Hillarys Park Landscape Master Plan —
Proposed Works
Survey Form
As part of irrigation infrastructure upgrades within Hillarys Park, the City of Joondalup is seeking community feedback on the
proposed application of “hydrozoning” in the Park and the installation of new park assets.
This Survey Form can be completed electronically via the Community Consultation section of the City’s website:
joondalup.wa.gov.au
If you have any questions on the proposed irrigation works, or would like to provide additional feedback, please contact
Infrastructure Services Customer Service on 1300 369 972 or email [email protected]
1. How do you currently use Hillarys Park? (please tick as many as applicable)
☐ Organised sport or recreation (e.g. football, soccer etc.)
☐ Informal recreation (e.g. walking, running, dog-walking etc.)
☐ Other (please describe) ________________________________________________________________________________
☐ I do not currently use Hillarys Park
2. The following design features are proposed as part of the works (refer to the draft Concept Plan). Please
indicate your level of support for each. (please tick)
Strongly
support
Support
Unsure
Oppose
Strongly
oppose
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Zone 1 — High watering
(includes grassed playing surface)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Zone 2 — Medium watering
(includes grassed area and trees surrounding the playing surface,
Playgrounds 1 and 2 and the existing toilet/changeroom facility)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Zone 3 — Low watering
(includes grassed area and trees that cover the outer regions of
the Park)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Installation of new pathway to existing Playground 2
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Installation of new picnic shelter and table overlooking existing
Playground 2
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Replacement of ageing irrigation with water-efficient infrastructure
Division of the Park into three separate watering zones, including:
City of Joondalup Boas Avenue Joondalup WA 6027 PO Box 21 Joondalup WA 6919 T: 9400 4000 F: 9300 1383 joondalup.wa.gov.au
LAST UPDATED JANUARY 2013
3. If you do not support any of the above, please tell us why:
4. Do you have any further comments on the proposed works?
5. Your details
Note that for your survey to be valid, your contact details must be provided. This information will be treated as confidential
and will not be published in any document or report on the outcomes of the consultation. Only one survey per household
or club/group will be accepted.
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
I am aged: (Please tick)
Under 18 ☐
18-24 ☐
25-34 ☐
35-44 ☐
45-54 ☐
55-64 ☐
65-74 ☐
75-84 ☐
85+ ☐
(If applicable)
I represent (name of club/group):
Position held:
6. Request to be informed:
The City of Joondalup can send you an email update informing you of when the consultation results are finalised. If you
would like to be informed via email, please tick the box below and ensure your email address is provided above.
☐ I would like to be informed via email when the consultation results are finalised
Thank you for your feedback
Please forward your completed survey in the pre-paid envelope provided by the closing date of 25 February 2013.
City of Joondalup Community Engagement Network
The Community Engagement Network is a network of community members interested in being consulted and engaged on an
ongoing basis about future strategic initiatives in the City of Joondalup. Contact details are kept strictly confidential and
members can opt-out at any time. If you are interested in joining the City of Joondalup Community Engagement Network,
please tick the box below.
For more information, please contact the Policy, Research and Planning team on 9400 4219.
☐ I would like to join the City of Joondalup Community Engagement Network
1 Page
ANALYSIS OF “HILLARYS PARK LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN —
PROPOSED WORKS” SURVEY
The following provides an analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data gathered from the
Hillarys Park Landscape Master Plan — Proposed Work’s survey conducted with residents
between Monday, 4 February 2013 and Monday, 25 February 2013.
BACKGROUND
The City consulted directly with all residential property owners within a 500 metres radius of
Hillarys Park. This was undertaken by way of a hard-copy survey form sent to owners’ postal
addresses (together with a cover letter, Information Brochure and Frequently Asked Questions
document).
The consultation also advertised to the general public via advertisements in the community
newspaper and on the City’s websites, and signage was erected in a prominent place at
Hillarys Park outlining the details of the consultation. Members of the public were able to
complete a survey form via the City’s website, or were able to contact the City for a hard-copy.
RESPONSE RATES
Within a 500 metres radius of Hillarys Park, the City calculated that there were 1,561 (nonvacant) residential properties. The owners of all of these properties were sent hard-copy
surveys and the City collected a total of 149 valid responses (n.b. A “valid” response is one
which includes the respondent’s full contact details and for which the respondent has not
submitted multiple survey forms). These data are summarised in Tables 1 and 2 below.
Based on the responses received (N = 149), the response rate equates to 9.5%.
Table 1. Responses by type of respondent
Type of respondent (vicinity to Hillarys Park)
Yes — respondent owns a property within 500 m
No — respondent does not own a property within 500 m
Total (valid) responses
Responses
N
149
1
149
%
99.3%
0.7%
100.0%
Responses
N
139
10
149
%
93.3%
6.7%
100.0%
Table 2. Responses by type of survey completed
Type of survey completed
Hard-copy survey
Online survey
Total (valid) responses
2 Page
DEMOGRAPHICS
Of the 149 valid responses collected, over half of these were completed by people aged
between 45 and 54 years of age. These are the largest age segments of the population for the
Hillarys suburb area (excluding the under 18 age group), so we would expect more responses
from these age groups. However, it should be noted that these groups are still somewhat overrepresented in the responses; and the age group 25–34 are somewhat under-represented.
These data is summarised in Table 3 and Chart 1 below.
Table 3: Responses by age
Responses
N
0
0
3
25
37
43
28
13
0
149
Demographics
%1
25.0%
9.8%
8.3%
14.6%
17.6%
14.8%
6.3%
2.9%
0.6%
100.0%
Age groups
Under 18 years of age
18–24 years of age
25–34 years of age
35–44 years of age
45–54 years of age
55–64 years of age
65–74 years of age
75–84 years of age
85+ years of age
Total (valid) responses
%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
16.8%
24.8%
28.9%
18.8%
8.7%
0.0%
100.0%
Chart 1: Responses by age
Under 18
18–24
Age groups
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
65–74
75–84
85+
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Number of respondents
1
Demographics represent the proportion of each age group for the suburb of Hillarys (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011,
Census of Population and Housing).
3 Page
QUESTION 1 — “HOW DO YOU CURRENTLY USE HILLARYS PARK?”
A total of 145 respondents provided a response to this question. Of the responses collected,
the majority use Hillarys Park for informal sport or recreation. Of the respondents who provided
an ‘Other’ response, some of the explanations provided fitted within one or more of the
categories provided and the results were adjusted accordingly. Those responses which did not
fit into another category related to: using Hillarys Park as a short-cut to get to other places;
walking through the park to get to Hillarys Primary School; and enjoying the view of the park
from their home. These data are summarised in Table 4 and Chart 2 below. (N.b. the
percentage of total responses can be greater than 100% as respondents were permitted to
select more than one response.)
Table 4. Types of responses to “How do you currently use Hillarys Park?”
Responses
Type of park usage
N
%
11
7.6%
Organised sport or recreation
122
84.1%
Informal recreation
6
4.1%
Other
22
15.2%
I do not currently use Hillarys Park
Total (valid) responses
161
111.0%
Chart 2: Types of responses to “How do you currently use Hillarys Park?” (valid percent)
Organised sport or recreation
Informal recreation
Other
I do not currently use Hillarys Park
4 Page
QUESTION 2(A) — “THE FOLLOWING DESIGN FEATURES ARE PROPOSED AS PART
OF THE WORKS. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR EACH:
REPLACEMENT OF AGEING IRRIGATION WITH WATER-EFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE.”
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the replacement of ageing
irrigation with water-efficient infrastructure on a 5–point scale (“strongly support” to “strongly
oppose”). A total of 149 respondents replied to this question; the results have been
summarised in Table 5 and Chart 3 below. The majority of respondents (95.3%) indicated that
they either supported or strongly supported the replacement of ageing irrigation with waterefficient infrastructure.
Table 5. Level of support for the replacement of ageing irrigation with water-efficient
infrastructure
Responses
Level of support
N
%
95
63.8%
Strongly support
47
31.5%
Support
6
4.0%
Unsure
1
0.7%
Oppose
0
0.0%
Strongly oppose
Total (valid) responses
149
100.0
Chart 3. Level of support for the replacement of ageing irrigation with water-efficient
infrastructure
Strongly support
Support
Unsure
Oppose
Strongly oppose
5 Page
QUESTION 2(B) — “THE FOLLOWING DESIGN FEATURES ARE PROPOSED AS PART
OF THE WORKS. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR EACH: DIVISION
OF THE PARK IN TO THREE SEPARATE WATERING ZONES, INCLUDING ZONE 1 —
HIGH WATERING (INCLUDES GRASSED PLAYING SURFACE).”
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the establishment of watering
zone 1 — high watering on a 5–point scale (“strongly support” to “strongly oppose”). A total of
141 respondents replied to this question; the results have been summarised in Table 6 and
Chart 4 below. The majority of respondents (91.5%) indicated that they either supported or
strongly supported the establishment of watering zone 1.
Table 6. Level of support for the establishment of watering zone 1 — high watering
(includes grassed playing surface)
Responses
Level of support
N
%
73
51.8%
Strongly support
56
39.7%
Support
8
5.7%
Unsure
4
2.8%
Oppose
0
0.0%
Strongly oppose
Total (valid) responses
141
100.0%
Chart 4. Level of support for the establishment of watering zone 1 — high watering
(includes grassed playing surface)
Strongly support
Support
Unsure
Oppose
Strongly oppose
6 Page
QUESTION 2(C) — “THE FOLLOWING DESIGN FEATURES ARE PROPOSED AS PART
OF THE WORKS. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR EACH: DIVISION
OF THE PARK IN TO THREE SEPARATE WATERING ZONES, INCLUDING ZONE 2 —
MEDIUM WATERING (INCLUDES GRASSED AREA AND TREES SURROUNDING THE
PLAYING SURFACE, PLAYGROUNDS 1 AND 2 AND THE EXISTING TOILET/
CHANGEROOM FACILITY).”
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the establishment of watering
zone 2 — medium watering on a 5–point scale (“strongly support” to “strongly oppose”). A total
of 142 respondents replied to this question; the results have been summarised in Table 7 and
Chart 5 below. The majority of respondents (90.2%) indicated that they either supported or
strongly supported the establishment of watering zone 2.
Table 7. Level of support for the establishment of watering zone 2 — medium watering
(includes grassed area and trees surrounding the playing surface, Playgrounds 1 and 2
and the existing toilet/changeroom facility)
Responses
Level of support
N
%
65
45.8%
Strongly support
63
44.4%
Support
11
7.7%
Unsure
2
1.4%
Oppose
1
0.7%
Strongly oppose
Total (valid) responses
142
100.0
Chart 5. Level of support for the establishment of watering zone 2 — medium watering
(includes grassed area and trees surrounding the playing surface, Playgrounds 1 and 2
and the existing toilet/changeroom facility)
Strongly support
Support
Unsure
Oppose
Strongly oppose
7 Page
QUESTION 2(D) — “THE FOLLOWING DESIGN FEATURES ARE PROPOSED AS PART
OF THE WORKS. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR EACH: DIVISION
OF THE PARK IN TO THREE SEPARATE WATERING ZONES, INCLUDING ZONE 3 —
LOW WATERING (INCLUDES GRASSED AREA AND TREES THAT COVER THE OUTER
REGIONS OF THE PARK).”
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the establishment of watering
zone 3 — low watering on a 5–point scale (“strongly support” to “strongly oppose”). A total of
139 respondents replied to this question; the results have been summarised in Table 8 and
Chart 6 below. The majority of respondents (79.1%) indicated that they either supported or
strongly supported the establishment of watering zone 3.
Table 8. Level of support for the establishment of watering zone 3 — low watering
(includes grassed area and trees that cover the outer regions of the park)
Responses
Level of support
N
%
57
41.0%
Strongly support
53
38.1%
Support
15
10.8%
Unsure
5
3.6%
Oppose
9
6.5%
Strongly oppose
Total (valid) responses
139
100.0%
Chart 6. Level of support for the establishment of watering zone 3 — low watering
(includes grassed area and trees that cover the outer regions of the park)
Strongly support
Support
Unsure
Oppose
Strongly oppose
8 Page
QUESTION 2(E) — “THE FOLLOWING DESIGN FEATURES ARE PROPOSED AS PART
OF THE WORKS. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR EACH:
INSTALLATION OF A NEW PATHWAY TO PLAYGROUND 2.”
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the installation of a new pathway
to Playground 2 on a 5–point scale (“strongly support” to “strongly oppose”). A total of 147
respondents replied to this question; the results have been summarised in Table 9 and Chart 7
below. The majority of respondents (87.1%) indicated that they either supported or strongly
supported the installation of a new pathway to Playground 2.
Table 9. Level of support for the installation of a new pathway to Playground 2
Responses
Level of support
N
71
Strongly support
57
Support
9
Unsure
4
Oppose
6
Strongly oppose
Total (valid) responses
147
Chart 7. Level of support for the installation of a new pathway to Playground 2
Strongly support
Support
Unsure
Oppose
Strongly oppose
%
48.3%
38.8%
6.1%
2.7%
4.1%
100.0%
9 Page
QUESTION 2(F) — “THE FOLLOWING DESIGN FEATURES ARE PROPOSED AS PART OF
THE WORKS. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR EACH:
INSTALLATION OF A NEW PICNIC SHELTER AND TABLE OVERLOOKING EXISTING
PLAYGROUND 2.”
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the installation of a new picnic
shelter and table overlooking existing Playground 2 on a 5–point scale (“strongly support” to
“strongly oppose”). A total of 149 respondents replied to this question; the results have been
summarised in Table 10 and Chart 8 below. The majority of respondents (92.6%) indicated that
they either supported or strongly supported the installation of a new picnic shelter and table
overlooking existing Playground 2.
Table 10. Level of support for the installation of a new picnic shelter and table
overlooking existing Playground 2
Responses
Level of support
N
%
80
53.7%
Strongly support
58
38.9%
Support
4
2.7%
Unsure
4
2.7%
Oppose
3
2.0%
Strongly oppose
Total (valid) responses
149
100.0%
Chart 8. Level of support for the installation of a new picnic shelter and table
overlooking existing Playground 2
Strongly support
Support
Unsure
Oppose
Strongly oppose
10 Page
QUESTION 3 — “THE FOLLOWING DESIGN FEATURES ARE PROPOSED AS PART OF
THE IRRIGATION WORKS. IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT ANY OF THE ABOVE, PLEASE
TELL US WHY.”
Respondents who indicated that they either opposed or strongly opposed the various design
features of the works were asked why. A total of 29 respondents provided reasons for their
opposition; the results have been summarised in Table 11 and Figure 1 below. The main
reasons for opposition included: respondents’ belief that the park would look less attractive if
watering were reducing in some zones: and that a picnic shelter could attract anti-social
behaviour. (N.b. the percentage of total responses can be greater than 100% as some
respondents provided more than one reason.)
Table 10. Summary of reasons for opposition to one or more of the design features
proposed as part of the works
Responses
Reasons
N
%
3.4%
1
Do not want any changes to the park (in general)
37.9%
11
Park will look dry/degraded/unattractive
13.8%
4
Do not want a path (not appropriate/necessary)
Do not want a picnic shelter (may attract anti-social
17.2%
5
behaviour)
20.7%
6
Other reasons (misc.)
34.5%
10
Other general comments (not related to consultation)
127.6%
29
Total (valid) responses
Figure 1. Word cloud of reasons for opposition to one or more of the design features
proposed as part of the works (words or related works  3 mentions)
11 Page
QUESTION 4 — “DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
IRRIGATION WORKS?”
Respondents were asked if they had any further comments on the proposed works.
A total of 80 respondents provided comments; the results have been summarised in Table 12
and Figure 2 below. Comments varied widely; however, in general there was opposition to the
removal of any play equipment and numerous requests for various additional pieces of
infrastructure (ranging from barbeques to bench seating). Additionally, a significant proportion
of respondents provided general comments in support of the proposal. (N.b. the percentage of
total responses can be greater than 100% as the comments provided by some respondents
addressed more than one matter.)
Table 12. Summary of further comments provided by respondents
Level of support
General comments in support of the proposal
Requests for additional infrastructure in the park
Do not want any changes to the park (in general)
Do not want a path (not appropriate/necessary)
Install shade sails over the existing play equipment
Do not remove play equipment/replace play equipment
Other (misc.)
Other (not related to consultation)
Total (valid) responses
Responses
N
17
23
6
2
3
17
24
9
80
%
21.3%
28.8%
7.5%
2.5%
3.8%
21.3%
30.0%
11.3%
126.3%
Figure 2. Word cloud of further comments provided by respondents (words or related
works  8 mentions)