I am a member of the Dolphin Sands Ratepayers Association (DSRA).
The committee has published on the DSRA website a copy of its submission to council on the Cambria Green rezoning application. The submission is said to be based on the views expressed by the 71 respondents who participated in a survey conducted by DSRA.
The committee advised that after the completion of the survey it would not consult members on the submission to be forwarded to Council.
Having read the submission I wish, as a single respondent to the survey, to make it known to all respondents that the submission supports the SAP with amendments. I strongly disagree with this outcome and encourage members of DSRA that are not aligned with this decision to send an immediate email to Council divorcing yourself from the submission.
It does not in my view reflect the views of the community overall and does not accurately reflect the survey results.
The submission appears to be predicated on the assumption that the SAP will be approved and seeks some amendments and assurances. The reality is that a substantial part of the community is not supportive of the SAP proposal and I think it is reasonable to say that sentiment is reflected in the survey results.
Mitty Williams
Cambria Drive
Dolphin Sands
Thanks Scott, I think a constructive conversation on refining survey methods is really useful. I’d argue that there’s always room for improvement.
One topic to consider is the benchmark that has to be achieved for results to be considered valid in terms of demonstrating community support/opposition. The DSRA submission relied on results of 51% or higher. Perhaps 51% is too low and the benchmark should be 60% or higher.
An alternative measure to assess the validity of results is in terms of the difference between levels of agreement and disagreement. For example, a result of 51% for and 49% against is obviously not a valid indication of community sentiment, but what if the result was 54% for and 20% against (with the remainder undecided)? Could that be considered valid?
This issue has come up in the discussion about the DSRA’s constitution (Rules of the Association). In the past, a simple majority was the benchmark for a motion. However, the current draft has changed this to 66% in the hope that situations where the community is fairly evenly divided, no motions can be carried.
If the community decided on 60% as the level needed to indicate community support, the following results would have been omitted from the submission:
· concern about the impact of increased tourist numbers: agree* 51%; disagree 23%
· support the idea of an 18-hole golf course in Dolphin Sands: agree 51%; disagree* 30%
· concern about proximity of the golf course to Moulting Lagoon: agree* 54%; disagree 18%
· concern about noise pollution during construction & operation: agree* 55%; disagree 18%
· concern about overall size of the proposed development: agree* 56%; disagree 17%
· airstrip to be moved so it is further away from existing dwellings: agree* 58%; disagree 10%
If 66% was the benchmark, the results below would also be omitted:
· concern about the golf course’s potential impact on wildlife: agree* 61%; disagree 15%
· use of golf course as a nearby safer place during bushfire: agree* 61%; disagree* 18%
· concern about the visual impact of the proposed development: agree* 62%; disagree 15%
Note that none of these results would have been excluded if the benchmark for being considered a valid indicator was at least 20% difference between agree and disagree. A 30% difference would have excluded concern about the impact of increased tourist numbers and support for an 18-hole golf course.
My reading of the above is that the committee had fairly unambiguous results to inform our submission. While there may be room to refine benchmarks in future surveys, overall, I think the results are valid indications of community sentiment. As such, I don’t agree that the association’s role should be limited to providing information. The association’s role is to act as the representative voice of the community. As I understand it, you base your suggestion on the Cambria proposal being a polarising issue and I take your point. However, I’m not aware of any issues in our community that aren’t polarising. So, extending your argument, would imply that the association doesn’t act on any issue (although I realise you’re not suggesting this).
Thinking through these issues has raised concerns for me about the 66% benchmark in the draft rules of the association (constitution). I’m concerned that none of the results indicated above would have been carried at a meeting if we accepted 66% as the cut-off. Perhaps this figure is too high. Arguably, a measure of difference between support and opposition would be preferable (say at least 25% difference). This latter option would prevent a motion being carried in situations where the community is fairly evenly divided, while not setting the bar for agreement so high that widely held concerns are unable to be acted upon.