Frankston City Council is engaging with its community to develop a new Council Plan, Community Vision, Asset Plan and Financial Plan. This project has three stages.

Phase 1 was used to understand broad community sentiment. Feedback from the broader engagement will support deeper discussions in the Phase 2 deliberative engagement with the Community Panel. Phase 3 is the review and update of the Vision and Plans, and opportunity for community comment on the draft Council Plan. This engagement summary report presents the findings from Phase 1 of engagement.

Community engagement was conducted from 18 March to 31 May 2024. Engagement activities consisted of an online and hardcopy survey, community pop-ups, stakeholder workshops, staff workshops and intercept surveys.

Phase 1 engagement activities involved a total of 1,361 participants. This included:

• 882 Survey feedback collected at community pop-ups/intercepts
• 281 Online surveys (Engage Frankston)
• 114 Staff workshop participants
• 84 Stakeholder workshop participants
• TOTAL 1,361 100

Women were overrepresented in this engagement (59.7%) and men were underrepresented (33.7%) compared to their proportion of the Frankston community. The highest level of engagement by age group were those aged 35-49 years, who were overrepresented compared to their proportion of the Frankston population. Participants aged 5-11 years and 12-17 years were also over-represented, whilst older age groups 60+ were under-represented.

Participants were asked to identify whether they belonged to any particular demographic communities (‘communities of interest’) like culturally and linguistically diverse, LGBTIQA+ and the disability community. Participants were able to select all that apply (multi-response). There were 312 responses from 254 participants. Overall 61.1% did not identify with any of these communities of interest, 22.3% of participants did identify with one or more communities with the remaining 16.5% preferring not to answer. The largest communities of interest were people with a disability (107 responses) and people who spoke a language other than English at home (103 responses). Of the categories compared to City of Frankston Census data, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people (7.7%) and people who speak a language other than English at home (33%) were over-represented.

Demographic data was not collected for stakeholder workshops and is not included in participation totals, however, this engagement program specifically targeted communities of interest such as First Nations stakeholder groups (Bunurong Land Council and Nairm Marr Djambana), Social Inclusion Action Group and Disability Access and Inclusion Committee, therefore these numbers are likely to be higher.

Survey and pop-up participants were presented with the current Community Vision statement for Frankston City 2040 and asked to provide feedback on whether they felt it was relevant, meaningful and fit-for-purpose. When asked if the Community Vision 2040 describes the future

Frankston City participants would like to see, there were a total of 949 respondents with 717 answering ‘Yes’, 183 answering ‘Unsure’ and 49 answering ‘No’.

When asked which words in the Vision community members connected with the most, the top words that were most aligned to participants’ vision for the future were as follows. The strong connection with these words suggests they should be retained in any revised Vision statement:

● Safe (n=266)

● Clean (n=187)

● Green (n=164)

● Inclusive (n=186)

Lastly, participants were asked to describe their vision for Frankston City 2040. There were a total of 210 responses to this question. The common themes that emerged from these discussions were:

● Attractive lifestyle for visitors and residents (n=60)

Participants who described their vision for Frankston as a family-friendly area with a vibrant atmosphere.

● Welcoming and embracing diversity of all kinds (n=47)

Participants in this group commonly suggested changing the Vision statement to remove ‘culturally’ before the word ‘inclusive’, to expand the idea of ‘inclusive’ to other groups, in particular; LGBTIQA+ community, disabled community, all ages and different socioeconomic backgrounds.

● Sensitively planned City (n=47)

Participants in this group described a Vision that ensured equity, access, liveability, sustainability and environmental responsibility through strategic and urban planning that is responsive to the natural environment, evidence-based, sustainable and community-centred.

● A city with diverse opportunities (n=27)

Participants in this group envisioned a Frankston that presented a greater variety of opportunities and choices for residents in terms of local education and work opportunities and housing diversity.

● Supportive and equitable City (n=26)

This group described a greater level of programming and service provision for vulnerable people to support safety and wellbeing for all.

● Connected to each other and engaged (n=15)

Participants who desired more social cohesion, opportunities for social connection, neighbourliness and civic engagement. Participants in this group also described a desire for a sense of community across different suburbs and a shared identity across the municipality.

● Affordable (n=12)

Participants in this group mentioned the cost of living and wanted more affordable housing, education, parking, leisure activities, rents for local businesses and a Council that was financially responsible.

Participants were asked to rank services through Council Plan outcomes with 1 being the most important, to 6 being the least. Looking at the average rank overall, participants prioritised existing Council plan outcomes in the following order:

1. Healthy and safe communities: Safety, ageing, children, library, kindergarten, sport (2.34 average rank).

2. Sustainable environment: Parks, playgrounds, waste, protect environment (2.98 average rank).

3. Community strength: Support people in need, grants, emergency relief (3.23 average rank).

4. Well-planned and liveable city: Parking, roads, footpaths, bike paths (3.4 average rank).

5. Thriving economy: Festivals, events, businesses, planning permits (3.49 average rank).

6. Progressive and engaged city: Rates, finances, customers, buildings, technology (4.42 average rank).

Looking at the specific services Council offers, the top 10 services participants indicated they wanted more focus on, by majority view, were:

• Planting and protecting trees to create cooler, greener streets and open spaces. (81.1% )
• City safety: initiatives to ensure community safety (e.g. monitored security cameras, crime prevention, school crossings) (75.5%)
• Initiatives that improve safety and wellbeing related to homelessness (74.5%)
• Creating vibrant public spaces (71.4%)
• Initiatives that prevent violence against women and promote gender equality (70.5%)
• Provide a safe, connected and accessible transport network (70.2%)
• Plan connections between walking, riding and driving (69.3%)
• Health and wellbeing programs (all ages): support to access healthy food, support to reduce harm from gambling, tobacco, e-cigarettes, alcohol and drug use (68.0%)
• Planning and advocating for affordable housing to help prevent homelessness (67.5%)
• Protection of native animals and biodiversity (64.5%)
• Initiatives that strengthen respect and value of diversity, social inclusion and mental wellbeing (63.1%)