Summary of responses to public consultation

1. Outline of Consultation Conducted

The summary of responses in this document is based on 3 main consultation processes which were undertaken:

28 and 29 October 2004: Expert Group and Stakeholder Consultation
October 2004 to January 2005: Market Research Consultants
Methods: focus group with residents in the vicinity; onsite interviews with randomly selected Gardens & Domain users; web-based survey with randomly selected people from a commercial internet research panel; self-selection survey for the Friends of the Gardens.
February 2005: Letters sent to neighbouring organisations, members of the public, and related government businesses, and public signage in Domain and Royal Botanic Gardens (RBG) calling for submissions.

2. Responses Received

Stakeholder Consultation: responses from the invitation to comment were received from: Sydney City Council; the Australian Garden History Society; Urban Design Section, RTA; and the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.
Market Research Consultation: the focus group was made up of 8 residents recruited by a commercial recruiter. There were 101 participants in the onsite interview; 300 participants in the web-based survey, and 126 completed questionnaires received from the Friends of the Gardens.
Community Consultation: A total of 25 responses were received via telephone, fax, email, and letter. The respondents were a mix of neighbouring organisations and individuals; organisations that utilise the Domain; members of the general public; and organisations that are associated with the heritage or developmental side of the project.

3. Preferences

Stakeholder Consultation: At this stage, there were no definite design plans for the various wall options. However, the main recommendations were: further, detailed public consultation to take place; alternative materials for the construction of the wall be investigated; weighing up the negative visual impact against the positive decrease in noise levels; and consideration of a mix of materials.
Market Research Consultation:

Response Group	Option 1: Transparent	Option 2: Combination	Option 3: Sandstone	Option 4: No Wall
Focus Group (8 people)			Preference
Online Sample (300 people)	28%	44%	21%	6%
Onsite Sample (101 people)	33%	33%	29%	4%

Alternative suggestions from all groups fell into 4 main categories:

bury the expressway and reconnect the Domain and Gardens;
use trees or shrubs rather than a wall;
cover the wall with vegetation;
consult experts.

While Option 2 or Option 3 were the preferred option when people were asked which type they would choose to build to alleviate noise, the transparent wall (Option 1) was felt to be more aesthetically preferable, and was seen as a safer option than a solid wall.

Community Consultation:

Option 1: Transparent	Option 2: Combination	Option 3: Sandstone	Option 4: No Wall	Alternative suggestions
3	1	10	5	3 x cover the Cahill Expressway (1 respondent also voted for Option 1)
15.8%	5.3%	52.6%	26.3%	1 x angled wall to reflect sound upwards

Total number of responses: 25
Total number of votes for available options: 19
Total number agreeing some form of noise/visual impact prevention should be implemented: 20
The most popular option was Option 3: Sandstone Wall.

4. Pros and Cons of the 4 Options

Please see Community consultation comments.

5. General Summary

Based on the very low number of responses received from all areas to not having a wall, it would appear that many people agree with the need for some type of either noise or visual barrier. However, there is conflicting response on an aesthetic level as opposed to an intuitive level. While many originally seem to choose the sandstone wall based on a perceived better ability to block sound, when they consider the visual and safety aspects, there appears to be a swing in preference to the transparent wall. However, the introduction of a new ‘element’ into the Domain, rather than one that complements the sandstone of the Art Gallery, Library and sculpture bases, was of concern to many involved in on-site briefings. Additionally, safety issues could be addressed through improved lighting as part of the sandstone option, and garden plantings (part of all options) are generally seen as a greater safety risk.

The most favourable response would seem to be integration of as much planting as possible along a wall of some kind, and to install lighting along the pathways to alleviate security concerns. The decision on what type of wall to build should then be based on aesthetic and practical considerations (including the visual impact of the Cahill Expressway on users of the Domain). In line with our current philosophy and approach, the new garden beds should be designed to inspire visitors about plants while providing a link to existing and historical aspects of the Domain.

Melissa Telford, Executive Project Officer, Botanic Gardens Trust, 8 April 2005

Dr Tim Entwisle, Executive Director, Botanic Gardens Trust, 8 April 2005

^Back To Top