All 150 or 151 respondents answered the survey questions, however are these questions may not still be relevant with what the Shire is proposing as the community has not been made aware of any changes that may have happened to this design since the respondents completed the survey.  Is this still an accurate representation of data and community consultation when the questions and information provided in this survey may not be current?

Considering the approximate number of participants within each club who have withdrawn their support for the sporting precinct 300 Basketball, 100 Netball, 60 Tennis, 50 Hockey that is approximately 510 members in total from these clubs.  These Donnybrook community/club members represent more than three times the amount of people who have answered this survey.

150 or at times 151 people responded to the community survey, 13 of which admitted they were not residents of the shire.  The survey has been included in the CEO Recommendation for the Special Meeting which is to be held on Monday 12 July 2021.  The CEO has chosen to take three responses as a ‘snapshot’ of the survey to mention in his recommendations and attach the raw data from the survey in the attachments section for Councillors to view. 

Respondents of the survey completed it with the view that the information provided would “engage residents in a review and information sharing process”.  However, the survey not analysed and interpreted with possible recommendations?  This information gathered is crucial for a deeper understanding of the responses as opposed to allowing Councillors to view the raw data collected in conjunction with the three ‘snapshots’ provided by the CEO in his Recommendation.       

The Donnybrook Balingup Ratepayers and Residents Association have analysed the raw data from the community survey and have completed the process, which should have been conducted by the Shire.  It needs to be mentioned at this point that the data does not entirely reflect the same view as the three ‘snapshots’ the CEO has chosen to utilise in his Recommendation.

The information below are the analysed responses to the questions provided in the survey.

Question 1. To accommodate the expansion of community and sporting facilities, a new vehicle and pedestrian entry statement is planned into VC Mitchell Park via Marmion Street. Refer to Reference 1. Do you support the new vehicle and pedestrian entry statement?

There were 148 people who responded YES or NO to this question, with 118 people voting YES and 30 people voting NO.

Respondents were then asked if yes, or no, why? 

After reviewing the 68 comments provided in the survey 29 respondents said YES, they supported a new vehicle and pedestrian entry along Marmion Street with comments such as “Gives an alternate entrance to the recreational centre” and “People already walk this path to the Rec Centre, it would be nice to see it made into a safe walkway”.  

21 respondents replied negatively to the answer indicating they did not support a new vehicle and pedestrian entry and wrote “What exactly is the 'Entry statement"? Poorly worded question. Is it the driveway? There is no indication as to how many lanes of traffic there are - poorly drawn plan. Is there to be a archway or something that is actually a 'statement'? There is nothing mentioned on the plan.  Visibility and safety should be the main focus for the traffic planning, especially when there are children involved in being dropped off and picked up. There are a lot of other more suitable sites around Donnybrook to recognise anyone deserving such an honour. Trees and bushes require maintenance, this is an additional and unnecessary expense for the shire when we so many (sic) other gardens to maintain. Or is it to be left to the volunteers, and which club will be required to do so?” and “Intercepts at a Yelverton street.  A busy pedestrian and road traffic street that serves the primary school and Westwood Estate Visibility in both directions isn’t good, residents to the left and uphill slope on the right.”  

Eight respondents said Yes/But with conditions and provided recommendations for the entry such as “Primarily yes, however the plan is confusing as this appears to access car park 3 only, near the rec centre and doesn't show connection to car park 1, near oval & pavilion. Would only support if ''possible new main entry 1" (as titled on the plan) was constructed to access carpark 1, the pavilion & oval when required.”  In short, these respondents voted yes however had concerns, these concerns are not identified unless the survey has been analysed and would be recorded in agreeance with the question.  In fact, these respondents were not in total agreeance with the question.

12 comments were not relevant to the question asked, there responses included:  “Still gives the country feel when watching footy and the wet weather” this answer does not relate to the question asked and therefore does not backup or provide a valid reason as to why there should or should not be an entry on Marmion Street as the plans attached to the survey demonstrate.  Did respondent’s comments such as these vote yes or no?

Question 2. If you supported the new vehicle and pedestrian entry statement into VC Mitchell Park, then do you support the road being an 'Avenue of Honour' to recognise the Shire's eminent persons and/or historical figures?

As shown above in the pie chart, in their written responses five people said YES they would support the new road entry being an 'Avenue of Honour' to recognise the Shire's eminent persons and/or historical figures with comments such as “Would be a great way to integrate the past with the future”. 

18 respondents liked the idea of the ‘Avenue of Honour’ but had alternate suggestions about the location and who it should represent with comments as follows, “I think the idea for an avenue of honour is good, however people are not going to go out of their way to visit it and i believe it would be more suited to be situated in the main street of Donnybrook so people could visit it as they pass through the town.” Also “I don't agree with the Shire names but prominent people that have helped in the community would be nice.” 

NO appeared to be relevant in the comments by 16 respondents, they appeared to not support an ‘Avenue of Honour’ and believed this idea would be better situated elsewhere such as “We can’t afford this option and it would in no way do those who died for our freedoms justice. Egan Park, Preston River or Goods Shed are more appropriate” or “Don’t think this is the right place for an avenue of honour”.

Four answers were not relevant to the question, examples were: “Don’t care what you call it”, the question was not asking the respondent about the name of the ‘Avenue of Honour’ it was asking if they supported the road being used for this purpose, clearly some respondents did not understand the question asked, did they vote yes or no?

Question 3. The Masterplan highlights the expansion of the Donnybrook Recreation Centre into the existing Recreation Centre car park to enable an additional indoor court and linked external courts in a way that brings the Recreation Centre to competition standards.

The survey suggests an additional indoor court will be built; most current plans suggest this will not occur until Stage 2 when additional funding is sought.  Therefore, respondents were slightly misled as additional funding may never be accessed.  119 respondents voted yes and only 30 people opposed.

After reading the 70 comments provided in the survey approximately 31 respondents said YES, they did support the linked external courts and additional internal court.  “Another indoor court would be fantastic” and “Great idea, the Rec centre should be the focus of this project”.

23 respondents said NO, they did not support this expansion and the proposed location with many questions posed within their comments such as, “I believe the existing facilities are adequate, and without any knowledge of the budget for reference 2 project cannot support this development, payment for which will fall onto every ratepayer” and “Do we require outdoor netball courts? Would be better for more indoor courts”.  Hence, these respondents would most likely agree to an additional indoor court at the Rec Centre, however they are concerned about the funding and would prefer an indoor court and not outdoor courts. 

In the written comments 11 people stated they supported an additional indoor court and linked external courts, but they stated they had some reservations and alternative ideas with many questions posed within their comments such as what is competition standard what does this require, what are out other options? And there is “not enough information. Yes we need updated facilities, but where has the parking been allocated/moved”.

Five respondent’s written responses did not correspond with what the question was asking and some respondents did not understand the question as their response was “unsure”.

Question 4. The Masterplan promotes a multifunctional use of the Precinct, including an upgraded community hub facility to replace the Donnybrook Football Clubrooms and Donnybrook Tennis Club building. Refer to Reference 3. There is a wide range of possible community use of the Precinct's new facility identified within the Masterplan. Please rank the potential facility uses below in your order of priority?

This question was not open ended it gave the idea to the respondent that they had to make a choice and rank these options, it did not allow for additional ideas or comment and if you did not like any of the provided options you still had to make a choice in order to complete the survey.  This has been identified as a misleading question and respondents had no choice but to order the provided options.

Question 5.  Are there other community uses for the multifunctional community facility not listed that you think is important to be included, and why?

The question is directed at the multifunctional building as it follows from question 4.  Overwhelmingly the responses to this question were negative, examples of the responses:

• “It’s important that we don’t overshoot our needs and again aim to profit by taking business from local small businesses and hospitality venues, wineries etc. These plans are being billed as an entertainment venue but seem more to be a fancy new football club room for mates. Members from other sporting clubs have expressed that they do not all want to be forced to move or be combined in this venue.”
• “Perhaps the questions should be Do you support investing 6 million dollars in New Football Club rooms that will be available to hire.”
• “The Shire needs to detail the proposal and explain to all ratepayers why this facility is required and who and how much different sections of the community will be expected to contribute to its operating costs.  We don't need another Rec Centre!”

Clearly some respondents are concerned with duplication of facilities.  Unfortunately, some respondents did not fully understand the question and replied with common themes of wanting an outdoor swimming pool and skate park.

Question 6.  Do you support the integration of community and sporting facilities in a multifunctional precinct designed for purpose?

The ‘Snapshot’ (as shown below) referred to in the CEO Recommendation for Council identifies that from the 150 who answered yes or no to the question, 105 people said yes and 45 said no. 

The survey went on to ask people if yes or no why?  81 respondents took the time to explain their answer.  The pie chart below teases out their responses, clearly the majority of people who responded NO took the time to explain whilst the YES voters gave less explanation.  Albeit, voters wrote their answers believing their responses would be of value to the survey.  Unfortunately, the ‘snapshot’ does not reflect their views and the information has not been effectively interpreted by the creator of the survey.

Interestingly there were 18 of the 81 people who did not answer with a simple yes or no.  Examples are: “Supported as long as each club that is a part of the precinct gains from the process and does not lose any of their current standard of facilities or playing surfaces” or “I would only support this if there was more transparent information regarding the costs to the Shire and hence the impact on the Shires budget and ratepayers. There is little appetite for increased rates associated with excessive spending on new facilities. Better for the State to invest in modest upgrades to existing facilities and save ratepayers money”.

Question 7. The Masterplan identifies recreation as a key component of the overall use of the Precinct. Subject to financial and resource constraints a staged approach will be used to introduce additional recreational activities. Please rank in order of priority the recreation activities you believe should be considered in Stage 1 of the Precinct implementation?

This question asked people to rank the order of priority and did not allow respondents to move on to the next question without answering.  The selections in the questions were:  Parkour course; Run and walk paths; Static gym equipment at intervals on footpaths; Dog exercise and play area; Military style obstacle course; Disc golf course; and Children's playground.

The top two results are walk/run track and children’s playground.  A research project conducted by the Shire of Donnybrook in 2006 also found that the most popular physical activity in Donnybrook was walking.  The results of this research enabled more paths to be funded throughout the Shire.  Shortly after the funding for the Fun Park became available.  It is still evident that these are top priorities for our Shire. 

Question 8. Are there any uses not listed that you think are important to be included in the Precinct, and why do you believe they are important?

The responses to this question vary immensely so much so they cannot be quantified.  In reality, this question along with question 7 are not at all relevant to the proposed plans for the sports precinct.  It is difficult to understand why such questions have been placed in the survey as they add no value to the survey.

Question 9. Do You Support Shire Investment in This Project?

There were 146 people who responded yes or no to this question.  It has been reported that 90 people directly said yes and 56 people directly said no.  Respondents were asked to respond if yes, or no, then why? 85 people responded to this question, pie graph (below) represents their responses.

The initial yes/no question has indicated the majority of people (90 respondents), the further explanations indicate there were many who did not support the project in entirety.

The respondents who were totally in favour of the project in their written response were 27 in total, these people articulated why they thought the project should go ahead with comments such as “I think residents of Donnybrook believe they are long term residents of the shire so therefore will view it as they are investing in their own town” or “The Shire needs to provide modern facilities to attract people to live in Donnybrook. Without such facilities potentially the town loses population to the City of Bunbury and other satellite towns closer to Bunbury. A long term loan spreads the cost over generations of ratepayers.”

However, 40 respondents were totally NOT in favour of the project and wrote “Rate payers should not be burdened with long term debt for a facility that does not meet the needs of all clubs. The limited information provided here is not adequate to evaluate and provide a cost benefit analysis. It will not provide accurate data to evaluate community consent or otherwise” or “The shire will pay enough just maintaining these proposals without having to also service a huge debt to instal them”.

The survey responses further indicated that a number of people may have voted either yes or no, however were not entirely sure if they agreed or disagreed.  An example of their responses were “unsure! I would expect some investment from shire funds with some increase in rates, however, 'modest increase ' in rates is very loose terminology. How much?” or “Depending on what MODEST means?????? 1%, 5% - we have not been told. Need further information from the Shire.”

Below is the ‘snapshot’ of the survey in the CEO’s Recommendation to Council, which does seem to reflect a clear majority.  Unfortunately, such a ‘snapshot’ is misleading when the written responses, as above, are not included.

Question 10. In key strategic planning reports, it is recognised that the Shire of Donnybrook Balingup will never have the population of key regional towns of Bunbury and Busselton.  How important is it that our Shire maintain a range of effective, fit-for-purpose, quality community, recreation, and sporting facilities?

This question appears to imply that the Donnybrook Balingup Shire will maintain a range of effective recreation and sporting facilities.  Great!  Only 13 out of the 150 respondents said it was not important to them, three of which said it was not at all important.  Did people think this question related to sporting and recreation facilities and NOT a function room facility?  The question posed is very subjective and easy to misinterpret.

Below is the ‘snapshot’ the CEO has referred to in his recommendation, yes respondents believe maintaining a range of recreation and sporting facilities is important to residents of the Shire.  The question does not relate to a function room facility.

Question 11.  Donnybrook Community, Sporting, Recreation, and Events Precinct is a long name. If you had the chance to rename the Precinct, then what would you name it?

The most popular responses were names connected to Donnybrook, for example Donnybrook Recreation Precinct or Donnybrook Sports & Leisure Precinct.  VC Mitchell Park was also popular however, not as favourable as a name connected to Donnybrook.  It was interesting that there were a number of less favourable responses, including:  Egotistical overspending; Bottomless money pit; or Piesse's Folly, just to name a few.  However, most respondents would prefer to have Donnybrook mentioned in the name.   

Question 12. The new multipurpose facility is designed to be a social and community hub. Would you be interested in being a member/supporter of the hub?

Of the 148 who answered this question 88 said they would be a member/supporter of the hub, whilst 60 said NO.  The survey does not have the ability to indicate whether or not the respondents for this question are in fact from the Shire or what does it mean to be a member/supporter?  Are there financial obligations or can one just attend for sporting events?  There was no further information requested from participants to analyse this question in entirety  

Question 13.  Are you a resident of the Shire of Donnybrook Balingup?

Should this question have been asked at the beginning of the survey?  Should the survey have included respondents who are not residing in the Shire?  Are the 13 people even ratepayers?

Non-residents of Donnybrook Balingup Shire will possibly not be paying for the project, if respondents do not have a financial interest in the survey should their responses be included in this data?  Unfortunately, by allowing 13 people to continue with the survey before asking this question means the interpreter will constantly ponder, who are the 13 people and should their answers be included?  Are their answers relevant?  The people reading and analysing the survey will never know this answer and perhaps see the whole survey as corrupted?

Question 14. What other comments do you have about the Revised Masterplan?

This pie chart represents the responses of 101 people who completed this question in the survey. 

Of the 101 responses the most represented theme was primarily negative towards the Revised Masterplan.  Negative responses were:  “I’m concerned with the plan for the multi function building due to: the large size; the proposed facilities designed for the football club; the merge of tennis and football club rooms and perhaps the clubs should remain separate (as they already are); if the football club wants new club rooms they need to self fund them; the overall cost to rate payers; and the proposed model of business will potentially be a financial risk to current businesses in town (pubs and restaurants)” or “I feel that there is a strong preference to get the football association stage complete and my concerns are that once that is done, the other stages will not be affordable and therefore not undertaken. Focusing on less popular sports in town should be the first stage so they can encourage new members and new events to the town. Football is not the only sport in Donnybrook and if these plans go the way I think they will, the football club will be the only one to prosper. This is unfair and undesirable for many community members”.

Positive responses on the other hand were: “Inclusive of all sporting activities. Great that netball & basketball were included. Opportunity to rationalise aging facilities in other locations” or “Lets make it happen, given the significant tranche of Government funding there will never be another opportunity like the present”.

Respondents who answered the question in neither a positive or negative view were included in “other”.  These comments related to cricket facilities, the Vin Farley Park, an outdoor swimming pool or dog exercise facilities. 

In conclusion, the example of the responses (‘snapshots’) in the CEO’s Recommendation for the Special Meeting of Council – 12 July 2021, he proposes “A broadscale community survey was conducted by the Shire on the project earlier in 2021. The full results are appended to this agenda item; however, a snapshot of the results are as follows.”  The CEO is highlighting the three simple yes/no responses.  It is easy to skim over the snapshots without actually examining the other actual responses of the survey, these written responses are key to what the community actually want.  In fact, the respondents have written their responses for the conductor of the survey to analyse and evaluate with detail.

Survey responses are very subjective when presented with a ‘cherry picked’ snapshot view.  Will Councillors take the time to review the survey in entirety?  Analysing the results as mentioned above will provide a more thorough view of what the community have really said.  Particularly when the survey portrays many negative views to the project at hand.