Transcript Community Satisfaction 2005

Community Satisfaction 2007
Community Satisfaction Research Findings
Town of Claremont
May 2007
Introduction and research method

In March 2007, Australian Market Intelligence conducted community satisfaction research to determine:
−
Overall satisfaction with the Town of Claremont
−
Perceived importance and satisfaction for selected services and facilities
−
Performance map analysis
−
Other specific questions required by the Town of Claremont

The data was collected by way of a self-completion survey mailed out to the Town’s residents.

A sample of 560 households was surveyed by way of a self-completion questionnaire:
−
Sampling precision is +/- 4% at the 95% confidence interval. That is to say, we are 95% confident that the results obtained from
the survey are within +/- 4% of that of the entire population.
−
A total of 2,000 households were randomly selected from the rates database and invited to participate in the research.
 A response rate of 28% was achieved in 2007.
2
Sample profile
GENDER
HOUSEHOLD TYPE
Singles / couples <35
44
44
Male
Families*
56
56
Female
AGE
28
28
42
1
HOME OWNERSHIP
34
34
35-54
38
Singles / couples 35+*
Refused
18-34
19
Not renting (home-owners)
Renting
38
38
55+
99
1
DURATION OF RESIDENCE
WARD
Less than 1 yr
4
43
East
1-5 years
West
South
29
25
6-10 years
32
* Families = Children living at home
Singles / couples 35+ = no children living at home
17
Survey Sample
ABS Population
More than 10 years
50
3
Overall Satisfaction
4
Overall satisfaction

2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
73
29

14
13

SATISFACTION HISTORY
73
2007
81
2005
−
These respondents rate overall satisfaction 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 out of 10,
where 10 is totally satisfied and 1 is totally dissatisfied
−
Overall satisfaction has decreased significantly from 81% last year
Satisfaction is high and has improved significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.5
−
Satisfaction decreased significantly by 8% points between 2005-07
Satisfaction is higher among males, older and those in either
the West or South ward respondents
−
36% males vs. 23% females rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
45% of those aged 55 years+ vs. 20% of those aged 18-54 years rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes (16% points above the average)
−
South (33%) and West (32%) compared to East (23%) ward residents
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
62
2002
2000
73% of respondents are satisfied with Council
55
Q1. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is totally satisfied and 1 is totally dissatisfied, overall, how satisfied are you with the Town of Claremont?
Base = all respondents (2007 n=438 excludes ‘don’t know’); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied 1-4
= significant variance
5
Services & Facilities
Importance & Satisfaction Ratings: An Overview
6
Council services & facilities – higher importance
2007 Mean importance (out of 10, where 10=extremely important)
9.36
Weekly rubbish collections
Managing finances responsibly
9.3
Recycling
9.15
Provide & maintain parks
Good street lighting
9.04
9
Provide f'paths & c'ways
8.96
Bulk rubbish collections
8.93
Access to council info
8.85
Provide & maintain playgrounds
8.78
Comm. & consulting with community
8.78
Maintain roads
8.75
Health services
8.72
Control develop. & zoning
8.66
Managing traffic
8.63
Provide & maintain Claremont Pool
8.58
Pedestrian movement to town centre
8.55
Appearance of town centre
8.55
Q: How important is it for the Town of Claremont to provide each service to its residents? The importance can be rated on a 10 point
scale where ‘10’ is extremely important and ‘1’ is of no importance.
Base = all respondents (2007 n=various)
7
Council services & facilities – lower importance
2007 Mean importance (out of 10, where 10=extremely important)
Control vandalism & graffiti
8.55
Services & access for disabled
8.54
Maintain sport & rec facilities
8.53
Provide library services
8.52
Manage natural environ.
8.47
Control residential infill
8.46
Appearance of residence
8.45
Maintain street signs
8.4
Services for seniors
8.34
8.2
Pedestrian movement to suburbs
8.17
Control animals & pests
8.04
Preserve town's heritage
7.83
Services for youth
7.5
Encouraging art & culture
Provide & maintain the golf course
6.8
Provide museum services
6.64
Encourage econ. growth & tourism
6.26
Q: How important is it for the Town of Claremont to provide each service to its residents? The importance can be rated on a 10 point
scale where ‘10’ is extremely important and ‘1’ is of no importance.
Base = all respondents (2007 n=various)
8
Council services & facilities – higher satisfaction
2007 Satisfaction mean rating (out of 10, where 10= totally satisfied)
8.82
Weekly rubbish collections
Provide & maintain Claremont Pool
8.39
Bulk rubbish collections
8.38
Provide library services
8.18
Recycling
8.11
Provide & maintain parks
7.9
Provide & maintain playgrounds
7.81
7.66
Maintain sport & rec facilities
Provide museum services
7.52
Control animals & pests
7.47
Maintain street signs
7.22
Services for seniors
7.14
Access to council info
7.08
Health services
7.07
Good street lighting
7.05
Preserve town's heritage
7.03
Services & access for disabled
Q. How satisfied are you with the Town of Claremont’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who use service / facility (2007 n=various)
6.94
9
Council services & facilities – lower satisfaction
2007 Satisfaction mean rating (out of 10, where 10= totally satisfied)
Control vandalism & graffiti
6.85
Comm. & consulting with community
6.81
Managing finances responsibly
6.79
Maintain roads
6.69
Pedestrian movement to suburbs
6.64
Encourage econ. growth & tourism
6.59
Services for youth
6.57
Manage natural environ.
6.56
Provide & maintain the golf course
6.53
6.5
Encouraging art & culture
Pedestrian movement to town centre
6.47
Managing traffic
6.47
Appearance of town centre
6.45
Appearance of residence
6.29
Control develop. & zoning
6.01
Control residential infill
5.99
Provide f'paths & c'ways
5.82
Q. How satisfied are you with the Town of Claremont’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who use service / facility (2007 n=various)
10
Performance Map Analysis
11
Performance map analysis
Performance map analysis assists Council to identify strategic priorities. Importance and satisfaction levels are
analysed and presented in four quadrants (shown below) to illustrate which services and facilities need to be improved,
monitored, maintained and celebrated.
Perceived Satisfaction
PRAISE represents the quadrant of high importance and high
Levels of high satisfaction and lower levels of importance depict
satisfaction. Services and facilities that fall into this quadrant are
the SUSTAIN quadrant. Services and facilities that fall into this
important to the community and the Council is performing extremely
quadrant are less important to the community and the Council is
well in delivering them (to those who use
performing very well in delivering them
Performance Map Analysis
them). This quadrant requires no special
(to those who use them). This quadrant
strategic emphasis besides maintaining
requires no strategic intervention
High
current levels of performance and
besides maintaining current levels
promoting the Council’s performance.
of performance.
Sustain
Praise
MONITOR represents the quadrant of
Monitor
Concentrate
lower importance & lower satisfaction
levels. Services and facilities that fall
Low
The CONCENTRATE quadrant
into this quadrant are less important
Perceived Importance
Low
High
comprises services and facilities that have
to the community and the Council is
high levels of perceived importance and
performing less well in delivering them
lower levels of satisfaction. These areas represent the ‘hot
(to those who use them). This quadrant requires Council to
issues’ for Council. Services and facilities that fall into this
monitor perceived levels of importance and satisfaction and
quadrant require Council to invest resources and effort to improve
make required adjustments if a particular service or facility
performance and perceived levels of satisfaction.
moves into another quadrant.
12
Performance map analysis – Council services & facilities
9.5
High importance, high satisfaction PRAISE
SUSTAIN High satisfaction, lower importance
9
Weekly rubbish collections
SATISFACTION
(mean score out of 10)
8.5
Provide & maintain pool
Bulk rubbish collections
Provide library services
Recycling
8
Provide & maintain parks
Provide & maintain playgrounds
Maintain sport & rec facilities
Provide museum services
7.5
Control animals & pests
Manage natural environ.
Maintain street signs Services & access for disabled
Services for seniors
Access to council info
Health services
Good street lighting
Preserve town's heritage
Comm. & consulting with community
Control vandalism & graffiti
Maintain roads
Pedestrian movement to town centre
Managing finances responsibly
Pedestrian movement to suburbs
Encourage econ. growth & tourism
Managing traffic
Provide & maintain the golf course
Encouraging art & culture
Appearance of town centre
Services for youth
Appearance of residence
7
6.5
MONITOR Lower satisfaction, lower importance
High importance, lower satisfaction CONCENTRATE
6
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
Control develop. & zoning
9
9.5
10
IMPORTANCE (mean score out of 10)
Q: How important is it for the Town of Claremont to provide each service to its residents? The importance can be rated on a 10 point scale where ‘10’ is extremely important and
‘1’ is of no importance. Base = all respondents (2005 n=329)
Q. How satisfied are you with the Town of Claremont’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied. Base = Respondents who use service (n=various)
DOTTED LINE: indicates average mean score for all individual services / facilities
13
Services & Facilities
Detailed Findings
14
Maintaining roads

Praise the maintenance of roads

Residents consider the maintenance of roads to be a very
important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
37
72
−
13

15

SATISFACTION HISTORY
2007
87
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.7
−
Satisfaction decreased by 15% points between 2005-07
Households without children, older respondents and those in
the South ward are more satisfied.
−
54% aged 55 years and older compared to 27% for those under 55
years rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
44% of households without children vs. 26% families with children
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
−
53% of those in the South ward vs. those in either the West (33%) or
in the East (32%) rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
81
2002
2000
Satisfaction is high but has fall significantly
72
2005
Mean importance rating = 8.7
73
ER1
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=549); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
15
Maintaining street signs

Praise the maintenance of street signs

Residents consider the maintenance of street signs to be a
very important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
50
−
15
Neutral
Dissatisfied
79

6

SATISFACTION HISTORY
2007
2002
2000
Satisfaction is high but has fallen significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.2
−
Satisfaction decreased by 8% points between 2005-07
Households without children and those in the South ward are
more satisfied
−
59% of households without children vs. 37% younger households
with children rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
−
64% of South wards respondents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
compared to 55% of those in the West ward. Those in the West ward,
in turn, have greater satisfaction than those in the East ward (39%).
79
87
2005
Mean importance rating = 8.4
81
79
ER6
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=548); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
16
Managing traffic

Concentrate on the management of traffic

Residents consider the management of traffic to be a very
important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
70
43
−

12
18

SATISFACTION HISTORY
2000
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.5
−
Satisfaction increased by 2% points between 2005-07
Households without children, newer residents and those in
the South ward are more satisfied
−
49% of households without children vs. 32% younger households with
children rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
−
50% of those who have lived in Claremont for under 6 years vs. 39%
for those who have resided longer rated satisfaction in the top 3
boxes.
−
57% of South wards respondents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
compared to 47% of those in the West ward. Those in the West ward,
in turn, have greater satisfaction than those in the East ward (31%).
68
2005
2002
Satisfaction is good and has improved marginally
70
2007
61
Mean importance rating = 8.6
55
ER11
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=547); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
17
Footpaths & cycleways

Concentrate on the provision of footpaths and cycleways

Residents consider the provision of footpaths and cycleways
to be a very important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
58
26
−
13

29

SATISFACTION HISTORY
2007
77
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 5.8
−
Satisfaction decreased by 19% points between 2005-07
Satisfaction increases with age. Also, those without children
and South ward respondents are more satisfied.
−
16% 18-34 year olds vs. 25% 35-54 year olds vs. 35% 55 years+
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
−
31% households without children vs. 17% families with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
39% of South ward respondents vs. 22% East or 21% West ward
respondents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
66
2002
2000
Satisfaction is good but has fallen significantly
58
2005
Mean importance rating = 8.9
59
EF1
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=549); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
18
Ease of pedestrians moving in the town centre

Monitor/concentrate on the ease in which pedestrians can
move in the town centre

Residents consider the ease in which pedestrians can move
in the town centre to be a very important responsibility of
Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
38
70
11
−

19
Mean importance rating = 8.5
Satisfaction is good but has fallen significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.5
−
Satisfaction decreased by 5% points between 2005-07
SATISFACTION HISTORY

2007
2005
70
75
2002
70
2000
69
Older, those without children, Females and those in either
the South and West wards are more satisfied.
−
48% of 55+ year olds vs 33% of younger respondents rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
43% without children vs. 30% with children rated satisfaction in the
top 3 boxes.
−
40% Females vs 35% males rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
45% both South and West wards vs. 33% East ward respondents
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2005 n=321); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
19
Ease of pedestrians moving in the suburbs

Sustain the ease in which pedestrians can move in the
suburbs

Residents consider the ease in which pedestrians can move
in the suburbs to be an important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
43
74
−
Neutral
12

Dissatisfied
14

SATISFACTION HISTORY
2007
74
2000
Satisfaction is high but has fallen significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.6
−
Satisfaction decreased by 12% points between 2005-07
Those without children, newer residents and those in the
South ward are more satisfied.
−
50% of households without children vs. 32% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
54% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 37% for 6+ yrs
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
60% of South ward residents vs. 36% East and 33% West ward
residents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
86
2005
2002
Mean importance rating = 8.2
84
79
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=544); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
20
Controlling vandalism & graffiti

Concentrate on the control of vandalism and graffiti

Residents consider the control of vandalism and graffiti to be
a very important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
76
43
−
12

12

SATISFACTION HISTORY
80
2005
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.8
−
Satisfaction decreased by 4% points between 2005-07
Those without children, newer residents and those in the
South or West wards are more satisfied.
−
49% of households without children vs. 36% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
52% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 39% for 6+ yrs
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
50% of South and 51% of West ward residents vs. 39% East ward
residents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
63
2002
2000
Satisfaction is high but has fallen marginally
76
2007
Mean importance rating = 8.5
55
ES3
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=544); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
21
Providing good street lighting

Praise the provision of good street lighting

Residents consider the provision of good street lighting to be
a very important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
76
49
−

11
13

SATISFACTION HISTORY
87
2005
2002
2000
Satisfaction is high but has fallen significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.0
−
Satisfaction decreased by 11% points between 2005-07
Those without children, older respondents and those in the
South ward are more satisfied.
−
58% of those aged 55 years and over vs. 44% younger respondents
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
53% of households without children vs. 43% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
71% of South ward residents vs. 52% West vs. 33% East ward
residents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
76
2007
Mean importance rating = 9.0
74
69
ER9
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=552); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
22
Pleasant appearance to the town centre

Concentrate on the provision of a pleasant appearance to
the town centre

Residents consider the provision of a pleasant appearance
to the town centre to be a very important responsibility of
Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
39
69
11
−

20
Mean importance rating = 8.5
Satisfaction is good but has fallen significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.5
−
Satisfaction decreased by 5% points between 2005-07
SATISFACTION HISTORY

2007
69
74
2005
2002
2000
Those without children and those in the South ward are more
satisfied.
−
42% of households without children vs. 34% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
46% of South ward residents vs. 34% East and 37% West ward
residents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
67
72
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=549); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
23
Pleasant appearance to residential streetscapes

Monitor the provision of a pleasant appearance to residential
streetscapes

Residents consider the provision of a pleasant appearance
to residential streetscapes to be a very important
responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
35
67
9
−

24
Mean importance rating = 8.4
Satisfaction is good but has fallen significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.3
−
Satisfaction decreased by 11% points between 2005-07
SATISFACTION HISTORY

2007
67
78
2005
2002
2000
The harshest critics are those aged 18-34 years of aged or
reside in the East ward
−
37% 18-34 yrs vs. 21% 35-54 yrs vs. 15% 55+ yrs are dissatisfied.
−
33% East ward vs. 17% West ward vs. 12% South ward are
dissatisfied.
69
66
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=549); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
24
Encouraging economic growth & tourism

Monitor Council’s ability to encourage economic growth and
tourism

Residents consider Council’s ability to encourage economic
growth and tourism to be the least important responsibility of
Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
20
Neutral
Dissatisfied
69
36
−

11
Mean importance rating = 6.3
Satisfaction is good but has fallen marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.6
−
Satisfaction decreased by 2% points between 2005-07
SATISFACTION HISTORY

69
2007
71
2005
2002
2000
Those under 34 years and newer residents are more
satisfied.
−
56% 18-34 yrs vs. 28% older respondents rated satisfaction in the
top 3 boxes.
−
45% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 31% for 6+ yrs
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
50
47
ED4
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=497); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
25
Managing the natural environment
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes

Concentrate on the management of the natural environment

Residents consider the management of the natural
environment to be a very important responsibility of Council
73
37
−
Neutral
Dissatisfied
10

17

SATISFACTION HISTORY
73
2007
2002
2000
Satisfaction is high but has fallen significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.6
−
Satisfaction decreased by 7% points between 2005-07
Those without children, newer residents and those in the
South and West wards are more satisfied.
−
44% of households without children vs. 27% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
54% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 37% for 6+ yrs
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
47% of both South and West ward residents vs. 25% East and 33%
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
80
2005
Mean importance rating = 8.5
68
65
EE2
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=501); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
26
Controlling development & zoning
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes

Concentrate on the control of development and zoning

Residents consider the control of development and zoning to
be a very important responsibility of Council
65
30
−
Neutral
Dissatisfied
10

25

SATISFACTION HISTORY
65
2007
2002
2000
Satisfaction is good but has fallen marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.0
−
Satisfaction decreased by 3% points between 2005-07
Those without children, newer residents and those in the
South ward are more satisfied.
−
36% of households without children vs. 21% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
38% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 27% for 6+ yrs
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
37% of South ward residents vs. 30% East and 27% West ward
residents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
68
2005
Mean importance rating = 8.7
56
50
EP10
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=503); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
27
Controlling residential infill (i.e. medium/high density housing)

Concentrate on the control of residential infill

Residents consider the control of residential infill to be a very
important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
65
29
−
11

24
SATISFACTION HISTORY

Mean importance rating = 8.5
This service has one of the lowest levels of satisfaction but
has improved significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.0
−
Satisfaction increased by 1% points between 2005-07
Those without children, newer residents and those in the
South ward are more satisfied.
2007
65
−
41% of households without children vs. 13% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
2005
64
−
40% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 24% for 6+ yrs
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
48% of South ward residents vs. 21% East and 21% West ward
residents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
2002
2000
53
50
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=499); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
28
Providing bulk rubbish collections
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
79

Praise the provision of bulk rubbish collections

Residents consider the provision of bulk rubbish collections
to be a very important responsibility of Council
93
−
Neutral
4
Dissatisfied
3


SATISFACTION HISTORY
Satisfaction is high and has improved marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 8.4
−
Satisfaction increased by 4% point between 2005-07
Females are more satisfied
−
2007
83% of females vs. 73% of males rated satisfaction in the top 3
boxes.
93
2005
89
2002
88
2000
Mean importance rating = 8.9
91
EW6
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=510); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
29
Verge collection services

2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
62
−
These respondents rate satisfaction 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 out of 10, where
10 is totally satisfied and 1 is totally dissatisfied
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.6
83
3

14
Dissatisfied
SATISFACTION HISTORY
83
2007
77
2005

THINGS TO CHANGE
49
More bulk waste collections
17
Better recycling
More green pickups / bins
11
Too long before collect
11
More recycling bins
83% of respondents are satisfied with Council in the
provision of verge collection services
Those 55+ years, those without children and females are
more satisfied.
−
76% 55+ yrs vs. 54% younger respondents rated satisfaction in the
top 3 boxes.
−
68% of households without children vs. 54% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
73% of both South and West ward residents vs. 49% of East ward
residents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
Of those who are dissatisfied, more bulk waste collections
was the most cited thing to improve upon. This was followed
by:
−
Better recycling procedures
−
More green waste pick-ups and bins
−
Speedier pick-up of items left on verges.
8
Q. Are you satisfied with the current verge collection service provided by Council? Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=549);
Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
Q. What would you want to change with the verge collection service? Base = those dissatisfied; gave a rating of 1-4 out of ten and gave a valid response (2007 n=76)
30
Support the introduction of a green waste bin
SUPPORT
Yes
Of those who answered the question 54% are in support of the
introduction of the green waste bin .

A further 12% were unsure and just over a third (34%) did not
support the introduction of the bin.
54
34
No
Not sure

12
Q. Would you support the introduction of a third (green waste 240 litre) bin? (2007 n=76)
31
Providing recycling of rubbish including green waste
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes

Praise the provision of recycling services

Residents consider recycling services to be a very important
responsibility of Council
92
70
−
Neutral
Dissatisfied
5

3

SATISFACTION HISTORY
92
2007
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 8.1
−
Satisfaction fell by 5% points between 2005-07
Those 55+ years, those without children and females are
more satisfied.
−
80% 55+ yrs vs. 63% younger respondents rated satisfaction in the
top 3 boxes.
−
76% of households without children vs. 61% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
75% females vs. 64% males rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
89
2002
2000
Satisfaction is high and has increased significantly
87
2005
Mean importance rating = 9.1
80
EW3
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=509); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
32
Weekly rubbish collections
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
84

Praise the provision of weekly rubbish collections

Residents consider the provision of weekly rubbish
collections to be the greatest responsibility of Council
96
−
Neutral
Dissatisfied
3

1
SATISFACTION HISTORY

This service has the highest level of satisfaction and has
remained static.
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 8.8
−
Satisfaction the same as 2005
Satisfaction increased with age
−
2007
96
2005
96
2002
93
2000
94

Mean importance rating = 9.4
74% 18-34 yrs vs. 82% 35-54 yrs vs. 92% 55+ yrs rated satisfaction
in the top 3 boxes
South ward residents and females are more satisfied
−
94% South ward vs. 74% East ward and 87% South ward residents
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
−
88% females vs. 79% males rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
EW2
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=512); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
33
Providing & maintaining sport & recreation facilities

Praise the provision and maintenance of sport and recreation
facilities

Residents consider the provision of sport and recreation
facilities to be a very important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
88
59
−
8
Neutral

Dissatisfied
4
SATISFACTION HISTORY

2007
88
2005
88
2002
2000
78
Mean importance rating = 8.5
Satisfaction is high and has remained static
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.7
−
Satisfaction is the same as that reported in 2005
Those without children, newer residents and those residing
in the South ward are more satisfied.
−
66% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 55% those living
longer in Claremont rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
65% of households without children vs. 49% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
76% South ward residents vs. 47% West or 53% East ward residents
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
72
EL5
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=504); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
34
Providing & maintaining the golf course
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes

Monitor the provision and maintenance of the golf course

Residents consider the provision and maintenance of the golf
course to be an important responsibility of Council
66
41
−
Neutral
Dissatisfied
18

16

SATISFACTION HISTORY
66
2007
71
2005
Satisfaction is good but has declined significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.5
−
Satisfaction decreased by 5% points between 2005-07
Those without children, females and those residing in the
South ward are more satisfied.
−
45% of households without children vs. 36% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
46% females vs. 36% males rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
57% South ward residents vs. 31% West or 34% East ward residents
rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
59
2002
2000
Mean importance rating = 6.8
50
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=495); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
35
Providing & maintaining the Claremont Pool

Sustain the provision and maintenance of the Claremont
Pool

Residents consider the provision and maintenance of the
Claremont Pool to be a very important responsibility of
Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
78
5
Neutral
Dissatisfied
94
−

1
Mean importance rating = 8.6
Satisfaction is high and has improved significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 8.4
−
Satisfaction increased by 6% points between 2005-07
SATISFACTION HISTORY

94
2007
2000
−
93% 18-34 years olds vs. 73% older respondents rated satisfaction in
the top 3 boxes.
88
2005
2002
Those aged 18-34 years are more satisfied.
68
70
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=503); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
36
Providing & maintaining parks
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes

Praise the provision and maintenance of parks

Residents consider the provision and maintenance of parks
to be a very important responsibility of Council
92
69
−
Neutral
4
Dissatisfied
4


SATISFACTION HISTORY
Satisfaction is high and has improved marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.9
−
Satisfaction increased by 1% points between 2005-07
South ward residents are more satisfied
−
2007
92
2005
91
2002
86
2000
85
Mean importance rating = 9.0
80% South ward vs. 68% west and 60% East ward rated satisfaction
in the top 3 boxes.
EL3
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=509); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
37
Providing & maintaining playgrounds

Praise the provision and maintenance of playgrounds

Residents consider the provision and maintenance of
playgrounds to be a very important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
66
−
8
Neutral
Dissatisfied
90

2

SATISFACTION HISTORY
90
2007
Mean importance rating = 8.8
Satisfaction is high and has improved marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.8
−
Satisfaction increased by 4% points between 2005-07
Those 18-34 years of age and newer residents are more
satisfied.
−
81% 18-34 yrs vs. 60% older rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
76% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 61% those living
longer in Claremont rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
86
2005
2002
78
2000
78
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=506); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
38
Providing library services
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes

Praise the provision of library services

Residents consider the provision of library services to be a
very important responsibility of Council
91
75
−
7
Neutral
Dissatisfied

2

SATISFACTION HISTORY
Satisfaction is high and has improved marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 8.2
−
Satisfaction increased by 2% points between 2005-07
Those without children and those residing in the South
ward are more satisfied.
−
80% of households without children vs. 68% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
81% 18-34 yrs and 80% 55+ yrs vs. 64% 35-54 yrs rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
84% South ward residents vs. 73% West or 68% East ward
residents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
91
2007
89
2005
2002
80
2000
79
Mean importance rating = 8.5
EI1
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=510); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
39
Providing museum services
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
54

Sustain the provision of museum services

Residents consider the provision of museum services to
be an important responsibility of Council
84
−
13
Neutral
Dissatisfied

3

SATISFACTION HISTORY
2007
84
2005
79
2002
79
2000
80
Mean importance rating = 6.6
Satisfaction is good and has improved significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.5
−
Satisfaction increased by 5% points between 2005-07
Those without children, newer residents and females are
more satisfied.
−
63% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 49% those
living longer in Claremont rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
62% of households without children vs. 43% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
60% of females vs. 46% of males rated satisfaction in the top 3
boxes.
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=494); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
40
Controlling animals & pests
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes

Praise the control of animals and pests

Residents consider the control of animals and pests to be a
very important responsibility of Council
85
54
−
Neutral
8
Dissatisfied
7


SATISFACTION HISTORY
85
2007
2002
2000
Satisfaction is good and has improved significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.5
−
Satisfaction increased by 6% points between 2005-07
Those without children, newer residents and females are
more satisfied.
−
56% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 53% those living
longer in Claremont rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
60% of households without children vs. 46% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
58% of females vs. 48% of males rated satisfaction in the top 3
79
2005
Mean importance rating = 8.2
57
63
EC1
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=500); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
41
Providing health services (i.e. standards in food premises, noise control)

Concentrate on the Council’s provision of health services

Residents consider Council’s provision of health services to
be a very important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
81
49
−
9

10

SATISFACTION HISTORY
81
2007
2005
2002
2000
Mean importance rating = 8.7
Satisfaction is good and has improved significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.1
−
Satisfaction increased by 5% points between 2005-07
Newer residents and females are more satisfied.
−
58% of households without children vs. 36% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
51% of females vs. 45% of males rated satisfaction in the top 3
76
70
72
EC7
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=504); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
42
Providing services for youth

Monitor the provision of services for youth

Residents consider the provision of services for youth to be
an important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
73
26
−
16

11

SATISFACTION HISTORY
73
67
2005
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.6
−
Satisfaction increased by 6% points between 2005-07
Satisfaction increases with age.

39
21% 18-34 yrs vs. 24% 35-54 yrs vs. 32% 55+ yrs
Those without children, newer residents, South ward
residents and males are more satisfied.
−
34% of those living in Claremont under 6 years vs. 23% those living
longer in Claremont rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
33% of households without children vs. 15% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
30% of males vs. 23% of females rated satisfaction in the top 3
−
36% South ward vs. 25% East and 20% West ward residents rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
52
2002
2000
Satisfaction is good and has improved significantly
−
2007
Mean importance rating = 7.8
EG1
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2005 n=302); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
43
Providing services for seniors

Concentrate on the provision of services for seniors

Residents consider the provision of services for seniors to be
a very important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
−
16
Neutral
Dissatisfied
80
44

4

SATISFACTION HISTORY
Satisfaction is good and has improved marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.1
−
Satisfaction increased by 1% points between 2005-07
Residents who have lived in Claremont 6 or more years are
more satisfied.
−
2007
80
2005
79
2002
2000
Mean importance rating = 8.3
47% of those living in Claremont 6+ years vs. 38% under 6 yrs in
Claremont rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
62
60
EG3
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=532); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
44
Providing services & access for the disabled

Concentrate on the provision of services and access for
people with disabilities

Residents consider the provision of services and access for
people with disabilities to be a very important responsibility of
Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
17
Neutral
Dissatisfied
75
44
−

8
Mean importance rating = 8.5
Satisfaction is good and has fallen marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.9
−
Satisfaction decreased by 4% points between 2005-07
SATISFACTION HISTORY

75
2007
79
2005
−
49% of males vs. 40% of females rated satisfaction in the top 3
−
54% South ward vs. 44% East ward vs. 35% West ward rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
64
2002
2000
Males and those residing in the South ward are more
satisfied.
54
EG5
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=525); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
45
Preserving the town’s heritage

Monitor Council’s ability to preserve the town’s heritage

Residents consider Council’s ability to preserve the town’s
heritage to be a very important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
81
43
−
10

9

SATISFACTION HISTORY
77
2005
2002
2000
Satisfaction is good and has improved marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.0
−
Satisfaction increased by 4% points between 2005-07
Those without children and West ward residents are more
satisfied.
−
46% of households without children vs. 37% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
54% West ward vs. 47% South ward vs. 32% East ward rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
81
2007
Mean importance rating = 8.0
72
66
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=537); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
46
Encouraging art & culture
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes

Monitor Council’s encouragement of art and culture

Residents consider Council’s encouragement of art and
culture to be an important responsibility of Council
72
31
−
Neutral
Dissatisfied

11

SATISFACTION HISTORY
Satisfaction is good and has fallen marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.5
−
Satisfaction decreased by 1% points between 2005-07
Residents in the South ward are more satisfied
−
2007
72
2005
73
38% South ward vs. 27% both east and West ward residents rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
67
2002
2000
Mean importance rating = 7.5
17
60
EA3
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=531); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
47
Communicating & consulting with the community

Concentrate on Council’s communication and consultation
with the community

Residents consider Council’s communication and
consultation with the community to be a very important
responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
Dissatisfied
77
39
13
−

10
Mean importance rating = 8.8
Satisfaction is good and has remained static
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.8
−
Satisfaction has not changed between 2005-07
SATISFACTION HISTORY

77
2007
77
2005
69
2002
2000
59
Older respondents, those without children, males and South
ward residents are more satisfied.
−
49% 55+ yrs vs. 33% under 55 yrs rated satisfaction in the top 3
boxes.
−
46% of households without children vs. 28% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
48% of males vs. 33% of females rated satisfaction in the top 3
−
48% South ward vs. 36% East and 34% West ward residents rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=543); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
48
Managing finances responsibly

Concentrate on Council’s ability to manage finances
responsibly

Residents consider Council’s ability to manage finances
responsibly to be a very important responsibility of Council
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
75
43
−
15

Dissatisfied
10
SATISFACTION HISTORY

75
2007
78
2005
2002
2000
52
Mean importance rating = 9.3
Satisfaction is good and has declined marginally
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 6.8
−
Satisfaction decreased by 3% points between 2005-07
Older respondents, those without children, males and South
ward residents are more satisfied.
−
54% 55+ yrs vs. 36% under 55 yrs rated satisfaction in the top 3
boxes.
−
50% of households without children vs. 32% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
50% of males vs. 37% of females rated satisfaction in the top 3
−
51% South ward vs. 46% West ward vs. 34% East and ward
residents rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
50
NEW
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=534); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
49
Providing access to Council information
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes

Concentrate on the accessibility of Council information

Residents consider the accessibility of Council information to
be a very important responsibility of Council
84
45
−
Neutral
Dissatisfied
9

7

SATISFACTION HISTORY
84
2007
72
2002
2000
Satisfaction is good and has improved significantly
−
Mean satisfaction rating = 7.1
−
Satisfaction increased by 8% points between 2005-07
Older respondents, those without children, males and South
ward residents are more satisfied.
−
57% 55+ yrs vs. 37% under 55 yrs rated satisfaction in the top 3
boxes.
−
54% of households without children vs. 30% with children rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
−
52% of males vs. 39% of females rated satisfaction in the top 3
−
57% South ward vs. 40% East and 44% West ward residents rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
76
2005
Mean importance rating = 8.8
62
EI11
Q. How satisfied are you with Council’s performance in this area? 10 = totally satisfied; 1 = totally dissatisfied.
Base = Respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=539); Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied = 1-4
= significant variance
50
Frequency of Using/Visiting Facilities
51
Frequency of visiting museums
32
Once a year or
less frequently
Once every 3-6
months
2007
2005
28
3

38% of respondents visit museums in the Town of Claremont

The greatest proportion of respondents visit museums once a
year or less
2
−
Once every 3
months
Once every 1-3
months
This was mentioned by 32% of respondents
2

2
1
1
Those most likely to visit are those 35 years and over, have
children and reside in either the West or South wards.
−
75% 18-34 yrs vs. 54% 35+ stated they don’t visit
−
67% without children vs. 49% with children stated they don’t visit
−
70% East ward vs. 51% West ward and 56% South ward stated they
don’t visit
Once a weekfortnight
Once or twice a
week
Never/do not
use
1
1
62
67
Q. How frequently do you or members of your household visit/use this service in Claremont.
Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=559)
= significant variance
52
Frequency of visiting library
18
Once a year or
less frequently
2007
2005
17
12
Once every 3-6
months

76% of respondents visit libraries in the Town of Claremont

The greatest proportion of respondents visit libraries once a
year or less or once every 3 months
13
−
18
Once every 3
months
11
Once every 1-3
months
13
Never/do not
use
Those most likely to visit are those 35 years and over, have
children and reside in either the West or South wards.
−
37% 18-34 yrs vs. 15% 35+ stated they don’t visit
−
27% without children vs. 14% with children stated they don’t visit
−
35% East ward vs. 17% West ward and 11% South ward stated they
don’t visit
11
Once a weekfortnight
Once or twice a
week

14
This was mentioned by 18% of respondents
12
7
6
24
25
Q. How frequently do you or members of your household visit/use this service in Claremont.
Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=559)
53
Frequency of visiting golf course
16
Once a year or
less frequently
2007
2005
11
9
Once every 3-6
months

48% of respondents use the golf course in the Town of
Claremont

The greatest proportion of respondents use the golf course
once a year or less
6
−
Once every 3
months
Once every 1-3
months
Once a weekfortnight
Once or twice a
week
Never/do not
use
5

4
8
4
5
This was mentioned by 16% of respondents
Those most likely to visit frequently have children, males and
reside in the East ward.
−
54% without children vs. 42% with children don’t visit
−
54% female vs. 42% female don’t visit
−
66% South ward vs. 54% West and 38% East ward residents visit once
a week.
3
6
5
52
67
Q. How frequently do you or members of your household visit/use this service in Claremont.
Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=559)
54
Frequency of visiting parks/playgrounds
9
Once a year or
less frequently
Once every 3-6
months
2007
2005
12
6

89% of respondents use the parks/playgrounds in the Town of
Claremont

The greatest proportion of respondents use the
parks/playgrounds once or twice a week
4
−
Once every 3
months
Once every 1-3
months
Once a weekfortnight
6

7
11
8
16
Those most likely to visit frequently have children, males and
reside in the East ward.
−
54% with children vs. 35% without children visit once a week
−
47% male vs. 39% female visit once a week
−
49% East ward vs. 41% West and 38% South ward residents visit once
a week.
14
42
Once or twice a
week
Never/do not
use
This was mentioned by 42% of respondents
45
11
10
Q. How frequently do you or members of your household visit/use this service in Claremont.
Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=559)
55
Frequency of visiting pool

69% of respondents visit the Claremont pool
−
Once a year or
less frequently
Once every 3-6
months
Once every 3
months
2007

5

13
8
Once a weekfortnight
8
The greatest proportion of respondents visit the Claremont
pool once a week to once a fortnight
−
13
9
Never/do not
use
2005
8
Once every 1-3
months
Once or twice a
week
This has increased significantly; up from 55% in 2005
15
10
This was mentioned by 20% of respondents
Those most likely to visit are under 55 years, female, have
children and reside in the East ward.
−
54% 55+ yrs vs. 12% 18-54 yrs stated they don’t visit
−
38% without children vs. 11% with children stated they don’t visit
−
33% male vs. 24% female stated they don’t visit
−
36% West ward and 34% South ward vs. 16% East ward stated they
don’t visit
13
12
11
31
45
Q. How frequently do you or members of your household visit/use this service in Claremont.
Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=559)
= significant variance
56
Pool maintenance or upgrading

22
Maintenance
15
Strongly agree
Enlarge pools
−
Planned maintenance (45% - agree and strongly agree)
Redevelop
complex
−
Enlarge the 2 pools (33% - agree and strongly agree)
−
Redevelop entire complex (34% - agree and strongly agree)
21
29
Overall, the majority of respondents to the survey display a
significantly higher preference for only undertaking planner
maintenance compared to the other two options presented in
the research.
25
Agree
19

Those most likely to ‘strongly agree’ that the whole should be
redeveloped and enlarged are frequent users (34%). Those
most likely to ‘strongly agree’ that the only planned
maintenance should be undertaken at the pool are moderate
(33%) and frequent users (29%).

Those who agreed that the Council should take the
opportunity to redevelop and enlarge the whole complex were
what type of improvements should be made. The responses
provided included:
22
27
Neutral
21
16
15
Disagree
16
4
Strongly
disagree
10
14
7
Don't know
8
9
Q. Level of agreement with changes to the pool.
Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=511)
−
More play facilities/slides etc
15%
−
Better food-drink/Cafe/Kiosk/
15%
−
Complete rec centre/Gym/Squash
10%
−
Upgrade change-rooms/showers
9%
−
Landscape/picnic/BBQ areas/family
9%
−
Covered/All weather/Indoor
8%
−
Need a general upgrade
8%
−
Another pool/More lanes/Extra large
7%
= significant variance
57
Contact & Communication
58
Dealings in last 12 months

DEALINGS IN
LAST 12MTHS
% of respondents
−
79
Dealings
No dealings

21

METHOD OF
DEALINGS
76
Telephone

Writing
In person
79% of respondents stated they had dealings with Council
administration staff in the last 12 months
39
66
This was higher than in 2005 where 65% said they had contact
Of those who had dealings, most did so via telephone or in
person
−
76% telephoned
−
66% visited in person
−
39% did so in writing
The method of contact was generally similar compared to the
previous study
−
76% and 71% telephoned in 2007 and 2005 respectively
−
39% and 35% in writing in 2007 and 2005
−
66% and 73% visited in person in 2007 and 2005 (higher than in 2005)
The most cited reasons for contacting Council included:
−
Building plans/proposals
30%
−
Development of the area
13%
−
Traffic control
12%
−
Buying waste bags
12%
−
Parking issues
11%
−
Trees
11%
Q. In the last 12 months, have you had any dealings with Council administration staff either by phone, in writing or in person?
Base: Respondents all respondents (2007 n=559); Base for method of dealings (n=381)
= significant variance
59
Satisfaction with administration staff dealings

% of respondents
2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3 boxes
Neutral
40
59

6
59% of respondents who had contact in the last 12 months are
satisfied (rating 6-10) with their dealing with administration staff
−
58% were extremely satisfied with their dealings (codes 8-10)
−
Satisfaction has fallen significantly from 2005 (74%)
Over a third (35%) who had contact were dissatisfied with the
experience
−
Dissatisfied

SATISFACTION HISTORY
2007
59

2005
Up from 20% in 2005
35
76
2000
76
Q. How satisfied are you with your dealings with Council administration staff?
Base: Respondents who had dealings with administration staff in last 12 months (2007 n=379)
Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied 1-4
−
46% very satisfied of those who visited in person
−
37% very satisfied of those who telephoned
−
38% very satisfied of those who wrote
Satisfaction increases with age
−
74
2002
Those who visited in person had higher levels of satisfaction

21% 18-34 yrs vs. 43% 35-54 yrs vs. 55% 55+ yrs rated satisfaction in the
top 3 boxes.
Longer residents, males and those in either the East or West
wards are more satisfied
−
44% resided 6+ years vs. 33% under 6 years rated satisfaction in the top 3
boxes.
−
46% male vs. 37% female rated satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
−
48% East ward and 44% West vs. 34% South ward residents rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes.
= significant variance
60
Most effective means of communication

41
Council
letterbox drop
31
As in 2005, the greatest proportion of respondents nominated
letter drops by Council and the Town Talk magazine as being
the most effective ways for Council to communicate to them
−
This was mentioned by 41% and 30% of respondents respectively
−
Preference for letter box drops has increased significantly from 31% in
2005 to 41% in the current study
30
Town Talk
magazine

30
18% mentioned articles in the local newspaper
−
The proportion mentioning this decreased significantly; down 6% points
between 2005-07
18
Articles in local
newspaper

24
−

5
Phone / fax /
email
Females prefer letterbox drop.
10
43% female vs. 33% males
Those aged 35 years and over preferred Town Talk whereas
those 18-34 years preferred the Internet.
−
40% 35+ yrs vs. 0% 18-34yrs for Town Talk
−
16% 18-34 yrs vs. 0% 35+ yrs for the Internet
6
Internet web
page
3
2007
2005
NEW
Q. Which would be the most effective way for communicating Council messages to you?
Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=532); single response only
= significant variance
61
Councillor Contact
62
Contact with Ward Councillors in last 12 months

KNOW COUNCILLOR
% of respondents
30
Yes
30% of respondents stated they know who their elected Ward
Councillors are
−
Down on the 2005 result of 36%
−
Awareness increases with age, length of residency
 12% 18-34yrs vs. 31% 35-54yrs vs. 42% 55+ yrs
 37% resident for 6+ yrs vs. 15% under 6 yrs
−
Males and those in the South ward are more likely to know their elected
Councillors
 35% males vs. 26% females
 40% South ward vs. 25% East and 23% West wards
70
No
CONTACT IN LAST 12MTHS
Yes

13
No
87
EASE OF MAKING CONTACT

89
Easy
Difficult
13% of respondents claimed to have had contact with a Ward
Councillor in the last 12 months
−
Contact in 2005 was down slightly from that of 2005 (15%)
−
Residents within the town for more than 6 years (17%), those in the South
ward (22%) and those 35 years and older (15%) are more likely to have
had contact
Of those who had contact with a Ward Councillor, 89% said it
was easy to make contact with the Councillor
−
Similar to the 2005 result of 89%
11
Q. Have you had contact with a Ward Councillor in the Last 12 months? Base: All respondents who gave a valid response (n=554)
Q. Would you say it was easy or difficult to make contact with the Councillor? Base: Those who had contact in last 12 months and who gave a valid response (n=68)
63
Satisfaction with level of representation by elected Ward Councillors

2007
SATISFACTION
RATINGS
Satisfied / top 3
boxes
% of respondents
40
18
Dissatisfied
40
52

46
18% were very satisfied with the level of representation (codes 8-10)
Satisfaction increases with longer durations of residence within
the town and with age

2002
−

23
2005
These respondents rate satisfaction 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 out of 10, where 10 is
totally satisfied and 1 is totally dissatisfied
The current level of satisfaction is significantly lower than that
recorded in 2005 and in 2002.
SATISFACTION
HISTORY
2007
−

37
Neutral
Just over half (40%) of respondents were satisfied with the level
of representation by Ward Councillors
−
13% resident <6 years vs. 20% resident for 6+ years rated satisfaction in
the top 3 boxes
−
6% 18-34 year olds vs. 14% 35-54 year olds vs. 30% 55 years+ rated
satisfaction in the top 3 boxes
Those who know their elected Ward Councillor have higher levels
of satisfaction
−
30% very satisfied with representation if ‘know’ who Councillor is
−
12% very satisfied with representation if ‘don’t know’ who Councillor is
Those who had contact with a Ward Councillor in last 12 months
have higher levels of satisfaction
−
36% very satisfied with representation if ‘had’ contact
−
15% very satisfied with representation if ‘didn’t have’ contact
Q. Overall, how satisfied are you with the level of representation provided by your elected Ward Councillors?
Base: All respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=526)
Coding: Satisfied = 6-10; Top 3 boxes = 8,9 and 10; Dissatisfied 1-4
= significant variance
64
Safety
65
Safety in the Town of Claremont

2007 SATISFACTION RATINGS
30
Very safe (rating 5)
−
90% feel safe (similar to that recorded in 2005 – 88%)
−
Those in the West (38%) and South (37%) wards are more likely to
feel very safe compared to those in the East ward (19%)
60
Fairly safe (rating 4)

9
Neither safe/nor unsafe (rating 3)
Fairly unsafe (rating 2)
The majority of respondents feel very or fairly safe living in
the Town of Claremont
1
Amongst those who felt unsafe (gave a rating of 1-3), the
largest proportion of respondents suggested that Council
should increase the presence of police to improve safety
−
Very unsafe (rating 1)

HOW TO IMPROVE SAFETY
This was mentioned by 33% of respondents
This was followed by:
−
More lighting
26%
−
More/better security patrols
19%
33
Police presence / access
26
More lighting / night lighting
19
More / better security patrols
Less traffic / speeding
8
Bars / Clubs - reduce
7
NEW
Q. Overall, how safe do you feel living in the Town of Claremont?
Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=558); where 1 = very unsafe and 5 = very safe.
Q. What would you expect the Town of Claremont to do to improve safety? Base = those who felt unsafe; gave a rating of 1, 2 or 3 and gave a valid response (2007 n=41)
66
Safety on specific issues
Fairly unsafe
-100%
Very unsafe
-80%
-60%
Neither/nor
-40%
Fairly safe
-20%
0%
Walking in the town centre during the day
Shopping in the Town of Claremont
Respondents feel safer being
outside undertaking activities
during the day than at night
Very safe
20%
69
-11
32
66
39
Using Automatic Teller Machines in the Town of Claremont
Waiting at the train station during the day
-1
-1 13
46
39
Walking in the town centre at night
-3 -15
-16
Waiting at the train station during at night
Unsafe
Q: Please indicate how safe you feel in regards to each of the following; where 1 = very unsafe and 5 = very safe.
Base = all respondents (2007 n=various)
43
35
-4 -15
-14
45
53
Walking in your neighbourhood at night
Walking through parks or public open spaces at night
47
-2-2 8
-4 -8
Going to pubs/clubs in the Town of Claremont
60
46
-1
-110
Going to cafes and restaurants in the Town of Claremont
34
38
-3 5
Walking through parks or public open spaces during the day
30
25
30
-25
35
-27
33
100%
56
57
-11
Walking in your neighbourhood during the day
80%
29
-1
-17
Being in your home at night
60%
-12
-41
Being in your home during the day
40%
42
16
49
7
45
24
21
7
2
4
Safe
67
Safety on specific issues (cont…)





Those most likely to feel ‘very safe’ in their home during the day were males, those under 35 years of age, those without children
and residents from either the South and West wards.
−
65% 18-34yrs vs. 52% 35+ years
−
61% without children vs. 49% with children
−
64% South ward and 60% West ward vs. 45% East ward
−
63% males vs. 50% females
Those most likely to feel ‘very safe’ in their home at night were males and residents from the West ward.
−
44% West ward vs. 26% East ward and 30% South ward
−
42% males vs. 27% females
Those most likely to feel ‘very safe’ walking in their neighbourhood during the day were males, those without children and
residents from either the South and West wards.
−
64% without children vs. 45% with children
−
70% South ward and 66% West ward vs. 46% East ward
−
65% males vs. 55% females
Those most likely to feel ‘fairly safe’ walking in their neighbourhood during at night were males, those under 35 years of age, those
with children and residents from either the South and West wards.
−
72% 18-34yrs vs. 39% 35+ years
−
58% with children vs. 43% without children
−
52% males vs. 45% females
The younger the more likely they are to feel ‘very safe’ walking in the town centre during the day.
−
75% 18-34 yrs vs. 68% 35-54 yrs vs. 59% 55+ yrs
Q: Please indicate how safe you feel in regards to each of the following; where 1 = very unsafe and 5 = very safe.
Base = all respondents (2007 n=various)
68
Safety on specific issues (cont…)




Those most likely to feel ‘fairly safe’ walking in the town centre at night were males, those under 35 years of age and residents
from either the South ward.
−
60% 18-34yrs vs. 37% 35+ years
−
51% South ward vs. 34% West ward vs. 41% East ward
−
49% males vs. 38% females
Those most likely to feel ‘very safe’ in their home during the day were males, those under 35 years of age, those without children
and residents from either the South and West wards.
−
65% 18-34yrs vs. 52% 35+ years
−
61% without children vs. 49% with children
−
64% South ward and 60% West ward vs. 45% East ward
−
63% males vs. 50% females
Those most likely to feel ‘very safe’ going to pubs and clubs were those under 35 years of age, those with children and residents
from either the East and West wards.
−
31% 18-34yrs vs. 8% 35+ years
−
22% with children vs. 10% without children
−
16% East ward and 18% West ward vs. 7% South ward
Those most likely to feel ‘very safe’ going to cafes and restaurants were males, those under 35 years of age and those with
children.
−
59% 18-34yrs vs. 35% 35+ years
−
48% with children vs. 39% without children
Q: Please indicate how safe you feel in regards to each of the following; where 1 = very unsafe and 5 = very safe.
Base = all respondents (2007 n=various)
69
Safety on specific issues (cont…)





Those most likely to feel ‘very safe’ walking through parks & open spaces during the day were males and those under 55 years of
age.
−
47% 18-54yrs vs. 42% 55+ years
−
55% males vs. 38% females
Those most likely to feel ‘fairly safe’ walking through parks & open spaces at night were males and those under 55 years of age.
−
28% 18-54yrs vs. 15% 55+ years
−
31% males vs. 17% females
Those most likely to feel ‘fairly safe’ walking through parks & open spaces during the day were males and those under 55 years of
age.
−
47% 18-54yrs vs. 42% 55+ years
−
55% males vs. 38% females
Those most likely to feel ‘very safe’ using ATMs were males and those with children. Perception of safety using ATMs was also a
function of age – where the younger the respondents the more likely they are to feel ‘very safe’.
−
43% 18-34yrs vs. 37% 35-54 yrs vs. 25% 55+ years
−
48% with children vs. 26% without children
−
38% males vs. 31% females
Those most likely to feel ‘fairly safe’ waiting for a train at night were those under 55 years of age and those from the West ward.
−
23% 18-54yrs vs. 14% 55+ years
−
32% West ward vs. 19% South ward and 14% East ward.
Q: Please indicate how safe you feel in regards to each of the following; where 1 = very unsafe and 5 = very safe.
Base = all respondents (2007 n=various)
70
Youth Services
71
Services/activities for young people – overall
YOUTH PERSPECTIVE
Satisfied / Top 3 boxes
38
10
23
Neutral
22% of the households surveyed have young adult(s) living
in their household

Amongst the young adults surveyed, 38% were of the
opinion that Council does a good job of providing
services/activities for young people
39
Dissatisfied
HOW TO IMPROVE YOUTH
SERVICES

38
More sports
More events

14
More for 18+
11
Safety for youth
11
Advertise events
11
Cycle & footpaths
11
−
10% gave a rating of 8-10
−
The proportion satisfied has fallen from 48% in 2005 to 38% in 2007
Of those youths who felt dissatisfied, the main suggestions
provided as to how the Town of Claremont could improve
services/activities for young people include:
−
Have more sports and recreational activities
38%
−
Have more events and activities for youth
14%
Q. How well does Claremont provide services/activities for young people? Base = young adult(s) within the household (2007 n=111); where 1 = not at all well and 10= very well
Q. How can Claremont improve services/activities for young people? Base = young adult(s) who felt that Council doesn’t provide adequate services/activities for young people
and who gave a valid response; gave a rating of 1, 2, 3 or 4 (2007 n=39)
72
Services/activities for young people – overall
RESPONDENT PERSPECTIVE

Satisfied / Top 3 boxes
46
12
37
Neutral
Dissatisfied
17
HOW TO IMPROVE YOUTH
SERVICES
31
More sports
25
Advertise events
Vibrant town centre
16
Organise activities
12
More events
12
Co-ordinate with youth
12

Amongst the respondents surveyed, 46% were of the opinion
that Council does a good job of providing services/activities
for young people
−
12% gave a rating of 8-10
−
This has fallen from 56% in 2005 to 46% in 2007
−
Males (16%) are more likely to be very satisfied compared to females
(9%).
−
Those 35 years and over (15%) are more likely to be very satisfied
compared to their younger counterparts (6%).
Of those respondents who felt dissatisfied the main
suggestions provided as to how the Town of Claremont could
improve services/activities for young people include:
−
More sports and recreational activities
31%
−
Better advertise events
25%
−
Make the town centre more vibrant
16%
Q. How well does Claremont provide services/activities for young people? Base = all respondents (2005 n=509); where 1 = not at all well and 10 = very well
Q. How can Claremont improve services/activities for young people? Base = all respondents who felt that Council doesn’t provide adequate services/activities for young people
and who gave a valid response; gave a rating of 1, 2, 3 or 4 (2005 n=73)
73
Importance of services/activities for young people – place to hang out


Amongst the young adults surveyed, 67% were of the opinion
that it is important for Council to provide services/activities for
young people
YOUTH PERSPECTIVE
12
Reduces crime
−
Overall importance is down from 73% in 2005
−
Similarly, 40% gave an importance rating of 8-10; down from 57% in
2005
17
Close to home
It is important to provide such services because:
−

WHY
IMPORTANT(Rating 610)
it is provides a safe environment for youths
It is unimportant to some as they:
−
Are too busy to use such a facility
11
Important to socialise
24%
Something to do
66%
8
24
Need safe environ
0%
20%
40%
60%
Perceived
Importance
40
27
4
80%
8
100%
21
WHY UNIMPORTANT
(Rating 1-4)
Already have places
20
*
Too busy
Extremely important (rating 8-10)
Neither/nor (rating 5)
Very unimportant (rating 1-2)
66
Fairly important (rating 6-7)
Fairly unimportant (rating 3-4)
Cause trouble
18
Q. How important is it to have a place for young people to congregate or ‘hang-out’ in the Claremont area?
Base = young adult(s) within the household who gave a valid response (2007 n=110); where 1 = not at all important and 10 = extremely important
Q. Why do you say that? Base = young adults within the household who gave a valid response (2005 n=84); multiple responses allowed
74
Main issues faced by young people

39
Safety / lighting
23
Boredom / need
activities
18
14

18
Physical activity
16
More vibrancy
Alcohol

15
Drugs
14

14
Traffic
Youth
Place to meet
14
From a youth perspective, most were of the opinion that
the main issues facing them include:
−
Personal safety
39%
−
Boredom & need to do things
18%
−
Need to do physical activities
18%
−
Need to make the town more vibrant
16%
Conversely, from the perspective of respondents, most felt
that the main issues faced by young people include:
−
Personal safety
23%
−
Alcohol
15%
−
Drugs
14%
−
Boredom & need to do things
14%
Youths are significantly more likely than respondents to say
−
Safety and lighting
−
Physical activities
−
More vibrancy in the town
Conversely respondents are more likely than youths to say
−
Alcohol
−
Drugs
−
Need a place for youth to meet
Respondent
Q. What do you consider to be the main issues faced by young people in the area?
Base = young adults within the household who gave a valid response (2007 n=77) and all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=280);
multiple responses allowed
= significant variance
between youth & respondent
75
Suggestions for resolving main issues faced by young people

Awareness/encouragement
24
Make are vibrant
20
Sport / recreation
The most commonly cited suggestion for resolving or
dealing with the perceived main issues facing young
people include:
−
Improve awareness levels of activities
24%
−
Make the town vibrant – a place to go
20%
−
Encourage sport and recreation
16%
16
Place to meet
8
Police presence
7
Responsible parenting
7
Q. Do you have any suggestions on ways to deal with or resolve the issues you mentioned? Bearing in mind that there may be cost implications
Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=110); multiple responses allowed
76
Suggestions for Improvement
77
Suggested improvements

Traffic
management
21
Streetscapestidy
21
Footpaths
14
13
Improve parking
Street trees
Better traffic management in the Town and controlling of vehicle
speeds.
−
Improve the street scapes within the suburbs – cleaner more tidy
streets, make the street more attractive
−
Improve and provide more footpaths
−
Improve parking through providing more and better policing of parked
vehicles
−
Street trees – plant more trees, better care and management
(pruning) of trees, more attractive trees
9
Rubbish
collections
Upgrade facilities
−
11
Cycleways
Footpaths
The most commonly cited improvements included”
8
7
6
Q. Thinking about all the services the Council provides, or can provide, what improvements could the Town of Claremont undertake to better
satisfy your needs, bearing in mind there may be an additional cost.
Base = all respondents who gave a valid response (2007 n=359); multiple responses allowed
78
Thank You
If you have any queries about this report, please contact :
John Bourne | Australian Market Intelligence | T: (08) 6218 4242
79