Community
Association
Offshore Survey
(
prepared by
Kerry Borthwick
for and on behalf of
SIRA & WPCA
May
2007
1. background
The Scotland Island Residents Association (SIRA) and the West Pittwater Community Association (WPCA) wanted to ensure they understood members’ needs and wishes in order to be able to represent them effectively generally and particularly in respect of negotiations with the Department of Lands and Pittwater Council regarding proposed changes to the Church Point Precinct.
Accordingly it was determined that conduct of a survey to identify demographic characteristics of the offshore community together with their transport and parking needs, and views on proposed changes to the Church Point precinct would be an appropriate undertaking.
2. methodology
2.1
Confidentiality
An undertaking was given to the offshore community that the survey would be confidential, whereby their privacy would be maintained in respect of access to the raw data and only aggregated data results would be reported.
2.2
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire was designed by a sub-committee of representatives of both the offshore residents’ associations, ie the West Pittwater Community Association (WPCA) and the Scotland Island Residents Association (SIRA). Members were as follows:
Ian Souter (Committee Member, SIRA)
Greg Roberts (Committee Member, SIRA)
Bill Gye (Member, SIRA)
Michael Wiener (President, WPCA)
Shar Jones (President, SIRA)
The questionnaire was designed in two parts:
· Part A was similar to a census and solicited general demographic information relevant to offshore residents, including suburb; residential status; age; type of residence (eg whether primary residence or weekender); number of vehicles on and offshore and where they park; commuter boat numbers and mooring locations; types of transportation used on the mainland; main destinations on the mainland; public transport requirements; barriers to use of public transport; primary interchange; car pooling etc
·
Part B sought information on offshore residents’
views on the Cargo Wharf at Church Point; parking along the roadway between the
mini-market and Holmport Marina; the pontoon and heritage wharf at Thomas Stephens
Reserve; alternative dispersal points
for car parking other than Church Point; the current Church Point carpark;
preferred type of structure if a new
carpark built; whether they are able and/or prepared to purchase parking
space(s); current commuter boat mooring locations offshore
Prior to finalisation the draft survey was tabled at a Church Point Precinct Design Group meeting attended by representatives of Pittwater Council, SIRA and WPCA and the two onshore residents’ groups, ie Bayview-Church Point Residents Association (BCPRA) and the Church Point Reserve Association (CPRA). The purpose and content of the survey was discussed and the reason for the survey design being in two parts was discussed. Points arising from the discussion were taken into consideration in finalising the questionnaire.
2.3 Distribution
The questionnaires were printed by Pittwater Council who also provided a return stamped addressed envelope to facilitate return of completed surveys.
WPCA and SIRA Presidents, Michael Wiener and Shar Jones, individually signed a covering letter on behalf of both associations, addressing confidentiality and explaining the survey rationale (copy of letter attached as appendix 1).
Surveys were mailed out by
SIRA and WPCA. Surveys were sent to all
property owners resident in
Distribution numbers are outlined in Table 1 below:
|
Table 1: Survey Distribution |
|||
|
Association |
No.Owners |
No.Renters |
Total |
|
SIRA |
|
|
|
|
|
351 |
52 |
403 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
WPCA |
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
(inc. Little Lovett) |
68 |
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
McCarrs Creek |
22 |
|
|
|
|
- |
24 |
193 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Surveys Distributed |
|
|
596 |
Surveys were initially requested to be returned by 26 March, however due to an initial slow response rate, follow up requests were made via the Pittwater Offshore Newsletter and notices in public places such as at wharves, and the return date was extended until completion of data entry on 30 April 2007.
2.4 Response Rate
When survey return was closed, the following numbers had been received and the response rates calculated (on the basis of surveys returned as a percentage of surveys distributed) as follows:
|
Table 2: Survey Response |
||
|
Association |
Total No. Returned |
Response Rate % |
|
SIRA |
|
|
|
|
216 |
53.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
WPCA |
|
|
|
|
37 |
66.1 |
|
(inc. Little Lovett) |
44 |
64.7 |
|
|
19 |
82.6 |
|
McCarrs Creek |
3 |
13.6 |
|
|
1 |
n.a. |
|
|
193 |
53.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Offshore |
330 |
55.4 |
The overall response rate as displayed in table 2 above was 55.4%. Although the result is lower than hoped for, 55.4% is an outstanding response rate for a mail out survey.[1]
It should be noted that the
overall response rate between
An analysis of the response rate relative to owners vs renters revealed a similar result to the overall response rate:
|
Table 3: Owner/Renter Response |
||
|
Residential Status |
Total No. Returned |
Response Rate % |
|
Owner |
281 |
54.0 |
|
Renter |
42 |
55.3 |
|
Residential Status unspecified |
7 |
|
2.5 Analysis and Interpretation
Data entry was undertaken on
a PC and input into an Excel file. It
was then transferred into the software package used for the data analysis.
The analysis was undertaken using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, ie SPSS (V14.0), on a university mainframe computer via a remote PC. The data analyst was Ms Kerry Borthwick[2], Director of Quality of Working Life Pty Ltd.
3.
RESULTS
The results are presented below in the format of the questionnaire interspersed with comments on their interpretation where appropriate.
3.1 OFFSHORE SURVEY: PART A
DWELLING
1. FAMILY NAME(S) Confidential
2. (a) STREET NUMBER
& STREET Confidential
SUBURB
ELVINA BAY 11.2%
LITTLE LOVETT 2.1
LOVETT BAY 11.2
McCARRS CREEK 0.9
MORNING BAY 5.5
OFFSHORE (unspecified) 3.3
Graph 1
(b)
(c)
CONTACT DAYTIME PHONE NUMBER Confidential
3. RESIDENTIAL
STATUS
OWNER 85.2%
RENTER 12.1
BOARDER 0.3 97.6%
Graph
2
4. NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS RESIDING AT THIS
ADDRESS Mean 2.7
Median 2
Sum
883
Range
1 – 9 persons
Graph 3
Occupants x households
5. AGE
OF EACH PERSON/OCCUPANT:
Mode 51-60 years
Range
0- >70 years
0 – 5 YEARS 7.9%
6 - 10 YEARS 6.2
11 – 14 YEARS 5.1
15 – 17 YEARS 5.3
18 – 20 YEARS 3.5
21 – 30 YEARS 5.6
31 – 40 YEARS 13.5
41 – 50 YEARS 17.0
51 – 60 YEARS 18.7
61 – 70 YEARS 12.3
OVER 70 YEARS 4.8
The modal age of survey respondents is 51 to 60 years. There are 19.2% of respondents under 15 years and 19.1% over 60 years (seniors).
It is intuitively believed that the
offshore population demographic is changing in a number of ways, not the least
of these being the trend for people to continue to live offshore until older
ages than previously. Add to this the
acknowledged aging population in
The modal age group in the Offshore Survey is the 51-60 age group. This is the “baby boomers” generation given that the “baby boomers” commenced being born following the end of World War II (1946) and the next cohort generation commenced in 1965. Thus the oldest “boomers” were turning 60 last year and attained senior citizen status. That the 51-60 age group is the modal group is significant in terms of access considerations for a large number of offshore residents over the next few years.
Despite there having been a census
in 2006 it will be some time before detailed information is available down to
the locality level. The current census
information available at this level is from the 2001 census. This census data was compared to the survey
information in respect of age. The 2001
Census data for
Table 3 below presents the comparative data:
|
Table 4: Offshore Survey comparison with 2001 Census |
|||||
|
|
Survey |
2001 Census |
|||
|
Age group |
|
|
|
Pittwater |
Church Pt |
|
%
less than 15 yrs |
19.3 |
20.8 |
25.3 |
19.6 |
15.7 |
|
%
15 yrs & over |
80.7 |
79.2 |
74.7 |
80.4 |
84.3 |
|
%
over 60 yrs |
17.0 |
14.7 |
5.2 |
14.0 |
16.9 |
|
%
over 70 yrs |
4.7 |
3.4 |
1.2 |
9.7 |
8.2 |
|
Total
no. persons |
881 |
594 |
731 |
52377 |
1121 |
Observation of the data contained in Table 3 reveals a number of interesting comparisons:
·
· The percentage of Scotland Islanders over 60 years is almost 3 times that of the Scotland Islanders in the 2001 Census, and the percentage of Scotland Islanders over 70 years has also almost tripled since 2001. Both these results are in line with general population trends and have significant bearings on access issues as discussed in relation to the modal group and “baby boomers”, however the “over 60’s” have already attained “senior citizen” status. Accordingly decisions on parking need to account for the increasing accessibility needs of offshore seniors.
· Scotland Island age results are very similar to the overall offshore population age results indicating that the island and western shore communities tend to be similar in this demographic.
·
The population of Church Point in 2001 was 1121
and the population of
· The age comparisons between the offshore population as revealed in the 2007 survey responses and the overall Pittwater population in 2001 (census) are almost equivalent with the exception of a lower percentage of persons over 70 years. This is interesting and could suggest a lag effect which would be worth checking when the 2006 census data is available. The reason for this comment is that it could assist in developing models for predicting offshore population demographic changes.
DWELLING
6. USE OF DWELLING:
RESIDENCE 53.6% Residence and home office/studio etc. 28.8
HOLIDAY/WEEKENDER 15.8
BED & BREAKFAST (B & B) 0.6
OTHER 0.3
NOT SPECIFIED 0.9
Note: “Other” cited was “Youth Hostel”.
Graph 4
7. If you
answered YES to HOLIDAY/WEEKENDER, please enter the
AVERAGE DAYS’ OCCUPATION PER MONTH Median 8 days
Modes 8, 10
days
Range 1 – 20 days
CARS
8.
TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES
(CARS/TRUCKS) Total 319
PER PROPERTY ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE Median 2
(ie
including motor cycles) Mode 2
Range
1-9
9. NUMBER OF VEHICLES
(excluding motor cycles) USUALLY
PARKED:
(a) AT CHURCH POINT Total 283 Median 1
Mode 1
Range 1-4
It must be remembered that 283 vehicles only represents vehicles owned by 55.4% of offshore residents and that using this proportion as a base, it could be estimated that there would be more than 500 vehicles belonging to the offshore community requiring public parking in the vicinity of Church Point.
(b) ELSEWHERE ON SHORE Total 67
Median 1
Mode 1
Range 1-4
Similarly to the comment in Q9(a), an estimated 120 vehicles owned by members of the offshore community would be parked elsewhere on shore.
10. NUMBER
OF vehicles used ON MAINLAND for work Total 123
PURPOSES
to transport tools, equipment, Median 1
materials
etc. Mode 1
Range 1-4
11. NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED OFFSHORE:
(a)
CARS Total 26
Median 1
Mode 1
Range 0-2
(b)
TRUCKS Total 6
Median 1
Mode 1
Range 1-2
(c)
MOTOR CYCLES Total 13
Median 1
Mode 1
Range 1-2
The vast majority of these vehicles
are located on
BOATS
12. NUMBER OF COMMUTER BOATS PER HOUSEHOLD Total 290[3]
Median 1
Mode 1
Range 1-4
13. NUMBER OF COMMUTER BOATS MOORED AT CHURCH
POINT Total 226
Median 1
Mode 1
Range 1-4
The majority, but not all of these
boats moor at the
14. (a) NUMBER
OF COMMUTER BOATS MOORED AT Total 70
OTHER DISPERSAL POINTS Median 1 Mode 1
Range 0-3
(b)
If you entered a number forQ14(a):
PLEASE IDENTIFY THE RELEVANT DISPERSAL POINTS:
Responses included:
Holmport Marina, Quays Marina, Bayview Anchorage/Gibsons Marina.
Royal Motor Yacht Club, Royal Prince Alfred Yacht Club
The various dispersal points mentioned also provide parking for boat owners’ vehicles which is a prime reason for renting a berth. The costs of renting commuter boat berths at the various marinas and/or clubs can exceed $5000/year. There are also waiting lists for places.
COMMUTER DETAILS (per person)
15. AVERAGE
No. OF DAYS COMMUTING PER WEEK (PER
PERSON) median 5 Mode
5
Range
1-7
16. MODES OF TRANSPORTATION TO/FROM THE MAINLAND BY
WATER (PER PERSON)
Please rank in order of frequency of use. If you don’t use a particular mode, please
leave it blank. For example if you
mostly travel by motor boat you would give that a rank of 1, and then if you
travel next most often by ferry, you would rank that as 2, and if you travel
least often by water taxi you would give it a rank of 3. Finally if you never travel by
rowboat/canoe/kayak you would leave that option blank
. Rank No. Persons Using Mode
ROW BOAT/CANOE/KAYAK 4 48
MOTOR BOAT (INCLUDING TINNIES) 1
286
FERRY 2 273
WATER TAXI 3 46
17. MODES
OF TRANPORTATION ON THE MAINLAND (per person)
Please
rank in order of frequency of use (as for Q16 above). If you don’t use a
particular mode please leave
it blank. Please don’t include walking
from the wharf to your car at Church Point.
. Rank No. Persons Using Mode CAR 1 770
VAN/SMALL TRUCK 8
36
MOTORBIKE 9 17
PUSH BIKE 7 50
BUS 2 292
TAXI 4 103
TRAIN 5 61
WALK 3 131
18. MAINLAND
DESTINATION
We would like
to obtain an idea of the directions people travel on the mainland in order to
understand transport and parking needs.
PLEASE
ENTER THE POSTCODES OF YOUR THREE MOST FREQUENT DESTINATIONS
Mode
2103
Range
1635-2790
Rank (First 10) Postcode Location Percentage
1 2103 Mona Vale 17.8%
2 2000
3 2106
4 2105 Church Point
5.2
5 2107 Avalon Area
3.2
6 2100 Brookvale
Area
3.4
7 2099
8 2101 Narrabeen
2.0
9
) 2065 Crows
Nest ( 1.9
) 2095
) 2102 Warriewood (
1.9
The most frequent destination reported was Mona Vale, this is a typically expected response as it is not only the nearest shopping precinct to the offshore community but is the location of Mona Vale Public School, Pittwater High School, Sacred Heart Primary School, banks, churches, childcare facilities, sporting fields and gymnasiums.
The next most significant destination recorded was the Sydney CBD reflecting work related commuting with a lesser influence from social activities on weekends. Lack of appropriate direct public transport from Church Point to the City is a cause of concern due to limitations on the hours of operation. For instance the first ferry which picks up from all island wharves arrives at Church Point at 7:25am and the peak hour bus to the Sydney CBD now arrives at the Point at approx 7:45am. Although it is timetabled to arrive at Central around 8:45am, it is a rare occurrence for it to arrive in the city before 9:00am. Naturally this presents a problem for CBD workers. Examining the situation for return from the city the last direct bus from the CBD leaves Central at approximately 5:30pm and is timetabled to arrive at Church Point at 6:47pm in time to meet the last ferries stopping at all the offshore wharves. Again traffic delays often result in commuters using this bus missing the 7:00pm ferries and have to resort to water taxis at upwards of $20/trip. In order to avoid these problems a number of commuters drive to Mona Vale and leave their vehicles there in order to catch express buses to the city to enable them not only to arrive at work on time but get home.
SCHOOL FERRIES AND BUSES (per
person)
%
Persons
19. DO YOU TRAVEL ON THE SCHOOL FERRY
TO AND FROM
20. DO YOU TRAVEL ON A SCHOOL BUS
TO AND FROM CHURCH POINT 12.4%
PUBLIC TRANSPORT (per person)
21. WHAT
HOURS DO YOU REQUIRE PUBLIC
TRANSPORT
TO OPERATE?
% All Acceptable Options
24 HOURS/DAY MONDAY-FRIDAY 26.7%
24 HRS SATURDAY/SUNDAY 24.5%
5:00AM – 1:00AM MONDAY-FRIDAY 49.4%
6:00AM – 3:00AM SAT/SUN 36.4%
22. WHAT
FREQUENCY DO YOU NEED
PUBLIC
TRANSPORT TO OPERATE?
%
All Acceptable Options
(a) CHURCH
POINT-CITY RETURN
PEAK HOURS WEEKDAYS
29.7%
HOURLY WEEKDAYS 37.0%
HOURLY WEEKENDS 36.4%
MORE THAN ONCE AN HOUR ON WEEKDAYS 29.4%
MORE THAN ONCE AN HOUR ON WEEKENDS 17.9%
(b)
HOURLY WEEKDAYS 20.9%
HOURLY WEEKENDS 20.3%
MORE THAN ONCE AN HOUR ON WEEKDAYS 9.4%
MORE THAN ONCE AN HOUR ON WEEKENDS 13.9%
DO NOT NEED TRANSPORT TO MANLY
WHARF 15.2%
(c) CHURCH
POINT-CHATSWOOD RETURN
PEAK HOURS WEEKDAYS 17.0%
HOURLY WEEKDAYS 13.9%
HOURLY WEEKENDS 11.2%
23. WHICH
OF THE FOLLOWING CURRENTLY PREVENT YOU
USING
PUBLIC TRANSPORT?
Note
Rank and No of Persons are not equivalent comparisons.
Rank No. Persons Citing Reason
NEED TO TRANSPORT PETROL OR LPG 7 87
NEED TO TRANSPORT ANIMALS 9
61
NEED TO TRANSPORT LARGE OBJECTS
(PLANTS, HOUSEHOLD GOODS) 5 161
NEED TO TRANSPORT WORK RELATED
TOOLS/EQUIPMENT
8 72
NUMEROUS SHOPPING BAGS 2 272
TIME CONSTRAINTS 1 331
TRANSPORT DOES NOT SERVICE MY
REQUIRED
DESTINATIONS 3 283
LACK OF EXPRESS BUSES 6 191
INFREQUENT
SERVICE 4 279
OTHER
10 30
Most common reasons for “Other”: Difficulties with young children; inability to take children to child care and then get to work on time and pick up children from child care before it closes if using public transport; limited peak hour buses to and from city; problems with catching buses if working at North Sydney etc, ie connecting buses full and don’t stop; undertake shiftwork; no buses after midnight; poor coordination with Church Point ferries.
24. PRIMARY
INTERCHANGE (PER PERSON)
Please
tick transport interchange terminus per person Rank Percentage
CHURCH POINT 1 86.8%
BAYVIEW
OTHER DISPERSAL POINTS 2 9.7
25.
TOTAL ONE WAY TRIPS (per person) Mode Range Percentage[4]
(a)
TO CHURCH POINT PER WEEK 6 1-12 39.2%
(b)
FROM CHURCH POINT PER WEEK 6 1-12 9.6
(c) TO OTHER DISPERSAL POINTS PER WEEK 1
1-12 40.2
(d) FROM OTHER DISPERSAL POINTS PER WEEK 1 1-12 11.0
26. CAR POOLING (per person) % Persons
(a) ARE YOU CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN CAR POOLING 7.6% involved
AS A PASSENGER OR DRIVER?
(b) WOULD
YOU BE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING 16.7% interested
IN ORGANISED CAR POOLING
27. COMMUNITY
CAR SHARING (per person)
A new approach to commuting has been set up in Manly and
other local government areas.which involves car sharing. A commercial organisation provides a number
of vehicles and users pay a monthly fee together with a fee for the amount of
time and mileage used. Information is
available on www.goget.com.au
% Persons
WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN CONSIDERING
THIS TYPE OF CONCEPT AS AN OPTIONAL 22.4% interested
ALTERNATIVE FORM OF TRANSPORT?
.
OFFSHORE SURVEY: PART B
The following questions relate to the Options outlined in the Church
Point Plan of Management – Issues and Options Paper, December 2006
They should only be answered by ADULT members of each household.
Please tick each of the following statements you AGREE with :
(A = Adult 1, 2 etc) Please tick
if YES % Adults ‘Yes’
28. CLOSE
AND
TO ROWLAND RESERVE
9.7%
29.
APPOINT AN
ON-SITE MANAGER/RANGER, AT THE
OFF-SHORE COMMUNITY’S EXPENSE, TO REGULATE 7.6%
THE USE OF
COMMUTER BOAT TIE UP
30. INSTALL
A SECURITY AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 31.8%
31. PROVIDE A FENCED STORAGE AGREA BESIDE THE
WHARF
THAT COULD BE LEASED TO OFFSHORE RESIDENTS? 18.8%
32. PROVIDE A
ROADWAY between
MINI-MARKET and HOLMPORT
Please tick if YES % Adults “Yes’
33.
ESTABLISH BETWEEN
40 AND 50 CARPARKING SPACES
ALONG THE CLIFF EDGE 39.1%
34.
ESTABLISH BETWEEN
40 AND 50 CARPARKING SPACES 25.5%
ALONG THE WATERFRONT
35.
ESTABLISH BETWEEN
80 AND 100 CARPARKING SPACES
ALONG THE CLIFF EDGE AND THE WATERFRONT 69.4%
THE
POINT/PASADENA (per adult)
36. WHEN THE
LEASE ON THE GREEN AREA IN FRONT OF THE
Please tick
if YES
% Adults ‘Yes’
(a) DO NOT RENEW THE LEASE AND RETURN THE LAND TO
OPEN
PUBLIC SPACE? 54.5%
(c) FURTHER LIBERALISE THE LEASE TO PROVIDE INCREASED
COMMUNITY ACCESS? 47.6%
THOMAS STEPHENS RESERVE (per adult)
Please tick if YES % Adults ‘Yes”
37. LEAVE THE TEMPORARY PONTOON WHERE IT IS? 37.6%
38. RELOCATE THE TEMPORARY PONTOON TO THE OTHER
SIDE OF
THE
STEPHENS RESERVE TO THE
GENERAL
STORE AND
Please tick
if YES % Adults ‘Yes’
39. REFURBISH
THE OLD WHARF AS PER THE DRAFT 2004
MASTER PLAN? 73.9%
CARPARKING AREA (per vehicle)
40. AS AN
ALTERNATIVE TO CHURCH POINT WOULD
ANY OF THE
DISPERSAL ZONES BELOW BE A SUITABLE
PERMANENT OPTION IF A
COMMUTER PONTOON AND
PARKING WAS
MADE AVAILABLE? Please tick all suitable
alternatives..
(V = Vehicle 1, 2 etc) Preference
Rank Percentage Suitable
BAYVIEW PUBLIC WHARF 2 22.9%
ROWLAND RESERVE BOAT RAMP 3 13.2
McCARRS CREEK RESERVE 4 1.3
NONE OF THE ABOVE 1 40.6
OTHER (Please specify): 6 1.8
Suggestions
for other alternative dispersal zones included
% Vehicle Owners ‘Yes’
41. DO YOU PREFER TO LEAVE THE
CARPARK AS IT IS? 50.3%
42.
WOULD YOU BE
PREPARED TO PAY AN ANNUAL FEE
OF APPROXIMATELY $150 PER VEHICLE FOR
NON-EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE EXISTING CARPARK 44.2%
AND A BOAT SPACE AT THE
Please
tick if YES
43. IF A CARPARK
WAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WHAT TYPE
WOULD YOU
PREFER? (Please rank in order of preference. If
you don’t
want a particular type of carpark, please leave it blank).
UNDERGROUND 13.3%
HALF IN HALF OUT 22.1%
ABOVE GROUND 26.7%
NO PREFERENCE
26.4%
pLEASE
ANSWER QUESTION 44 ON A PER HOUSEHOLD BASIS:
44. If a carpark was built would YOU WANT TO BUY?
(a) an underground
exclusive use FREEHOLD
(STRATA TITLE) or long term (eg 50 year)
leasehold car parking SPACE costing
APPROXIMATELY $85,000 - $100,000 initial cost AND
WITH A MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE and 1 space = 5.5%
REPLACEMENT lEVY OF approximately 2 SPACES = 2.7%
$2000 PER YEAR?
If
YES please nominate number of spaces TOTAL SPACES = 36
(b) a partially
in ground exclusive use OR
FREEHOLD (STRATA
TITLE) or long term
(eg 50 year) leasehold car
parkingSPACE 1 SPACE = 11.5%
costing APPROXIMATELY $50,000 to $75,000 2 spaces = 5.2%
initial cost AND WITH A
MANAGEMENT, 3
SPACES = 0.3%
MAINTENANCE & REPLACEMENT
lEVY OF
APPROXIMATELY $500 PER YEAR? total spaces = 75
If YES please
nominate number of spaces
(c) AN above ground
FREEHOLD (STRATA TITLE) or
or long term (eg 50 year) leasehold car
parking SPACE costing APPROXIMATELY 1 space = 20.9%
$35,000 to $50,000 to purchase AND WITH 2 spaces =
11.8%
A MANAGEMENT,
MAINTENANCE & REPLACEMENT 3
spaces = 0.9%
lEVY OF APPROXIMATELY $250 PER YEAR? 4 spaces = 0.3%
Please nominate number of spaces if YES
TOTAL SPACES = 160
45 IF
YOU ANSWERED YES TO THE PURCHASE OF A
PARKING
SPACE, WHERE DO YOU CURRENTLY PARK
Please
respond for each vehicle you would
purchase a
parking space
for.
CHURCH POINT PRECINCT
PARK
AT CHURCH PT X PURCHASE UNDERGROUND = 72.4%
(26/36 SPACES)
PARK
AT CHURCH PT X PURCHASE PARTIAL INGROUN = 78.9%
(59/75 SPACES)
PARK
AT CHURCH POINT X PURCHASE ABOVE GROUND = 82.9%
(133/160 SPACES)
OTHER AREA
PARK
OTHER AREA X PURCHASE UNDERGROUND = 27.6%
(10/36 SPACES)
PARK
OTHER AREA X PURCHASE PARTIAL INGROUND = 21.1%
(16/75 SPACES)
PARK
OTHER AREA X PURCHASE ABOVE GROUND = 17.1%
(27/160
SPACES)
Intention to purchase by currently parking location is depicted in Graph 5 below:
Graph 5
Equity
Issues Relevant to Purchase of Car Spaces:
It was hypothesised that there may be differences in ability and willingness to purchase car spaces. Such differences may relate to age of the householder (eg young families and./or older people such as retirees); renters vs owners (eg absent owners may not wish to purchase a space or may need to increase rents to cover costs of such a purchase); owners of waterfront properties who may have higher household incomes etc.; owners of weekenders/holiday homes
If such differences are indicated by the survey data it could potentially be extremely divisive to the offshore community.
These propositions were investigated and the findings are reported below.
1.
Age and Ability/Willingness
to purchase car space
1.1
Young families
“Young families” was defined as a household with at least one child aged between 0 and 10 years. Seventy-three households responding to the survey met this criterion equating to 22.1% of respondent households.
1.1.1 Underground
FAMILY
WITH >= ONE CHILD 0-10 YEARS X PURCHASE SPACES UNDERGROUND
= 2 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 1 SPACE
+ 4 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 2
SPACES
= 8
ie A TOTAL OF 10
out of 36 SPACES OR 27.8%
OF SPACES
or
1.1.2 Part In Ground
FAMILY
WITH >= ONE CHILD 0-10 YEARS X PURCHASE SPACES PARTIALLY INGROUND
= 8
INTENDING TO PURCHASE 1 SPACE
+ 4 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 2 SPACES
= 8
+ 1 INTENDING TO
PURCHASE 3 SPACES
= 3
ie A TOTAL OF 19
out of 75 spaces OR 25.3% OF SPACES
or
1.1.3 Above Ground
FAMILY
WITH >= ONE CHILD 0-10 YEARS X PURCHASE PACES ABOVE GROUND
= 22 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 1 SPACE
+ 10 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 2 SPACES
= 20
+ 1 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 3 SPACES
= 3
+ 1 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 4 SPACES
= 4
ie
A TOTAL OF 49 out of
160 SPACES OR 30.6% OF SPACES.
Examination of the results through comparison of the intention to purchase calculations with the group population proportion did not indicate a significant purchasing disadvantage from the “young family” population group.
1.2
Seniors
Traditionally, “seniors” are persons aged 60 years or
more. Given that our survey categories
do not match exactly with this traditional group, “seniors” in the survey group
are those members of the offshore community who are aged from 61 years. This results in an under-estimation of the
offshore “senior” population which should be taken into consideration when
making decisions based on the findings in respect of the aging offshore
population and their needs.
The number of households responding to the survey
which meet the criterion of at least one (“senior”) member of the household
aged 61 years or more was 108 equivalent to 32.7% of respondent households.
1.2.1 Underground
RESIDENCE WITH.>= ONE
RESIDENT OVER 60 YEARS X PURCHASE SPACES
UNDERGROUND
= 2 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 1 SPACE
+ 2 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 2 SPACES
= 4
ie A TOTAL OF 6
out of 36 SPACES OR 16.7%
OF SPACES
or
1.2.2 Part In Ground
RESIDENCE
WITH .>= ONE RESIDENT OVER 60 YEARS X PURCHASE SPACES PARTIALLY INGROUND
= 5
INTENDING TO PURCHASE 1 SPACE
+ 4 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 2 SPACES
= 8
ie A TOTAL OF 13
out of 75 spaces OR 17.3% OF SPACES
or
1.2.3 Above Ground
RESIDENCE
WITH .>= ONE RESIDENT OVER 60 YEARS X PURCHASE SPACES ABOVE GROUND
= 14 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 1 SPACE
+ 6 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 2 SPACES
= 12
+ 1 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 4 SPACES
= 30
ie
A TOTAL OF 56 out of 160 SPACES OR 35% OF SPACES.
It is clear from the preceding calculations that the
“senior” group is disadvantaged in respect of intent/ability to purchase
underground or partially above ground car spaces however this is not the case
(for the group as a whole) in respect of above ground spaces.
A comparison between the two age conditions and ability/willingness
to purchase a car parking space in each of the three built options is
delineated below:
Graph 6
2. Waterfront Properties
Given that this question was not directly asked, it is not possible to determine a definitive answer however the majority of waterfront owners could be expected to moor their tinnies at private jetties rather than at public wharves or beaches offshore.
In this respect, 143 respondents report having at least one boat moored on a private jetty and 132 respondents report having at least one boat moored at a public wharf or on a beach, or 52% and 48% respectively.
The data showed:
2.1 Underground
MOOR BOAT PRIVATE JETTY X
PURCHASE SPACES UNDERGROUND
= 13 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 1 SPACE
+ 2 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 2
SPACES
= 4
ie A TOTAL OF 17
out of 36 SPACES OR 47.2%
OF SPACES
or
2.2 Part In Ground
MOOR
BOAT PRIVATE JETTY X PURCHASE SPACES PARTIALLY INGROUND
= 26
INTENDING TO PURCHASE 1 SPACE
+ 11 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 2 SPACES
= 22
+ 1 INTENDING TO
PURCHASE 3 SPACES
= 3
ie A TOTAL OF 51
out of 75 spaces OR 68% OF SPACES
or
2.3 Above Ground
MOOR
BOAT PRIVATE JETTY X PURCHASE SPACES ABOVE GROUND
=
38 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 1 SPACE
+ 26 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 2 SPACES
= 22
+ 2 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 3 SPACES
= 6
+ 1 INTENDING TO PURCHASE 4 SPACES
= 4
ie
A TOTAL OF 100 out of 160 SPACES OR 62.5% OF SPACES.
Given the assumptions made no formal statistical tests can be undertaken, however from the results presented and comparing these against the 58.6% of boats parked at private jetties (refer response to question 49(a)), no indication of a major difference in intention to purchase can be attributed to “waterfront” vs “non-waterfront” households.
Graph 7 below displays the results of the estimated “waterfront” residents’ intention to purchase car parking spaces:
Graph 7
3. Renting
vs Ownership
Despite the fact that it would be unlikely that a non-owner would be permitted to purchase a car parking space, a series of analyses of variance was carried out to determine whether any significant differences existed.
There were no significant differences between Renters and Owners in respect of intention to purchase underground parking spaces (F1,2 = 1.033; p = 0.357) or partially in ground parking spaces (F1,2 = 0.872; p = 0.419). However there were significant differences between Renters and Owners (as expected) on intention to purchase above ground parking spaces (F1,2 = 5.667; p = 0.004) such that Owners were more prepared to purchase an above ground parking space.
Since the survey did not ask a question regarding landlord owners there was no way of distinguishing whether there were differences in intention to purchase car parking spaces between Resident and Landlord Owners.
3.
Weekender/Holiday Properties
Further analyses of variance were conducted to determine if there were differences in intention to purchase between dwellings used as Owners’ primary residence and those used as weekenders/holiday homes.
There were no significant differences in respect of any of the three conditions, ie intention to purchase underground (F 1,2 = 1.454; p = 0.235; partially in ground (F 1,2 = 2.004; p = 0.136); and above ground (F 1,2 = 0.516; p = 0.597).
PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS 46 TO 48
ON A PER HOUSEHOLD BASIS:
46 IF
NO, WHY WOULD YOU BE UNWILLING TO PURCHASE
YOUR OWN SPACE? Please tick all relevant options. % Households
UNABLE
TO AFFORD/UNWILLING TO PAY PURCHASE PRICE 43.6%
UNABLE
TO AFFORD/UNWILLING TO PAY MAINTENANCE LEVY 27.6% DON’T
OWN A VEHICLE 0.6%
HAVE
ALTERNATIVE PARKING 4.2%
DISAGREE
ON PRINCIPLE 40.6%
47.
IF A CARPARK
WAS CONSTRUCTED, WOULD YOU AGREE % Households ‘Yes’
WITH IT BEING MANAGED BY AN OFFSHORE
COOPERATIVE? Please
tick if YES 58.5%
48.
WOULD YOU AGREE
WITH A CAR PARK BEING BUILT
AND MANAGED BY A PRIVATE CARPARKING
COMPANY? 22.7%
Please tick if
YES
Please
answer Question 49 on a per commuter boat basis
49.
Where do you park your
commuter boat off-shore:
(B = Boat 1, 2, 3 etc) Please tick if YES
(a)
Private jetty?
Respondents reported that 234 boats were moored on private jetties, ie 58.6% of offshore commuter boats.
(b)
If you answered YES to
(eg Bells,
There were 33.8% of commuter boats reported moored on public wharves offshore, 135 boats.
No. Boats on Public Wharves
eastern wharf (
elvina bay north wharf 5
It will be observed that the number of boats reported moored on specific public wharves does not equate with the overall number of commuter boats moored on public wharves. This result is due to a number of respondents not providing information on which wharf they moor their commuter boat.
(c) On the beach?
If you
answered YES to On the Beach, please identify the beach
(eg Cargo, Bill’s etc)
Thirty commuter
boats (7.5%) were reported being moored on offshore beaches on
No. Boats on Beach
Elvina
bay beach 2
morning
bay beach 1
tennis beach (
other
beach (UNSPECIFIED) 1
TOTAL
BOATS ON BEACHES 20
Again due to a number of respondents failing to identify a specific beach, there are less boats identified as being moored at specific beaches than reported being moored on beaches in general.
50. ANY
GENERAL COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS:
There were a large number of comments and suggestions covering a wide variety of topics relevant to accessing offshore properties. Some comments described the difficulties of access; others proposed solutions to the car parking and/or commuter wharf problems at Church Point; and others raised the notion of social justice and employed comparisons with other council areas’ parking solutions.
A small sample of pertinent comments are included below.
Areas of
Use of car pooling or reducing family car ownership to
1 rather than 2 requires a small storage capability otherwise constant moving
and rearranging of items.
Concern a constructed carpark with purchase options is
divisive – those who can afford vs those who can’t.
Pressure carpark very difficult peak times but
Is there possibility upgrade Tennis? Pontoon needs
replace and extend.
I purchased land in 1957 and built 57-58 and
contributed to commuter wharf when first installed.
Refer past plans submitted by Dermer Bennett
(architect) for carpark/mooring located in McCarrs Creek area.
While I have ticked box purchasing a spot I would find
the capital outlay most difficult and see it only as last resort.
Church Point commuter wharf is a disaster area in
terms of overcrowding/personal inconvenience/boat damage and theft forcing
commuters onto expensive ferry/water taxi options.
Other dispersal points are too far over the water and
subject to weather conditions.
This only addresses the carpark issue. Unless both car
and boat parking issues are addressed, then we are not interested in car space/parking. We prefer to pay a fee to park a commuter
boat and car in serviced space at marinas.
I would like to see a mother & child tinny tie up
at commuter wharf or a separate wharf for mothers & disabled.
Retired owners are unable to contribute.
Simple & cost effective 80/100 extra car spaces
along waterfront & extend commuter boat ramp shop and Holmport.
Toilet block revamp. Men’s toilet has no doors or seats. More disabled parking spots
near Church Point end of car park. Extend commuter wharf cheaper & easier.
If the road
down from west Head was opened to
Has the Council researched the income of all offshore
residents? Are they certain we could afford the suggested options? What happens
to those who cannot pay?
What will happen too landing of more fragile boats ie
wood & fibre glass less weight less fuel - are these to be abandoned, these
which save our environment as there is no place to put them. Car park save
place for push bikes.
As
Bridge to
I have been parking here for 45 years In 27 years
position has worsened by land subsidence and no provision for different bikes
(motor and pedal).
Ca parks need
to be serviced by ferry and commuter tinny traffic to give householders the
option to use public transport and still get to the car.
Householders need the option to use public transport
or own boat and still get to the car.
We don’t in principle disagree with concept of paid
parking but don’t have capacity to meet such high initial outlays. Solution? Yearly lease of a guaranteed car space.
Designated reserved places for residents free by
display stickers at ferry end and paid designated visitor parking at Mona Vale
end.
Still don’t
understand why inner city residents have right to park in street to exclusion
of visitors.
How do authorities allow private business profit at
expense of people trying to access homes?
Need full time water policing not current part time.
Take over Holmport.
Onshore (residents) need to
recognise offshore community is people living everyday lives and that there is
not an unfair burden.
If lines were drawn on
current carpark 10—20 more cars would fit without any other changes.
Commercial marinas/yacht clubs offer car and boat
parking for less than options here.
Appendix 1:
Offshore Survey Cover Letter