Do you have any overall feedback on the draft Living Well Plan?

over 5 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Consultation has concluded

  • R23 about 6 years ago
    I think the principles are well integrated around planning for healthy communities. The prioritisation of a safe, friendly network for pedestrian, cyclist and mobility units will be important for an ageing suburban area. In particular routes to and between shopping districts, open space, services and homes must be solidified throughout the councils. Lower speed limits should be targeted in the Mitcham Council area as has already occurred in Unley.

    I am happy to see food security principles adopted as part of this strategy. Including urban agriculture/community farming within NRM boards could be a constructive way to manage this issue across the districts.
  • tristanavella about 6 years ago
    I am also a strong proponent for food security principles to be adopted as well. Perhaps support for initiatives that encourage local produce, including urban agriculture, community gardens, food swaps/markets etc.
    I would also like to see the councils adopt strategies for improving habitat for native animals. While there is some mention of conserving existing areas for biodiversity, the latest research would suggest that habitat needs to be put back into cleared areas in order to really achieve environmental gains. In Mitcham council where there are 'substantial open spaces that are currently being reassessed for their accessibility/usefulness', there is a great opportunity to return these areas for environmental gain. There are even local organisations that specialise in this area:
  • gwyn jolley about 6 years ago
    Overall a well thought out plan. Food and water security, produce gardens etc biodiversity, urban planning for open space and community spaces all important.
    In terms of the document structure page 1 lists Part A B and C but these don't seem to be identified as headings in the document following. Typos on page 15 Community Strengths - change "that" to "than" and p20 Built Environment delete "were"
    page 3 Suggest you read and refer to WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health Report. Unfortunately the NPH Taskforce was cut in Federal budget so these statement needs to be modified.
    page 4 Coordinate role is rather vague - coordinate what? Similarly with Facilitate - what outcomes are being referred to here?
    p 5 Advocate - not clear what 'cannot directly address the strategy' means. 'responsible agency' may include government departments and this should be made clear. Surely council has a service provision role - this seems to be have been omitted. And the 'No Role' is self-evident and should be deleted.
    p12 I think the role of Community Centres could be made stronger here, as well as skills they provide opportunities for social inclusion, increased mental health and so on.
    p13 Mental health, stress and isolation are also important health issues that should be included here.
    p17 Data given for level of housing stress, although lower than metro area, is still very high and needs to be more of a priority.
    p18 Major roads listed are north-south - should this read 'north-south traffic'? Agree that increasing community access to school facilities should be a priority. some schools are very good at this and should be used as exemplars.
    p19 Climate change - I would like to see more focus on prevention as well as adaptation.
    p21 The heading 'Introduction' sits oddly on page 21, Introduction to what? The table refers to Public Heath Project team and Living Well Project team - please explain who the members of the teams are and roles/responsibilities.
    p22 would be good to mention Health in All Policies in the list (under Dept P&C); DECD is listed twice.