STRATEGIC PLANNING STATEMENT

THIS SECTION PROVIDES KEY COMMUNITY INSIGHTS TO GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR LOCAL STRATEGIC PLANNING STATEMENT (LSPS)

LSPS INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS A LSPS?

Exert from: ‘Local Strategic Planning Statements - Guidelines for Councils’ ‘Local strategic planning statements will be a pivotal tool for local strategic planning in NSW. They will inform local statutory plans and development controls, and give effect to regional and district plans.

The LSPS can also identify where further strategic planning effort may be needed. The statements will act as a unifying document. Drawing together and summarising planning priorities identified through State, regional, district and local strategic work. They provide the local context and local-scale expression of actions and priorities from these plans.’

LOCAL STRATEGIC PLANNING STATEMENTS (LSPS) WILL SET OUT:

• the 20-year vision for land use in the local area

• the special characteristics which contribute to local identity

• shared community values to be maintained and enhanced

• how growth and change will be managed into the future.

HOW PLACE SCORE HELPS INFORM YOUR LSPS

Councils are encouraged to access existing documents and community inputs to inform the development of the LSPS.

Place Score’s unique community insights can be used to support this process through the provision of data and community priorities that contribute to:

ALIGNMENT WITH DISTRICT PLAN

Explanation around how the results align with the greater Sydney Commission’s District Plan for your area

VISION DIRECTIONS

LGA-wide directions that capture the key community values and priorities

CONTEXT

Providing community values regarding economic, social and environmental matters using Neighbourhood Care Factor data that captures what the majority of the community ranks as important in their ideal neighbourhood

PLANNING PRIORITIES

Providing community priorities for neighbourhood livability by aggregating Neighbourhood Care Factor and PX Assessment data at the LGA level to identify the liveability attributes that are both most important but poorest performing.

COMMUNITY IDEAS REGARDING CHANGE

Your community’s ideas regarding development and change have been isolated - providing you with data that might not come up in other sections of this report.

Notes: A list of reference documents is provided at the end of this report.

LSPS INTRODUCTION

HOW TO READ YOUR RESULTS

The LSPS section uses a range of raw and combined data coded against the Greater Sydney Commission’s requirements. Here is how Place Score identified the results displayed in each page:

DISTRICT PLAN ALIGNMENT RULE 1

Community Priorities Community priority

No community priority

VISION DIRECTIONS

LGA Success Factor

LGA Priorities

Community Ideas for the future

Bullet point considerations

CONTEXT

Top 5 values

DIRECTIONS

Strengths Performing well and highly valued (Dark green)

Compared to CF rank, PX rank (out of 50) is worse by more than 10, e.g performance rank is more than 10 places worse than value rank

RULE 2

Attribute has a score of less than 50/100 OR has been selected by more than 33% of respondents

There are no attribute (as classified by Place Score) that comply with the ‘community priority’ conditions. Note that Place Score only classified an attribute into one direction. For example, attributes that related to walkability could apply to multiple directions, but were only classified once.

DATA USED

Based on your ‘LGA Strengths and Priorities’ page (See executive summary)

Based on the top themes of your combined LGA open-ended answers

Developed by Place Score as examples of actions that can work towards delivering the proposed vision elements

DATA USED

Top 15 Care Factors summarised into five primary values with the triple bottom line of social, economic and environmental.

RULE 1

RULE 2

The attribute is in the top 10 Care Factor Compared to CF rank, PX performance rank (out of 50) is less than 10, e.g performance rank is at most 10 places lower than value rank

RULE 3

Performing well (PX Score for attribute is equal or higher to 70/100)

Performing well but not as valued (Light green)

Priorities Performing poorly and highly valued (Dark orange)

Performing poorly but not as valued (Light orange)

The attribute is not in the top 10 Care Factor PX performance rank is higher than CF rank (over- performing)

The attribute is in the top 10 Care Factor Compared to CF rank, PX performance rank (out of 50) is worse by more than 10, e.g performance rank is more than 10 places lower than value rank.

The attribute is not in the top 10 Care Factor Compared to CF rank, PX performance rank (out of 50) is worse by more than 10, e.g performance rank is more than 10 places lower than value rank

Performing well (PX Score for attribute is equal or higher to 70/100)

N/A

Attribute has a score of less than 50/100 OR has been selected by more than 33% of respondents

www.placescore.org

DISTRICT PLAN ALIGNMENT

DISTRICT PLAN DIRECTIONS

Productivity

A city of great places

A well-connected city

Jobs and skills for the city

A city in its landscape

Sustainability

An efficient city

A resilient city

COMMUNITY PRIORITIES

- Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

- Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

- Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

- Protection of the natural environment

- Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

- Sustainable urban design (water sensitive design, transport-oriented design, sustainable building design, density etc.)

- Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)

Notes:

Priorities are determined by aggregating the Neighbourhood Care Factor and PX Assessment results; high Care Factor ranking + low PX Assessment rating = Community Priority. There are no attributes associated with Infrastructure and Collaboration as defined in the District Plan. ‘No community priority’ means that your community did not identify a Place Score attribute as being a priority within that direction.

Community

city for people - No community priority Housing the city - No community priority

Liveability A

LSPS VISION DIRECTIONS

A VISION FOR INNER WEST NEIGHBOURHOODS

LGA SUCCESS FACTORS: LGA PRIORITIES FOR LIVEABILITY: COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE:

What is valued by the community now and positively impacting liveability:

Neighbourhood centres that are close to residential areas and provide a choice of amenity and local business to service day to day needs; both contributing to a sense of safety for all

What is valued by the community now and negatively impacting liveability:

The key themes summarised from the open ended questions:

Great green spaces (that are well maintained) and a better walking and cycling network to connect places and increase opportunities for social connections

“The diversity of small local businesses are amazing! I’d love it if a bookshop was added to the mix, or a movie theatre!“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

• Protect fine grain retailers by limiting amalgamation opportunities in traditional main street environments

• Ensure densifying residential areas are supported by retail clusters that are connected by safe and comfortable walking paths

“Quality public space free from traffic noise, pollution. Clean, modern space, clean streets, easily walkable.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

• Consider materials that look clean (not grey) and are easy to maintain over time

• Improvements around the quality and maintenance of footpaths should be considered - keep the needs of a wheelchair or pram user in mind

• Ensure that night-time activities are provided within walking distance of homes, but manage noise and visitor movement

“More street tree shade, more trees in parks, a greater sense of safety cycling on the road, more neighbourly small events in parks.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD.

• Access to well maintained open space and the natural environment is highly valued

• Ensuring there are safe spaces for community gatherings, activities and connections is important

• Retail and leisure, local businesses and commercial occupancy are also a concern

Notes:

The condition and quality of public spaces and natural elements, active and public modes of transportation and the night-time economy could all be improved

LSPS CONTEXT

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES

Your community’s most important neighbourhood attributes have been summarised into five primary Values most closely associated with the triple bottom line of social, economic and environmental as noted in the LSPS Guidelines.

ENVIRONMENT

THE QUALITY, CARE AND OVERALL LOOK OF THE PUBLIC REALM ARE IMPORTANT TO THIS COMMUNITY

WHAT WE CARE ABOUT:

• ‘General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)’ (70%)

• ‘Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)’ (47%)

• ‘Overall visual character of the neighbourhood’ (39%)

SOCIAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT/ECONOMIC

THE COMMUNITY CARES ABOUT MAINTAINING AND BUILDING A VIBRANT LOCAL ECONOMY

WHAT WE CARE ABOUT:

• ‘Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)’ (55%)

• ‘Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)’ (52%)

• ‘Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)’ (48%)

• ‘Locally owned and operated businesses’ (38%)

WHO THINKS DIFFERENTLY:

• Only 44% of young people (aged 24 and under) care about ‘General condition of public open space’ (compared to LGA 70%)

• Only 39% of residents aged 2534 care about ‘Quality of public space’ (compared to LGA 47%)

WHO THINKS DIFFERENTLY:

• Retirees (aged 65+) care more about ‘Access to neighbourhood amenities’ (68% compared to LGA 55%)

• Young people (aged 24 and under) care more about ‘Things to do in the evening’ (69% compared to LGA 48%)

www.placescore.org

Notes:

LSPS context is based on your LGA’s top 15 Care Factors.

THIS COMMUNITY VALUES WALKING, CYCLING AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPTIONS THAT OFFER GREAT CONNECTIVITY

WHAT WE CARE ABOUT:

• ‘Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport’ (50%)

• ‘Walking/jogging/bike paths hat connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.) (46%)

• ‘Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)’ (44%)

WHO THINKS DIFFERENTLY:

• Only 36% of retirees (aged 65+) care about ‘Connectivity’ (compared to LGA 44%)

THE COMMUNITY VALUES THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, LANDSCAPES AND THEIR PROTECTION

#3 #5

PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE SAFETY ARE VALUED

WHAT WE CARE ABOUT:

• ‘Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)’ (49%)

• ‘Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)’ (45%)

• ‘Protection of the natural environment’ (44%)

WHAT WE CARE ABOUT:

• ‘Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)’ (45%)

• ‘Sense of neighbourhood safety (from crime, traffic, pollution etc.)’ (42%)

WHO THINKS DIFFERENTLY:

• Young people (aged 24 and under) care more about ‘Protection of the natural environment’ (60% compared to LGA 44%)

• Young people (aged 24 and under) care more about ‘Landscaping and natural elements’ (50% compared to LGA 45%)

1 #2 #4

LSPS LIVEABILITY DIRECTIONS

LIVEABILITY IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOODS IS ALL ABOUT FEELING SAFE, CONNECTED TO A COMMUNITY, AND QUALITY AND CARE OF PUBLIC SPACES1

LIVEABILITY STRENGTHS - RETAIN AND PROTECT

Your community considers the following Liveability related attributes, to be performing most strongly across the whole LGA:

Sense of personal safety (for all ages, genders, day or night)

There are people like me (age, gender, interests, ethnic backgrounds etc.)

LIVEABILITY PRIORITIES - THINGS TO IMPROVE

Range of housing types and sizes (houses, terraces, flats; number of bedrooms etc.)

According to your community, these Liveability related attributes are priorities for future investment:

Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

Evidence of Council/government management (signage, street cleaners etc.)

LIVEABILITY RELATED COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE:

MORE AND/OR BETTER CARE AND MAINTENANCE

MORE AND/OR BETTER OPEN SPACES AND/OR FURNITURE

MORE AND/OR BETTER COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND ENGAGEMENT

Spaces for group or community activities and/or gatherings (sports, picnics, performances etc.)

Performing well and highly valued Performing well but not as valued Performing poorly and highly valued Performing poorly but not as valued

Sense of character or identity that is different from other neighbourhoods

IMPROVE SENSE OF SAFETY AND/OR PHYSICAL SAFETY

MORE AND/OR BETTER PLAY AND SPORTS FACILITIES

153 answers (7.4%) across the LGA “Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit“

371 answers (17.9%) across the LGA

232 answers (11.2%) across the LGA

225 answers (10.9%) across the LGA

214 answers (10.3%) across the LGA

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“More focus on teaching people about recycling and not dumping waste and rubbish on the street would improve the area .“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

Notes:

www.placescore.org

“Improved maintenance of all open spaces to make them appealing for use. Evidence that areas are being maintained.“

MALE, 55-64 YEARS OLD

“ More organised activities in the local parks to get young and old out together - to build community.“

MALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

“Crack down on people dumping rubbish and illegal parking. Improve our open spaces and improved safety for residents.“

MALE, 65-74 YEARS OLD

“By increasing the amount of active spaces in parks in Ashfield, by installing things like basketball courts, or bike track for kids.“

FEMALE, 15-24 YEARS OLD

’Liveability’ in this section of the report refers to a category set by the Greater Sydney Commission’s District Plan and not to ‘liveability’ as rated by PX assessment data. Only attributes and ideas relating to liveability are displayed. Ideas for change are the top 5 most common theme raised by your community.

LEGEND

LSPS PRODUCTIVITY DIRECTIONS

PRODUCTIVITY IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOODS IS ALL ABOUT LOCAL BUSINESSES AND THE POTENTIAL FOR MORE NIGHT LIFE

PRODUCTIVITY STRENGTHS - RETAIN AND PROTECT

Your community considers the following Productivity related attributes, to be performing most strongly across the whole LGA:

PRODUCTIVITY PRIORITIES - THINGS TO IMPROVE

According to your community, these Productivity related attributes are priorities for future investment:

PRODUCTIVITY RELATED COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE:

MORE AND/OR BETTER RETAIL AND LEISURE OPTIONS

“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit“

238 answers (11.5%) across the LGA

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“A ferry service to Annandale - and more cafes and also good and interesting restaurants (more than just pizza joints).“

MALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“More local businesses with diversity of product.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

INCREASE NIGHT-TIME AND WEEKEND ECONOMY

72 answers (3.5%) across the LGA

“More night time activities. South King St is empty at night. Most food is from cafes which shut at like 3pm.“ FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT AND/ OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

OCCUPANCY

54 answers (2.6%) across the LGA

“ Investment into filling empty shops in Rozelle to encourage local small businesses, social enterprises and community groups [...].“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

MORE AND/OR BETTER TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT

1 answers (0.05%) across the LGA

“More greenery / trees. As many as possible. More local traffic only zones to force tourists to arrive by public transport.“

MALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

Notes:

Only attributes and ideas relating to productivity are displayed. Ideas for change are the top 5 most common theme raised by your community. Upon Inner West Council request, Place Score has created a ‘Transport and Accessibility Directions’ page. Meaning that community priorities regarding transport, under ‘Productivity’ in the Region and District plans have been reallocated to the ‘Transport and Accessibility Directions’ page. Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.) Locally owned and operated businesses Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.) Performing well and highly valued Performing well but not

valued Performing poorly

highly valued Performing poorly but

valued LEGEND MORE AND/OR BETTER LOCAL BUSINESSES 126 answers (6.1%) across the LGA

and

not as

LSPS SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTIONS

SUSTAINABILITY IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOODS IS ALL ABOUT RESILIENCE, CONNECTION, THE INCORPORATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND CARE OF OPEN SPACE

SUSTAINABILITY STRENGTHS - RETAIN AND PROTECT

Your community considers the following Sustainability related attributes, to be performing most strongly across the whole LGA:

Neighbourhood spirit/resilience (from external impacts, storms, economic downturns etc.)

SUSTAINABILITY

Sense of connection to/feeling support from neighbours or community

PRIORITIES - THINGS TO IMPROVE

According to your community, these Sustainability related attributes are priorities for future investment:

General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Elements of natural environment (natural features, views, vegetation, topography, water, wildlife etc.)

SUSTAINABILITY RELATED COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE:

MORE AND/OR BETTER PARKS AND GREENERY

MORE AND/OR BETTER SUSTAINABLE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOURS

Landscaping and natural elements (street trees, planting, water features etc.)

Protection of the natural environment

Performing well and highly valued Performing well but not as valued Performing poorly and highly valued Performing poorly but not as valued

Sustainable behaviours in the community (water management, solar panels, recycling etc.)

CELEBRATE AND/OR PROTECT THE FAUNA AND FLORA

CELEBRATE AND/OR PROTECT THE TOPOGRAPHY AND LANDSCAPE

IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE GREEN SPACES

9 answers (0.4%) across the LGA “Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit“

653 answers (31.6%) across the LGA

215 answers (10.4%) across the LGA

58 answers (2.8%) across the LGA

30 answers (1.5%) across the LGA

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“Better maintained natural environment and parks - we are doing well but much more from Council is needed.“

MALE, 65-74 YEARS OLD

Notes:

“I would love to see the neighbourhood really focusing on sustainability from many angles: waste management, solar, public transport, urban gardens [...].“ FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“Create a native bird sanctuary to attract native wildlife back to the area, create a more sustainable community and recognize we don’t just consume MALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“ Work to clean the Cooks River.“ MALE, 55-64 YEARS OLD

“Retain and extend green space and tree plantings to keep heat down. Less concrete. New developments should have areas of green space [...]. “ FEMALE, 65-74 YEARS OLD

www.placescore.org

LEGEND

LSPS TRANSPORT AND ACCESSIBILITY DIRECTIONS

TRANSPORT AND ACCESSIBILITY IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOODS IS ALL ABOUT ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY TO AMENITIES AND OTHER PLACES VIA ACTIVE AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT

SUSTAINABILITY STRENGTHS - RETAIN AND PROTECT

Your community considers the following Sustainability related attributes, to be performing most strongly across the whole LGA:

TRANSPORT AND ACCESSIBILTIY PRIORITIES

-

THINGS TO IMPROVE

According to your community, these Sustainability related attributes are priorities for future investment:

public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

IMPROVE ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit“

484 answers (23.4%) across the LGA

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“Improve footpaths. Both by replacing uneven surfaces and pruning or replacing trees that reduce access along the path.“

MALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

IMPROVE PRIVATE VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE

245 answers (11.8%) across the LGA

IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

160 answers (7.7%) across the LGA

REDUCE PRIVATE VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE

131 answers (6.3%) across the LGA

Performing well and highly valued

Performing well but not as valued

Performing poorly and highly valued

Performing poorly but not as valued

“All developments should be sympathetic to area, and MUST include sufficient parking.“

MALE, 55-64 YEARS OLD

Notes:

“I hope you can keep streets nice and clean, and in stall more streetlights so that we can return home safe even at late hours.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“ Less cars - or maybe just slower cars in a culture in which walking is expected and protected.”

FEMALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY 000

56 answers (2.7%) across the LGA

“No Westconnex! Better access to public transport. Make St Peters station accessible to people in wheelchairs or with prams.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

www.placescore.org

Only your top 5 strengths and top 5 priorities are displayed. Only attributes and ideas relating to sustainability are displayed. Ideas for change are the top 5 most common theme raised by your community.Upon Inner West Council request, Place Score has created a ‘Transport and Accessibility Directions’ page , meaning that community priorities regarding transport, under ‘Productivity’ in the Region and District plans have been reallocated to the ‘Transport and Accessibility Directions’ page.

to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.) Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.) Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or

TRANSPORT AND ACCESSIBILITY RELATED COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE:

Access

LEGEND

COMMUNITY IDEAS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE

ANTI DEVELOPMENT SENTIMENT IS STRONGER IN SYDENHAM-TEMPE-ST PETERS, MARRICKVILLE, DULWICH HILL, SUMMER HILL AND LEICHHARDT

Overall percentage of ‘development and change’ related answers

REDUCE

136 people (6.6%) across the LGA

“No more overdevelopment, more public facilities, rejuvenate the tree canopy.“

MALE, 55-64 YEARS OLD

“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“Maintain the charm and character of Marrickville. That is what makes Marrickville special. No more High Rises [...] Keep the heritage of Marrickville intact. “

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“Affordable housing for a range of wants and needs. Might not be popular but more apartments supported by local infrastructure is needed.“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“I’d ensure that all council funding, projects and regard was equal with all areas of the amalgamated council.“

MALE, 55-64 YEARS OLD

INCREASE DEVELOPMENT

“More green spaces and less high rise unit blocks and over development.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“Get rid of Westconnex and return the suburb to the people.“

FEMALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

“I think the Inner West Council needs to reduce their heritage regulations for DAs and allow more apartments and greater density of housing.“

FEMALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

“I wish the council would do more to support residents affected by the construction of Westconnex and the new m5.“

MALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

23 people (1.1%) across the LGA

www.placescore.org

Notes: Community ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses.‘Other’ refers to respondents who completed the survey but did not reside in one of the surveyed neighbourhood. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed. Place Score asked survey respondents ‘What is your small or big idea to make your neighbourhood a better place?’ and ‘What’s missing in your neighbourhood that would make it a better place to live?’ n=2070

AND/OR

INFRASTRUCTURE

POPULATION GROWTH AND CHANGE (1.74%) 36 people (1.7%) across the LGA

BETTER

TO MANAGE

DEV ELOPMENT

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

LEGEND

PLANNING TOOL BOX

THIS SECTION PROVIDES COMMUNITY INSIGHTS SUMMARISED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING THEMES:

- ECONOMY AND CENTRES

- FACILITIES

- MOVEMENT

- PUBLIC SPACES

- RESIDENTIAL AND BUILT FORM

- SUSTAINABILITY

PLANNING TOOL BOX

THE PLANNING TOOL BOX SECTION ALIGNS YOUR DATA AROUND THE FOLLOWING LAND-USE AND TRANSPORT PLANNING THEMES:

- ECONOMY AND CENTRES

- FACILITIES

- MOVEMENT

- PUBLIC SPACES

- RESIDENTIAL AND BUILT FORM

- SUSTAINABILITY

FOR EACH THEME THE TOOL BOX PROVIDES YOU WITH:

LGA-WIDE DIRECTIONS

Key findings related to one planning theme across your LGA - trends across neighbourhoods and overall priorities.

A HEAT MAP

Spatial representation of the neighbourhood requiring intervention related to a specific planning theme and a summary of the priorities for each neighbourhood.

PRIORITIES, STRENGTHS AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS

Priorities according to your community, what people consider to be their neighbourhood’s strengths, and potential obstacles or reactions to change.

COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE

Your community’s ideas for change have been recoded to focus solely on themes related to the elaboration of an planning theme - providing you with data that might not come up in other sections of this report.

Multiple High Priorities

Public Spaces Priority

No High Priority

Data not collected for these areas

The map above illustrates neighbourhoods that have more than one ‘high priority’ within a theme. Consult each theme, e.g. facilities’ , to see a full breakdown of the priorities for each area.

LEGEND

PLANNING TOOL BOX

HOW TO READ YOUR RESULTS

The planning tool box highlights what you should retain and protect as well as the level of investment needed to improve different aspects of liveability. The core principle is that you should invest in improving attributes with a high Care Factor ranking and a low PX Score as, once improved, they will have the most significant impact on liveability. This table identifies how to read the different level of priority presented in the following pages:

Protect These attributes currently contribute the most to the liveability of your neighbourhoods. These attributes have a high Care Factor Ranking (valued by the most people in your community) and have a high PX Score (performing well)

INVESTMENT PRIORITY

High Investing in these attributes will contribute the most to improve the liveability of your neighbourhoods. These attributes have a high Care Factor Ranking (valued by the most people in your community) and have low PX Score (NOT performing well)

Medium Investing in these attributes will contribute to improve the liveability of your neighbourhoods. These attributes are generally in the top half of the Care Factor rankings and have a low PX Score (NOT performing well)

Low Investing in these attributes will slightly contribute to improve the liveability of your neighbourhoods. These attributes are generally in the bottom half of the Care Factor Ranking (selected by the least number of people in your community) and have a low PX Score (NOT performing well)

No No additional investment is needed for these attributes as they are currently over-performing. These attributes have a low Care Factor Ranking (selected by the least number people in your community) and have a high PX Score (performing well)

Rank 1-15 <70

Rank 16-30 <70

Rank 31-50 <70

Rank 16-50 ≥70

CF RANK /50 PX SCORE /100

RETAIN AND PROTECT

1-15 ≥70

Rank

CF RANK /50 PX SCORE /100

PLANNING TOOL BOX: ECONOMY & CENTRES

1- LGA ECONOMY & CENTRES DIRECTIONS

2- ECONOMY & CENTRES HEAT MAP

3- NEIGHBOURHOOD ECONOMY & CENTRES

PRIORITIES

4- ECONOMY & CENTRES COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE

PLANNING TOOL BOX: ECONOMY & CENTRES

ECONOMY AND CENTRES DIRECTIONS:

THE LOCAL ECONOMY AND CENTRES ARE CONTRIBUTING POSITIVELY TO THE LIVEABILITY OF MOST NEIGHBOURHOODS - ALTHOUGH THE NIGHT TIME ECONOMY COULD BE IMPROVED IN SOME AREAS

However, the communities of both Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters and Lewisham-Petersham would value improvements in their centres.

NEIGHBOURHOOD AMENITIES

AND ‘EVERYDAY’ BUSINESSES ARE CONTRIBUTING POSITIVELY TO LIVEABILITY AND SHOULD BE PROTECTED

- ‘Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.) ’ is contributing highly to liveability in every neighbourhood but Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters.

- Investing in neighbourhood amenities in Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters would highly improve the neighbourhood’s liveability.

WHAT DO WE ALL CARE ABOUT?

There are five economy and centres attributes out of which four are in your top 30 Care Factors:

• # 2/50 Access to neighbourhood amenities

• # 3/50 Local businesses that provide for daily needs

• # 6/50 Things to do in the evening

• #15/50 Locally owned and operated businesses.

- Investing in ‘Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)’ is a high priority in Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters and Lewisham-Petersham.

YOUR BEST PERFORMING ATTRIBUTE:

82/100

Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)’

INVESTMENTS IN THINGS TO DO IN THE EVENING WOULD CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO LIVEABILITY IN MULTIPLE NEIGHBOURHOODS

- ‘Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)’ is a high investment priority in Annandale, Dulwich Hill, Lewisham-Petersham and Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters.

- It is also medium investment priority in Ashfield and Surrounds and Haberfield.

- It is contributing highly to liveability (and should be protected) in Balmain and Surrounds, Leichhard, Marrickville, Newtown-Enmore, Rozelle-Lilyfield, Stanmore-Camperdown and Summer Hill.

THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT REGARDING:

68/100

‘ Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)’

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ARE A LOW PRIORITY FOR YOUR COMMUNITY

- ‘Local employment opportunities (within easy commute) ’ is performing poorly (62/100) but has a low Care Factor rank of # 47/50.

- Improving local employment is a low investment priority in most of your LGA.

- No additional investments in local employment opportunities are needed in Newtown-Enmore.

YOUR WORST PERFORMING ATTRIBUTE:

62/100

‘ Local employment opportunities (within easy commute)’

www.placescore.org

Notes: Figures and trends highlighted in this page but not present in the following pages of your Planning tool box were selected by Place Score based on notable differences between demographics and neighbourhood.

PLANNING TOOL BOX: ECONOMY & CENTRES

HOW DO WE DO GOOD BUSINESS?

There are five economy and centres related attributes - this map illustrates the average priority level of economy attributes for each of your neighbourhoods:

COMMUNITY PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENT

This table illustrates the priority level of each economy and centres related attribute for each of your neighbourhoods:

Notes:

Retain and protect (This theme/attribute is a significant contributor to current liveability)

No priority - Not a priority (This theme/attribute is over-performing compared to community values)

Low priority (Investment in this theme/attribute should be considered but will not greatly improve liveability)

Medium priority (Investment in this theme/attribute should be considered to improve local liveability)

High priority (Investment in this theme/attribute will contribute the most to improve liveability)

Retain and protect (One or more protect attribute and no medium or high

and one or less medium priority), Medium (One high or more than one medium priority),

(No high or protect

(More than one high priority). For more information about this table please click here Map tiles by Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. *Below 95% confidence level.

www.placescore.org

on map represent how a theme is performing in

attributes

Colours

each location based on:

priority),

(all

for the location are a no), Low priority

priority

High

Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.) Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.) Local employment opportunities (within easy commute) Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.) Locally owned and operated businesses Overall Protect High Low Protect No Annandale Protect High Low Protect No Ashfield and Surrounds Protect Medium Low Protect No Balmain and Surrounds Protect Protect Low Protect Protect Dulwich Hill Protect High Low Protect Protect Haberfield* Protect Medium Low Protect Protect Leichhardt Protect Protect Low Protect Protect Lewisham-Petersham High High Low Protect Medium Marrickville Protect Protect Low Protect No Newtown-Enmore Protect Protect No Protect No Rozelle-Lilyfield Protect Protect Low Protect No StanmoreCamperdown* Protect Protect Low Protect Protect Summer Hill Protect Protect Low Protect Protect Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters High High Low High Medium

LEGEND

PLANNING TOOL BOX: ECONOMY & CENTRES

PRIORITIES, STRENGTHS AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS (1/2)

Here are the priorities for change according to your community, what you should preserve as well as any community concerns you might encounter when dealing with economy and centres.

Neighbourhood Community Priorities1

Overall - Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Community Perceived Strength2

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

Community Concerns3

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better retail and leisure

Annandale - Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Ashfield and Surrounds

Balmain and Surrounds

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better retail and leisure

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better retail and leisure as well as more and/or better local businesses

Dulwich Hill - Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better retail and leisure as well as more and/or better local businesses

Haberfield* - Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

Leichhardt - Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

LewishamPetersham

www.placescore.org

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better retail and leisure

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better retail and leisure as well as more and/or better local businesses

Notes:

1Community priorities are attributes that are a high or medium investment priority. 2Community perceived strengths are attributes that you should either protect or not invest in as they are currently over-performing. 3Community concerns are based on your community Ideas for change. Only themes that were mentioned by more than 10% of respondents are considered. *Below 95% confidence level.

PLANNING TOOL BOX: ECONOMY & CENTRES

PRIORITIES, STRENGTHS AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS (2/2)

Neighbourhood Community Priorities1

Overall - Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

Marrickville

NewtownEnmore

Rozelle-Lilyfield

StanmoreCamperdown*

Summer Hill

SydenhamTempe-St Peters

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

Community Perceived Strength2

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Local employment opportunities (within easy commute)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

- Local businesses that provide for daily needs (grocery stores, pharmacy, banks etc.)

- Things to do in the evening (bars, dining, cinema, live music etc.)

- Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)

- Locally owned and operated businesses

Community Concerns3

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better retail and leisure

www.placescore.org

Notes:

Here are the priorities for change according to your community, what you should preserve as well as any community concerns you might encounter when dealing with economy and centres.

PLANNING TOOL BOX: ECONOMY & CENTRES

LEGEND

Overall percentage of displayed ‘economy and centres’ related answers

1 #2 #3 #4

MORE AND/OR BETTER RETAIL AND LEISURE OPTIONS

237 answers (11.5%) across the LGA

“More grocery store options. More retail/ hospitality and less tool shops [...].“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“We need more commercial activity: cafes, pubs and shops.“

MALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“I would love some more local shops such as a bakery and a butcher and fruit market. It would help local employment and businesses“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“[...] Encouraging local diverse businesses is key to keeping people shopping locally.“

MALE, 65-74 YEARS OLD

“[...] more activities later at night that means more people’s eyes on the street and a better sense of nighttime safety.“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“I would appreciate a stronger nightlife. This could be promoted through better lighting at night, more al fresco spaces and improvements to local pubs.“

MALE, 15-24 YEARS OLD

“More local business for employment and livelihood of the neighbourhood.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“There are several empty shops on Darling Street - we need to encourage new and diverse businesses to the area“

FEMALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

=#5

MORE AND/OR BETTER TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT

1 answers (0.05%) across the LGA

=#5

REDUCE NIGHT-TIME ECONOMY

1 answers (0.05%) across the LGA

% l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Annandale Ashfield and Surrounds Balmain and Surrounds Dulwich Hill Haberfield Leichhardt Lewisham−Petersham Marrickville Newtown−Enmore Rozelle−Lilyfield Stanmore−Camperdown Summer Hill Sydenham−Tempe− St Peters Other MORE AND/OR BETTER LOCAL BUSINESSES 126 answers (6.1%) across the LGA INCREASE NIGHT-TIME AND WEEKEND ECONOMY 72 answers (3.5%) across the LGA IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT AND/

OCCUPANCY 54 answers (2.6%) across the LGA

BETTER RETAIL AND LEISURE OPTIONS ARE DESIRED IN MOST NEIGHBOURHOODS, WHILE LOCAL BUSINESSES ARE THE MOST IN DEMAND IN BALMAIN AND SURROUNDS, DULWICH HILL AND LEWISHAM-PETERSHAM

OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

PLANNING TOOL BOX: FACILITIES

1- LGA FACILITIES DIRECTIONS

2- FACILITIES HEAT MAP

3- NEIGHBOURHOOD FACILITIES PRIORITIES

4- FACILITIES COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE

PLANNING TOOL BOX: FACILITIES

FACILITIES DIRECTIONS:

OVERALL, IMPROVING FACILITIES IS A LOW PRIORITY FOR YOUR COMMUNITY

However, the communities of Ashfield and Surrounds, Haberfield, Lewisham-Petersham and Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters would value improvements regarding the accessibility of shared community and commercial assets.

Additional places to play would be appreciated in Summer Hill and Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters.

SHARED COMMUNITY AND COMMERCIAL ASSET ACCESSIBILITY IS PERFORMING WELL IN MOST OF THE SURVEYED NEIGHBOURHOODS

- ‘Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)’ is overperforming in Annadale, Balmain and Surrounds, Dulwhich Hill, Lechhardt, Marrickville, Newtown-Enmore, Rozelle-Lilyfield and StanmoreCamperdown.

- It is a high investment priority in Ashfield and Surrounds.

- You should also consider investing in shared community and commercial assets in Haberfield, LewishamPetersham and Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters.

WHAT DO WE ALL CARE ABOUT?

There are five facilities attributes out of which one is in your top 30 Care Factors:

• # 28/50 Access to shared community and commercial assets.

INVESTMENTS IN SPACES TO PLAY IS MOST NEEDED IN SUMMER HILL AND SYDENHAMTEMPE-ST PETERS

- ‘ Spaces suitable for play (from toddlers to teens) ’ is a medium investment priority in Summer Hill and Sydenham-TempeSt Peter.

- It is a low investment priority for most other neighbourhood, with the exception of Annandale, Haberfield and Stanmore-Camperdown where no additional investments are needed.

- It is performing the poorest in Ashfield and Surrounds with a score of 59/100.

FAMILY, COMMUNITY, CHILD AND EDUCATION FACILITIES ARE A LOW INVESTMENT PRIORITY DUE TO LOW CARE FACTOR RANKINGS

- ‘Family and community services (aged, disability and home care, protection and support services etc.) ’ is performing poorly (59/100) but has a low Care Factor rank of # 43/50.

- ‘Child services (child care, early learning, after school care, medical etc.) ’ is performing poorly (61/100) but has a low Care Factor rank of # 49/50.

- ‘Local education options (from elementary to adult education) ’ is performing poorly (66/100) but has a low Care Factor rank of # 41/50.

73/100

YOUR BEST PERFORMING ATTRIBUTE: Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)’’

THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT REGARDING:

67/100

‘ Spaces suitable for play (from toddlers to teens)’

YOUR WORST PERFORMING ATTRIBUTE:

59/100

‘Access to neighbourhood amenities (cafes, shops, health and wellness services etc.)’

www.placescore.org

PLANNING TOOL BOX: FACILITIES

CONNECT, DEVELOP AND KEEP HEALTHY

There are five facilities related attributes - this map illustrates the average priority level of facilities for each of your neighbourhoods:

COMMUNITY PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENT

This table illustrates the priority level of each facilities related attribute for each of your neighbourhoods:

www.placescore.org

LEGEND

Retain and protect (This theme/attribute is a significant contributor to current liveability)

No priority - Not a priority (This theme/attribute is over-performing compared to community values)

Low priority (Investment in this theme/attribute should be considered but will not greatly improve liveability)

Medium priority (Investment in this theme/attribute should be considered to improve local liveability)

High priority (Investment in this theme/attribute will contribute the most to improve liveability)

Colours on map represent how a theme is performing in each location based on: Retain and protect (One or more protect attribute and no medium or high priority), No (all attributes for the location are a no), Low priority (No high or protect priority and one or less medium priority), Medium (One high or more than one medium priority), High (More than one high priority). For more information about this table please click here Map tiles by Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. *Below 95% confidence level.

Family and community services (aged, disability and home care, protection and support services etc.) Child services (child care, early learning, after school care, medical etc.) Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/ gyms etc.) Spaces suitable for play (from toddlers to teens) Local education options (from elementary to adult education) Overall Low Low No Low Low Annandale Low Low No No No Ashfield and Surrounds Low Low High Low Low Balmain and Surrounds Low Low No Low Low Dulwich Hill Low Low No Low Low Haberfield* Low Low Medium No Low Leichhardt Low Low No Low No Lewisham-Petersham Low Low Medium Low Low Marrickville Low Low No Low Low Newtown-Enmore Low Low No Low No Rozelle-Lilyfield Low Low No Low Low StanmoreCamperdown* Low Low No No No Summer Hill Low Low Low Medium Low Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters Low Low Medium Medium Low

Notes:

PLANNING TOOL BOX: FACILITIES

PRIORITIES, STRENGTHS AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS (1/2)

Here are the priorities for change according to your community, what you should preserve as well as any community concerns you might encounter when dealing with facilities.

Neighbourhood Community Priorities1

LGA_average

Community Perceived Strength2

- Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)

Annandale - Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)

- Spaces suitable for play (from toddlers to teens)

- Local education options (from elementary to adult education)

Ashfield and Surrounds

Balmain and Surrounds

Dulwich Hill

- Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)

Community Concerns3

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better sports and play facilities

Haberfield* - Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)

- Spaces suitable for play (from toddlers to teens)

Leichhardt - Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)

- Local education options (from elementary to adult education)

LewishamPetersham

- Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)

Notes: ™

www.placescore.org

PLANNING TOOL BOX: FACILITIES

PRIORITIES, STRENGTHS AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS (2/2)

Here are the priorities for change according to your community, what you should preserve as well as any community concerns you might encounter when dealing with facilities.

Neighbourhood Community Priorities1

LGA_average

Marrickville

NewtownEnmore

Rozelle-Lilyfield

StanmoreCamperdown*

Summer Hill - Spaces suitable for play (from toddlers to teens)

SydenhamTempe-St Peters

- Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)

- Spaces suitable for play (from toddlers to teens)

Community Perceived Strength2

- Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)

- Local education options (from elementary to adult education)

- Access to shared community and commercial assets (library, bike/car share, sport facilities/gyms etc.)

- Spaces suitable for play (from toddlers to teens)

- Local education options (from elementary to adult education)

Community Concerns3

Notes: ™

www.placescore.org

PLANNING TOOL BOX: FACILITIES

SPORTS AND PLAY INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE MOST COMMON THEME, WHILE ANNANDALE, ASHFIELD AND SURROUNDS, ROZELLE-LILYFIELD AND SUMMER HILL HAVE THE HIGHEST

LEGEND

Overall percentage of ‘facilities’ related answers

#1 #2 #3 #4

MORE AND/OR BETTER PLAY AND SPORTS FACILITIES

153 answers (7.4%) across the LGA

across the LGA

MORE AND/OR BETTER EDUCATION AND CHILDCARE FACILITIES

75 answers (3.6%) across the LGA

MORE AND/OR BETTER COMMUNITY FACILITIES

47 answers (2.3%) across the LGA

MORE AND/OR BETTER HEALTH RELATED FACILITIES

24 answers (1.2%) across the LGA

“Provide more sports facilities; such as more PCYC’s or places where people can play basketball, soccer etc. [...].“

MALE, 15-24 YEARS OLD

“Please provide more indoor sports facilities and more affordable housing prices for university students. [...] .“

FEMALE, 15-24 YEARS OLD

“I would like preservation of the artistic community in this area. I would like to see more galleries and affordable artists studios.“

FEMALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

“[...] support the disadvantaged protect heritage encourage artists and creatives.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“I would like to have more incentive to public preschool education. In particular, Globe Wilkins, which is a center of excellence.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“A good childcare that is open within walking distance to my house that has a space available.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“A place for the homeless to go and be cared for their needs.“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“Sufficient open space, shared community facilities and parking [...].“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“Less density, reduced airport noise and an increase in education and health facilities [...].“

MALE, 65-74 YEARS OLD

“[...] new public schools & hospitals for increased population.[...].“

FEMALE, 65-74 YEARS OLD

Notes:

ideas have been classified under more than one theme when applicable. Percentages noted are for the overall total number of responses. Themes are in order from left to right based on recurrence amongst the overall responses. Percentages are rounded to the first digit, which may lead to minor differences when summed.

Community

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Annandale Ashfield and Surrounds Balmain and Surrounds Dulwich Hill Haberfield Leichhardt Lewisham−Petersham Marrickville Newtown−Enmore Rozelle−Lilyfield Stanmore−Camperdown Summer Hill Sydenham−Tempe− St Peters Other MORE AND/OR BETTER ARTS AND CULTURE FACILITIES 89 answers (4.3%)

PERCENTAGES OF IDEAS RELATED TO FACILITIES

PLANNING TOOL BOX: MOVEMENT

1- LGA MOVEMENT DIRECTIONS

2- MOVEMENT HEAT MAP

3- NEIGHBOURHOOD MOVEMENT PRIORITIES

4- MOVEMENT COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE

PLANNING TOOL BOX: MOVEMENT

MOVEMENT DIRECTIONS:

YOUR NEIGHBOURHOODS ARE WELL CONNECTED TO DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT CENTRES. HOWEVER, IMPROVING ACTIVE AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT WOULD HIGHLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE LIVEABILITY OF MANY NEIGHBOURHOODS

Note that improving the ease of driving and parking is a low priority across your LGA.

THE PROXIMITY AND EASE OF ACCESS OF OTHER NEIGHBOURHOODS, SHOPS OR EMPLOYMENT CENTRES IS CONTRIBUTING POSITIVELY TO LIVEABILITY AND SHOULD BE PROTECTED

- ‘Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.) ’ is contributing highly to liveability in the majority of your neighbourhoods.

- No additional investments are needed in Annandale, Balmain and Surrounds, Haberfield and Marrickville.

- It is best performing in NewtownEnmore, where it was scored 88/100.

WHAT DO WE ALL CARE ABOUT?

There are four movement attributes out of which three are in your top 30 Care Factors:

• # 4/50 Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport

• # 8/50 Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity

• #12/50 Connectivity

EASY AND SAFE ACTIVE AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ARE YOUR HIGHEST INVESTMENT PRIORITY

- Investments in ‘Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)’ will contribute highly to liveability in Ashfield and Surrounds,Haberfield, Leichhardt, Lewisham-Petersham, Newtown-Enmore, StandmoreCamperdown and Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters.

- Investments in ‘Walking/jogging/ bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)’ will highly contribute to liveability in Ashfield and Surrounds, Dullwich Hill, Lewisham-Petersham, NewtownEnmore, Stanmore-Camperdown and Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters.

- Both attributes should be protected in other neighbourhoods.

IMPROVING CAR ACCESSIBILITY AND PARKING IS YOUR COMMUNITY’S LAST MOVEMENT PRIORITY

- ‘Ease of driving and parking ’ is performing poorly 53/100) but has a low Care Factor rank of #38/50.

- Improving the ease of driving is a low investment priority across your LGA.

www.placescore.org

YOUR BEST PERFORMING ATTRIBUTE: Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.) ’

THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT REGARDING:

83/100

68/100

‘Access and safety of walking, cycling and/ or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)’

YOUR WORST PERFORMING ATTRIBUTE:

53/100

‘ Ease of driving and parking

PLANNING TOOL BOX: MOVEMENT

WHERE IS IT HARD TO GET AROUND?

There are four movement related attributes - this map illustrates the average priority level of movement attributes for each of your neighbourhoods:

COMMUNITY PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENT

Notes:

www.placescore.org

This table illustrates the priority level of each movement related attribute for each of your neighbourhoods: Colours on map represent how a theme is performing in each location based on: Retain and protect (One or more protect attribute and no medium or high priority), No (all attributes for the location are a no), Low priority (No high or protect priority and one or less medium priority), Medium (One high or more than one medium priority), High (More than one high priority). For more information about this table please click here Map tiles by Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. *Below 95% confidence level.

Retain and protect (This theme/attribute is a significant contributor to current liveability)

No priority - Not a priority (This theme/attribute is over-performing compared to community values)

Low priority (Investment in this theme/attribute should be considered but will not greatly improve liveability)

Medium priority (Investment in this theme/attribute should be considered to improve local liveability)

High priority (Investment in this theme/attribute will contribute the most to improve liveability)

Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.) Ease of driving and parking Access and safety of walking, cycling and/ or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.) Walking/jogging/ bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.) LGA_average Protect Low High High Annandale No Low Protect Protect Ashfield and Surrounds Protect Low High High Balmain and Surrounds No Low Protect No Dulwich Hill Protect Low Protect High Haberfield* No No High Protect Leichhardt Protect Low High Protect Lewisham-Petersham Protect Low High High Marrickville No Low Protect Protect Newtown-Enmore Protect Low High High Rozelle-Lilyfield Protect Low Protect Protect StanmoreCamperdown* Protect Low High High Summer Hill Protect Low Protect Protect Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters Protect Low High High

LEGEND

PLANNING TOOL BOX: MOVEMENT

PRIORITIES, STRENGTHS AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS (1/2)

Here are the priorities for change according to your community, what you should preserve as well as any community concerns you might encounter when dealing with movement.

Neighbourhood Community Priorities1 Community Perceived Strength2 Community Concerns3

Overall - Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Annandale

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

Ashfield and Surrounds

Balmain and Surrounds

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active transport infrastructure and private vehicle infrastructure

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active transport infrastructure and public transport infrastructure

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active transport infrastructure and private vehicle infrastructure

Dulwich Hill - Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Haberfield* - Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

Leichhardt - Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

LewishamPetersham - Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

- Ease of driving and parking

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active transport infrastructure and private vehicle infrastructure

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active transport infrastructure

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active transport infrastructure and private vehicle infrastructure

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.) - Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active, public and private transport infrastructure

www.placescore.org

Notes:

PLANNING TOOL BOX: MOVEMENT

PRIORITIES, STRENGTHS AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS (2/2)

Here are the priorities for change according to your community, what you should preserve as well as any community concerns you might encounter when dealing with movement.

Neighbourhood Community Priorities1 Community Perceived Strength2 Community Concerns3

Overall - Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

Marrickville

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

NewtownEnmore

Rozelle-Lilyfield

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

StanmoreCamperdown*

Summer Hill

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active transport infrastructure and private vehicle infrastructure

Sydenham-

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.) - Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active transport infrastructure and reducing private vehicle infrastructure / presence

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active, public and private transport infrastructure

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.)

- Access and safety of walking, cycling and/or public transport (signage, paths, lighting etc.)

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity (shops, parks etc.)

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active transport infrastructure and private vehicle infrastructure

- Connectivity (proximity to other neighbourhoods, employment centres, shops etc.) - Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better active transport and private vehicle infrastructure, but is also vocal about wanting less car infrastructure (e.g. Westconnex)

www.placescore.org

Notes:

Tempe-St Peters

PLANNING TOOL BOX: MOVEMENT

LEGEND

Overall percentage of ‘movement’ related answers

IMPROVE ACTIVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

484 answers (23.4%) across the LGA

IMPROVE PRIVATE VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE

244 answers (11.8%) across the LGA

IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

160 answers (7.7%) across the LGA

REDUCE PRIVATE VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE

131 answers (6.3%) across the LGA

IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY

56 answers (2.7%) across the LGA

“I would like my local neighbourhood to be more walkable and have more public transport. Good footpaths, shade and room to walk.“

FEMALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

“Plant more trees and improve the footpaths to make walking around with a young baby more enjoyable.“

FEMALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

Notes:

“Parking permits and timed parking spots for nonresidents , lots of people have more than 1 car and that would help reduce this stain.“

FEMALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

“More free parking, better street lighting.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“I would like my local neighbourhood to be more walkable and have more public transport. Good footpaths, shade and room to walk.“

FEMALE, 45-54 YEARS OLD

“Reduce traffic and associated pollution. Better public transport links.“

FEMALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“Provide better active transport options such as cycling and reduce private car use [...].“

MALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

“Human centric design not car centric. More Dutch Street styles. Less pollution.“

MALE, 35-44 YEARS OLD

“Improve access for disabled people. Most shops on Parramatta Rd in my area cannot be accessed by wheelchair or mobility scooter.“

FEMALE, 65-74 YEARS OLD

“Making this neighborhood more aware of issues facing people with disabilities. This would promote more inclusiveness. Also improving the condition of footpaths for wheelchair users.“ MALE, 25-34 YEARS OLD

www.placescore.org

% l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Overall Annandale Ashfield and Surrounds Balmain and Surrounds Dulwich Hill Haberfield Leichhardt Lewisham−Petersham Marrickville Newtown−Enmore Rozelle−Lilyfield Stanmore−Camperdown Summer Hill Sydenham−Tempe− St Peters Other

#1 #2 #3 #4

COMMON COMMUNITY IDEAS INCLUDE BETTER ACTIVE TRANSPORT (PARTICULARLY IMPROVED FOOTPATHS), SOME PEOPLE ASKED FOR IMPROVED CAR INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT HALF AS MANY ASKED FOR IT TO BE REDUCED.

PLANNING TOOL BOX: PUBLIC SPACES

1- LGA PUBLIC SPACES DIRECTIONS

2- PUBLIC SPACES HEAT MAP

3- NEIGHBOURHOOD PUBLIC SPACES PRIORITIES

4- PUBLIC SPACES COMMUNITY IDEAS FOR CHANGE

PLANNING TOOL BOX: PUBLIC SPACES

PUBLIC SPACES DIRECTIONS:

THE QUALITY AND CONDITION OF PUBLIC SPACES SHOULD BE YOUR TOP PRIORITY - WHILE THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC SPACE AND PHYSICAL COMFORT COULD BE IMPROVED IN SOME NEIGHBOURHOODS

With a few exceptions the amount of places to sit or dedicated to community activities or special interests, is performing well and should not be a priority.

PLACES TO SIT OR DEDICATED TO COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES OR SPECIAL INTERESTS ARE GENERALLY PERFORMING WELL BUT COULD BE IMPROVED IN SOME NEIGHBOURHOODS

- Investments in ‘ Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.) ’ would improve liveability in Ashfield and Surrounds and Summer Hill.

- Investments in ‘ Spaces for group or community activities and/or gatherings (sports, picnics, performances etc.) ’ would improve liveability in Ashfield and Surrounds.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC SPACES IS A HIGH PRIORITY IN MOST NEIGHBOURHOODS

- Investments in the ‘Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)’ will contribute highly to liveability in every neighbourhood but Annandale and Haberfield.

- Investments in the ‘General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)’ will contribute highly to liveability in every neighbourhood but Annandale

- Both attributes are performing well and should be protected in Annandale.

IMPROVING THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC SPACES AND PHYSICAL COMFORT WOULD IMPROVE LIVEABILITY IN SOME AREAS

- Improving the ‘Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) ’ is a high priority in Marrickville and Summer Hill, and a medium priority in Ashfield and Surrounds, Lewisham-Petersham, Newtown-Enmore and SydenhamTempe-St Peters.

- Improving ‘Physical comfort (including noise, smells, temperature etc.) ’ is a medium priority in Ashfield and Surrounds, Rozelle-Lilyfield, Summer Hill and Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters.

WHAT DO WE ALL CARE ABOUT?

There are seven public spaces attributes out of which four are in your top 30 Care Factors:

• #1/50 General condition of public open space

• #7/50 Quality of public space

• #17/50 Amount of public space

• # 20/50 Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests

www.placescore.org

- Investments in ‘Free places to sit comfortably by yourself or in small groups ’ would improve liveability in Haberfield and Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters.

- Overall, physical comfort is performing poorly (62/100) but has a low Care Factor rank of #32/50.

THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT REGARDING:

75/100

YOUR BEST PERFORMING ATTRIBUTE: Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.) ’

63/100

‘ General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) ’

YOUR WORST PERFORMING ATTRIBUTE:

62/100

‘ Physical comfort (including noise, smells, temperature etc.)

PLANNING TOOL BOX: PUBLIC SPACES

WHERE ARE PUBLIC SPACES ENJOYABLE?

There are seven public spaces related attributes - this map illustrates the average priority level of public spaces attributes for each of your neighbourhoods:

COMMUNITY PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENT

This table illustrates the priority level of each public space related attribute for each of your neighbourhoods:

www.placescore.org

Notes:

LEGEND

Retain and protect (This theme/attribute is a significant contributor to current liveability)

No priority - Not a priority (This theme/attribute is over-performing compared to community values)

Low priority (Investment in this theme/attribute should be considered but will not greatly improve liveability)

Medium priority (Investment in this theme/attribute should be considered to improve local liveability)

High priority (Investment in this theme/attribute will contribute the most to improve liveability)

each location based on: Retain and protect (One or more protect attribute and no medium or high priority), No (all attributes for the location are a no), Low priority (No high or protect priority and one or less medium priority), Medium (One high or more than one medium priority), High (More than one high priority). For more information about this table please click here Map tiles by Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. *Below 95% confidence level.

Colours on map represent

how

theme

performing

Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) Physical comfort (including noise, smells, temperature etc.) Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.) Spaces for group or community activities and/or gatherings (sports, picnics, performances etc.) Free places to sit comfortably by yourself or in small groups General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.) Overall No High Low No No No High Annandale Protect Protect No No No No Protect Ashfield and Surrounds Medium High Medium Medium Medium Low High Balmain and Surrounds No High No Protect No No High Dulwich Hill No High No No Low Low High Haberfield* No Protect Low Protect No Medium High Leichhardt No High Low No No No High Lewisham-Petersham Medium High Low Protect No No High Marrickville High High Low No No No High Newtown-Enmore Medium High Low Protect No No High Rozelle-Lilyfield No High Medium No No No High StanmoreCamperdown* Protect High Low No No No High Summer Hill High High Medium Medium Low Low High Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters Medium High Medium No No Medium High

PLANNING TOOL BOX: PUBLIC SPACES

PRIORITIES, STRENGTHS AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS (1/3)

Here are the priorities for change according to your community, what you should preserve as well as any community concerns you might encounter when dealing with the public spaces.

Neighbourhood Community Priorities1 Community Perceived Strength2 Community Concerns3

Overall - Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.) ;

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Annandale

- Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.)

- Spaces for group or community activities and/or gatherings (sports, picnics, performances etc.)

- Free places to sit comfortably by yourself or in small groups

- Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Physical comfort (including noise, smells, temperature etc.)

- Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.)

- Spaces for group or community activities and/or gatherings (sports, picnics, performances etc.)

- Free places to sit comfortably by yourself or in small groups

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Ashfield and Surrounds

- Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Physical comfort (including noise, smells, temperature etc.)

- Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.)

- Spaces for group or community activities and/or gatherings (sports, picnics, performances etc.)

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Balmain and Surrounds

- Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Dulwich Hill - Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Haberfield* - Free places to sit comfortably by yourself or in small groups

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

- Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Physical comfort (including noise, smells, temperature etc.)

- Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.)

- Spaces for group or community activities and/or gatherings (sports, picnics, performances etc.)

- Free places to sit comfortably by yourself or in small groups

- Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Physical comfort (including noise, smells, temperature etc.)

- Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.)

- Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Spaces suitable for specific activities or special interests (entertainment, exercise, dog park, BBQs etc.)

- Spaces for group or community activities and/or gatherings (sports, picnics, performances etc.)

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better care and maintenance, safety, open spaces and community activities and engagement.

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better care and maintenance as well as safety.

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better care and maintenance, safety and community activities and engagement.

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better care and maintenance, and community activities and engagement.

- Note that the community is vocal about wanting more and/or better open spaces and community activities and engagement.

www.placescore.org

Notes:

PLANNING TOOL BOX: PUBLIC SPACES

PRIORITIES, STRENGTHS AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS (2/3)

Here are the priorities for change according to your community, what you should preserve as well as any community concerns you might encounter when dealing with the public spaces.

Neighbourhood Community Priorities1 Community Perceived Strength2 Community Concerns3

Overall - Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Leichhardt - Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

LewishamPetersham

- Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- Quality of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)

- General condition of public open space (street trees, footpaths, parks etc.)

Marrickville - Amount of public space (footpaths, verges, parks etc.)