This Report has been prepared by Julian Crawford of EcoSTEPS as primary facilitator following the Springwood Town Centre Stakeholder Workshop (the workshop) held on 29 March 2007.
The main purpose of this report is to summarise the output from the workshop. In addition, the use of Feedback Forms (Pre- arid Post- per Appendix 1 & 2) allowed EcoSTEPS to record both quantitative and qualitative comments on the workshop process which indicates the levels of attendee satisfaction with various elements and also some suggestions for future meetings. The outcomes are derived from the following sources in chronological order:
The main output of the workshop was in the form of the Post-it notes prepared individually and then synthesised and discussed in table groups. The summary report back from each of the Table Coordinators is given in Section 2 below.
Logistical details such as invitations, attendance and copies of relevant documents are not included in this report, as they are broadly canvassed in the covering report to Council.
Given the objectives of the meeting and the fact that over fifty stakeholders attended during the course of the day and there was a broad range and depth of discussion, it is difficult to synthesise the overall comments and discussion without unduly editorialising.
Notwithstanding this, resulting from the workshop processes described in more detail below, a combination of individual written comments made on the post-it notes and the table synthesis process and feedback in plenary session gave rise to some pertinent overall observations by the facilitator for consideration by Council as it progresses this project. These are grouped as follows:
Council's website lists a range of Policies and Plans, several of which appear to be directly relevant to this Project. In the context of this Stakeholder meeting, the following seem particularly pertinent:
In addition, in 2003 Blue Mountains City Council adopted the community endorsed 25 year Vision for the City of Blue Mountains. The 25 year Vision and Map for Action present a way forward for the City that aligns with the values of Blue Mountains people and an increasing world wide recognition of the need for us to live more sustainably.
Attendees to the Workshop were by invitation from Council following a process designed to engage a broad range of stakeholders at the meeting. As stated in the letter of invitation of 19 March 2007: "Your attendance would greatly assist Council in identifying issues and providing guidance to Council on this project."
The emphasis of the meeting on canvassing a variety of perspectives rather than attempting at that stage to prioritise issues was reinforced by David McGowan, BMCC in his opening presentation to the workshop.
The workshop process is considered to have successfully given participants several opportunities to give their views and all written material has been captured and recorded. This is illustrated in the following summary tables below:
Process
9
7%
Economic
23
18%
Traffic
13
10%
Planning
28
22%
Community
35
28%
Environment
12
Other
5
4%
Total
125
100%
Site Specific Topic
Number of post-it's I
Percentage
Northern Carpark
Southern Carpark
25%
Civic Centre
50%
3%
103
In addition, Q4 of the Post Feedback Form asked: "Having attended the workshop, what do you now feel are the two most important issues to be considered by Council as it moves forward with this project?" Responses to this question are given at Appendix 5.
The facilitator has performed a rough grouping exercise after the workshop using his best judgement to draw out the main areas of interest/concern. He gave consideration to further splitting the 'Consultation' grouping but a review of the comments in this group indicated that any further sub-grouping was likely to be considered somewhat arbitrary.
Topic
Number of comments
Consultation
26
10
20%
Planning & Process
8
15%
Supermarket
52
Facilitators Suggestion: Council take this diversity of issues and viewpoints into account when planning any further community consultation processes in connection with this project.
As is evidenced by the summaries above, and the detail later in this report and appendices, many people raised issues in connection with both 'community' and 'consultation' and crossovers between the two.
It was not the intent, and nor was there sufficient time at the workshop, to explore fully all the issues and concerns raised by participants in regard to appropriate use and change in regard to the current community facilities.
In general, as can be seen from the detail of this report, many attendees expressed views in both oral and written submissions and comments that given the size, local significance and opportunities presented by the project there should be more community consultation. Further, this community consultation should be broad and timely (ie not rushed) to allow due consideration of all issues and factors. This included several requests for additional analytical and research work to be undertaken by Council as part of the project in regard to social, cultural, heritage, sustainability and other issues.
Table coordinators reported back on the following topics as summarised below (details provided in relevant appendices):
Written records from the following sources are detailed below:
In addition, two written submissions from Blue Mountains Musical Society and Thelma Murphy were handed directly to the facilitator and these have been passed on to Council for consideration.
See sample form at Appendix 1. This form is primarily designed as part of an 'ice breaker' exercise and so only the responses to Question 1 have been analysed.
1. How would you describe your level of understanding of the Springwood Town
Centre redevelopment project?
Response Options
Numbers
Know nothing
2
5%
Know a little
24
60%
Know a fair bit
23%
Know a lot
13%
Totals
40
The spread of responses is as anticipated at the workshop design phase and confirms that the workshop plan and activities were likely to have been pitched appropriately.
Following the introductory presentations by invited experts on a range of issues, an exercise was conducted where participants were invited to record their comments on Post-it notes (Pink). These comments were then grouped under the following broad headings:
Each grouping except 'Other' was then allocated to a table with a nominated Table Coordinator and participants invited to join a table discussion of their choice. After a period of discussion, the Table Coordinators reported back the essence of their discussion to the plenary group from butcher's paper notes.
Full transcripts of all post-its and the butcher's paper summaries are recorded in Appendix 3.
In summary, the following numbers/percentages of post-it's were submitted in this exercise. Approximately three per person:
Theme topic
Number of post-it's
Following the Post-it exercise noted above which considered issues by key themes, a similar exercise was conducted where participants were invited to record their comments on site specific issues Post-it notes (Yellow). These comments were then grouped under the following broad headings:
Full transcripts of all post-its and the butcher's paper summaries are recorded in Appendix 4.
50
4
Refer to sample form at Appendix 2. This form was primarily designed to capture participant feedback on the workshop process as a whole. However, two questions provided a further and final opportunity for comments.
A total of 31 responses were given. This number consistent with the numbers completing the Pre feedback form as that form was completed by a number of BMCC and EcoSTEPS facilitation staff attending (nine in all) who were not expected to complete the Post- form.
Summaries of the responses to the key question are given below. A full spreadsheet of all responses is available on request.
Content
Structure
Interaction
Venue
Facilitation
3.0
3.1
2.7
3.2
Summary by numbers
Excellent
7
11
34
Good
18
17
21
14
93
Fair
6
3
25
Poor
Total Responses
31
155
Summary as %
6%
35%
22 %
58%
55%
68%
74%
45%
60 %
19%
16 %
0%
2 %
100 %
In the Overall Score above, a score of 3.0 equates to 'Good' and 4.0 to 'Excellent'. In EcoSTEPS experience, these scores are above average for this sort of workshop with a large group of people, a wide range of stakeholders and considerable diversity of opinions and views. These scores suggest that the workshop process achieved its planned process outcomes.
The score for Venue (2.7) acts as a 'control'. The fact that this aspect was marked most harshly reflects well on the balance of the aspects.
Overall 22% of responses were 'Excellent' and 60% 'Good' - a combined total of 82% which is most satisfactory.
EcoSTEPS tabulated and broadly grouped responses from 31 forms to this question as follows:
Element most liked
All
16%
Discussion, Interaction, Diversity
29%
Exercises with Post-it's
26%
Information and briefings
Civic Centre consideration
Site specific discussions
99%
Again these results are consistent with a well planned and well received program.
Responses to this question are given at Appendix 5. The facilitator then performed a rough grouping exercise after the workshop using his best judgement to draw out the main areas of interest/concern. He gave consideration to further splitting the 'Consultation' grouping but a review of the comments in this group indicated that any further sub-grouping was likely to be considered somewhat arbitrary.
Planning Et Process
Responses to this question are given at Appendix 6. There were 8 substantive comments. Further analysis was considered for these comments but was not considered appropriate and it is suggested that they are best read verbatim.
In order to assess the impact of this workshop in both the short and long term, it's important we gather some information both before and after the session.
1.How would you describe your level of understanding of the Springwood Town Centre redevelopment project?
2.Why are you here today?
3. If you wanted more information on the Springwood Town Centre redevelopment project, where would you look or who would you contact?
Thank you!
Thank you for your contribution and participation in the workshop. We hope that you have found it useful and interesting.
If so, please provide your name:
Full transcripts of all post-its and the butcher's paper summaries are recorded below. The identifying numbers eg P1 merely identify each actual post-it note by grouping. The ordering is random.
Table coordinator: David McGowan - BMCC
Table coordinator: Adrian Hack - HillPDA
Table Coordinator: Paul Cashel - BMCC
Table Coordinator: Carole Young, EcoSTEPS
Table Coordinator: Angela Langdon, BMCC
Table Coordinator: Kirsty Tepper, BMCC
Read out to the plenary group by Julian Crawford
Following the Pink Post-it exercise which considered issues by key themes, a similar exercise was conducted where participants were invited to record their comments on site specific issues Post-it notes (Yellow). These comments were then grouped under the following broad headings:
Table Coordinator: David McGowan, BMCC
Table Coordinators: Angela Langdon Et Kirsty Tepper - BMCC
Numbering below relates to batch controlled identification of feedback forms, which allowed for two (or more) responses per person. The facilitator has then performed a rough grouping exercise after the workshop using his best judgement to draw out the main areas of interest/concern.
Grouped feedback
Random order within grouping.
Unsorted. Random order. Blank responses not recorded.
Numbers relate to batch controlled identification of forms. Blank responses and 'No comments' have not been not recorded here.
Tight timeframe for EOI
Themes/Issues
Council doesn't own all the land
The land has been upzoned and bush fire controls will influence the site. There is a possibility of excavating and providing underground parking. The Colless site in Leura has similar zoning.
Cllr Frappell (Fourth Ward) made some general remarks to the group at the end of the day regarding the processes and activities that Council had followed in relation to the project over the past few years.