Age

Across both the full-length and condensed surveys, we heard from a range of people of different ages with a representative sample across almost all age ranges compared to the ABS 2021 census data.

Where participants live

Across both the full-length and condensed surveys, we heard from people living across Frankston City. The highest rates of participation were from people living in Frankston (23%), Langwarrin (19%), Frankston South (14%), Carrum Downs (10%) and Seaford (10%). These also show a relatively representative sample compared to the population breakdown from the ABS 2021 census data.

Living situation

The majority of full-length and condensed survey participants (50%) own a home with a mortgage. This is followed by 27% who own a home outright and 18% that rent privately. The full-length and condensed survey was relatively representative compared to the ABS 2021 census data, with participants who own a home with a mortgage slightly overrepresented and participants renting privately or in social housing slightly underrepresented.

The following summarises the key overarching messages from across the various engagement activities. The subsequent ‘where to from here’ section highlights opportunities for the Frankston City Housing Strategy based on the engagement findings documented in this report.

Top three housing values from the community

Across all community consultation and stakeholder engagement, the most valued characteristics and considerations in relation to housing are:

Analysis and cross-tabulation of feedback across various methods and engagement activities shows that these three community values feature as prominent priorities in all localities across Frankston City. When evaluating variances between feedback across demographic cohorts, there were only minor differences in the order and emphasis of these three housing values. For example, the topic of housing affordability amongst younger people (aged up to 24 years) featured slightly more in prominence than the location of housing.

Emerging from the overall engagement process, is a clear finding that there is an established and distinct residential character across Frankston City. This is described by the community as being strongly linked to the proximity to parks, open spaces, the beach and natural assets. This outdoor suburban environment is highly valued amongst the community and is a key defining feature of Frankston City.

Unsurprisingly, affordability emerged as a key housing issue affecting the community. When making decisions about current and future housing, price and affordability are key drivers across all demographic cohorts in Frankston City. Feedback tells us that historically price was the number one factor that contributed to deciding where to live. When asked about the future, participants told us that price remained the top factor influencing housing choice.

A range of challenges and concerns were expressed about housing affordability, the most common being associated with the pressures of increased cost of living and an insecure and unaffordable rental market. Many participants also told us that there was a mismatch between the types of housing that is available today and specific housing needs and preferences amongst different groups.

We heard from young people that affordability is the key issue when they think about future housing.

There was strong support from engagement participants for Council to play an active role in advocating and developing policy responses to address housing affordability across the City.

Where to from here:

• Need for a range of strategic and statutory planning policy responses to address housing affordability.
• Council to have a key advocacy role to State and federal government to address housing affordability.

The importance of Frankston City’s green spaces ranked highly across all feedback channels. From parks, open spaces and beaches to street trees in the public realm, front gardens, backyards and courtyards, there was strong support for protecting, and enhancing Frankston City’s green leafy appearance. All forms of greenery were considered as defining features of local neighbourhood character and liveability. They are also important attributes when thinking about the Frankston City of today, as well as Frankston City in the future.

We heard that proximity to parks, beaches and open space areas is the main reason why people came to live in their neighbourhood and is the top improvement that they would like to see as a result of housing change in the City. Trees, gardens and landscaping are also the attributes that people think contribute to well-designed housing and neighbourhoods.

Where to from here?

• Review planning mechanisms to incorporate landscaping and greenery into housing developments, across a range of dwelling typologies.
• Provide street trees, particularly in areas where increased residential densities are encouraged.
• Explore opportunities for communal open space in higher density residential developments.
• Locating increased housing densities in proximity of open space.
• Ensure adequate provision of open space into the future.

People would like to see a diversity of housing types across Frankston City’s residential areas. There was a sense that lower and ‘gentle’ forms of density such as detached houses, units, townhouses and dual occupancies could be integrated across all suburbs, while higher density housing types such as low and medium rise apartments are better suited to particular types of locations. People consistently mentioned the opportunity to provide all types and densities of housing around schools and universities.

We heard that providing a diversity of housing supports people at different stages of their life, whether they are upsizing, downsizing or moving into a supported living situation, to live in their local area amongst their established community and connections.

Where to from here?

• Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types across residential areas, so people have opportunities continue to live locally as they move through different life stages.

People consistently told us that areas near public transport, the Frankston CBD and activity centres are the most appropriate locations for higher density housing, particularly low and medium scale apartments.

It’s acknowledged that there was a portion of engagement participants that felt these types of housing should not be provided anywhere in Frankston City.

Where to from here?

• Encourage higher density housing around key locations.
• Work with private sector stakeholders to understand and address barriers to delivering higher density housing in Frankston City.

We heard that the residential setting – the gardens, landscaping, land size and sense of spaciousness between buildings and access to sunlight are key attributes of good housing design and neighbourhood character in Frankston City. These features were more frequently mentioned and more highly rated in survey results than attributes associated with the house itself.

Features associated with the building, such as height, materials, roof shape and materials rated significantly lower in the list of desirable attributes. This may be because many participants will not have needed to consider these features when choosing a home or may not have understood the options available.

The quality of housing, in terms of both its design and construction, was also a common theme. People want to see housing built that is structurally sound, has efficient running costs and makes a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.

Where to from here?

• Incorporate landscaping and greenery into housing developments, across a range of dwelling typologies.
• Consider the operational efficiency of new or renovated housing.
• Consideration of quality building materials to support quality and sustainability outcomes.

We heard that there is a shortage of affordable and social housing across Frankston City – there is concern from across the community as well as the housing and homelessness sector. The cost-of-living crisis is creating a group of newly vulnerable people, who have never navigated this aspect of the housing system before or experienced homelessness. A lack of early intervention strategies, shortage of appropriate housing – particularly one-bedroom housing options, and increasingly complex and diverse needs are some of the challenges affecting the sector.

We heard that people are open to seeing new housing approaches, particularly build-to-rent and co-housing models to help address the current gap and meet future demand. They would also like to see Council advocate to federal and state governments for effective action.

Where to from here:

• Need for a range of strategic and statutory planning policy responses to address housing affordability.
• Support for new and innovative housing models in Frankston City.
• Council to have a key advocacy role to State and federal government to address housing affordability.

We heard that people living with a disability currently have difficulty finding suitable housing in Frankston City – in terms of its design, location and affordability. People with disabilities have diverse needs, and what is accessible for one is not necessarily accessible for others. But accessible housing is more than just a ramp for wheelchair or mobility scooter users – for some it is about living in areas with minimal sensory disturbances such as away from traffic and loud noises, while others spoke about the importance of having wide driveways and doors for them to easily move through.

There is a desire to see the needs of people with a disability acknowledged in the housing strategy, as well as promotion of universal design principles to improve housing design and support for diverse housing near shops, services, parks and public transport.

Where to from here:

• Ensure that the Frankston City Housing Strategy explicitly mentions people with a disability, and their housing challenges and needs.
• Advocacy and initiatives to promote universal design principles.