Gold Coast Integrated Resort FINAL REPORT Development & Spit … › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0015 › ... · 2018-03-07 · Gold Coast Integrated Resort Development & Spit

Gold Coast Integrated Resort Development & Spit Parklands

Community ConsultationFINAL REPORTDCG Donaldson Consulting Group23 May 2017

Ministry of Justice, Niger State, Strategic Plan 2016

IRD & Spit Parklands Community Consultation PageExecutive Summary 3

Introduction 6

IRD Community Consultation Highlights 9

Spit Parklands Community Highlights 14

Methodology 17

IRD Community Consultation 23

Spit Parklands Community Consultation 27

Summary 30

Appendices 32

Contents

2dcgdonaldsonCONSULTING GROUP

THE IRD

The Queensland Government now knows the combined views in regard to the IRD are that:

54% of respondents are either strongly, or tend to be, in favour of the proposed IRD, believing itwould:

Create and support ongoing jobs;

Develop much needed improvements to public transport and access infrastructure;

Contribute to increased tourism and visitor patronage;

Address the environment and have minimal impact on the area;

Demonstrate the Government is no longer talking about it, but rather getting it done; and

Make better use of the area.

42% of respondents are either against or tend to be against the IRD proposal, believing that it would:

Construct high rise buildings, spoiling the area’s amenity and its public appeal;

Prove unable to implement transport or infrastructure solutions that will alleviate congestionor accessibility issues;

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

dcgdonaldsonCONSULTING GROUP

54%Of all

respondents

2,309 PEOPLEIN FAVOUR OPPOSE

42%

1,780 PEOPLEUNSURE

4%

156 PEOPLE

* IRD sentiment statistics are based on the total number of online or hardcopy survey respondents to the IRD consultation who provided an answer to this question - 5 failed to provide a response

** Across both consultations, 263 duplicates were removed and 51 submissions could not be analysed due to information gaps

Of all

respondents

Of all

respondents

Between January and early April 2017, Donaldson Consulting Group (DCG) was engaged by theQueensland Government to undertake an independent consultation project, seeking widespreadcommunity views on the issues deserving attention, in establishing an Integrated Resort Development(IRD) on approximately 5 hectares of The Spit.

At the same time, community views were sought on the future care of The Spit Parklands.

CONTEXT

The Spit has received continued attention from the Government since the 1950s. Advice from thecommunity has been sought a number of times. More recently, the Government has protectedWavebreak Island and committed to the rejuvenation of the Spit Parklands. In the current period, theGovernment is exploring a proposed Integrated Resort Development (IRD) and has commissioned thiscommunity consultation to inform its next conversations with the proponent, prior to making any decisionon the next steps.

METHOD

The DCG team created the channels and tools to attract widespread responses from the community. Theybacked this up with a representative sample of over 1,100 people to test the findings produced.

Using a broad range of consultation channels to meet the agreed IAP2 standard, DCG reached over132,000 community members, including briefing 54 groups and hosting business briefing sessions and acommunity information day. Community members submitted 4,550 responses and submissions on theproposed IRD*, 60% of whom considered themselves to have “a good understanding” of the ASF proposal(see Appendix 1, page 33). Another 2,517 responses and submissions were received on the Parklands**.Across both consultations, 263 duplicates were removed and 51 submissions could not be analysed due toinformation gaps. DCG’s analysis assessed respondent comments to specific questions, but also theiroverall sentiment (for instance, where answers were provided in other parts of the response).

The consulting team designed and applied decision rules, weighting rules and duplication rules to ensurethat respondents had and used a single identity rather than many, that advice belonged to an individual(rather than being anonymous) and that passionate individuals and groups were heard.

The mix of robust response analysis tools and software (alongside the broad range of consultationchannels) ensured that the findings could be interpreted confidently with a very modest margin for error.The findings were also tested against a representative sample, drawn from a demographic profile ofresidents in the Gold Coast-Brisbane corridor.

57%

43%

61%

39%

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Legend

Yes No

Have adverse environmental impact;

Fail to preserve open space for future generations;

Contradict the City Plan; and

Introduce a casino that they do not want.

RESPONSE BY RESIDENTS MOST CLOSE TO AN IRD (THE 4215 & 4217 POSTCODES)

Residents within postcodes 4215 and 4217 indicated overall support for the IRD and, compared with otherpostcodes, participated strongly, representing 35% of the total number of responses received. Inparticular, support for the IRD was 57% and 61% across these postcodes, if high-rises were complementedwith open space (57%) and if improved transport and accessibility were assured (61%).*

RESPONSES ON HIGH-RISE DEVELOPMENT

With respect to the question in regard to supporting an IRD proposal with high-rises, the strongestfavourable responses are captured in the next column. Similarly, the strongest negative responses are alsoshown.

Some of the reasons given for negativity were not entirely based on facts, for example, some overly-simple interpretations are made of the existing City planning requirements at the “opposing” reason 4.

In both groupings, the findings are illustrative and reasons offered are ranked according to the number ofresponses.

.

IRD SUPPORT –WITH TRANSPORT &

ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENT

IRD SUPPORT – WITH HIGH-RISE AND OPEN

SPACE/AMENITY

Ranked reasons for those in favour of high-rise development:

1. Get on with it!;

2. Better land use;

3. Economic benefits;

4. Existing reputation for high-rises;

5. Transport/infrastructure improvements; and

6. Job creation.

Ranked reasons for those opposing high-rise development:

1. Will worsen traffic congestion;

2. Preservation for future generations;

3. Appeal is its untouched natural beauty;

4. Contradicts the City Plan;

5. Adverse environmental impact; and

6. Visual eyesore.

In summary, for the proposed IRD:

1. The responding (predominantly local) community has provided valuable ideas and guidance on theissues for the Government to consider, in proceeding with consideration of an IRD at this site;

2. The support offered for an IRD is contingent upon improvements to public transport andaccessibility - this clear conclusion implies the need for substantial planning across the precinct;and

3. The number of community responses is so large that the consultation can be regarded as a validsampling of those interested in commenting on the IRD site on The Spit.

* For a visual representation of the average community sentiment for other postcodes, please see page 12.

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


SPIT PARKLANDS

Many of the responding community would appreciate minor investment through improvements to picnicfacilities, improved pathways, and additional maintenance and revegetation plant life in the SpitParklands. However, a substantial number advised Government to simply leave it alone.

The most valued improvements for the Parklands include:

More picnic areas with tables, toilets, BBQs, seating, water outlets;

Better carparking or public transport links;

Better (hard and safe) walking and biking paths;

Improved, regular maintenance and (re)vegetation;

Facilities to support water sports, including showers;

Facilities to support walking, running, cycling and dog walking; and

More policing for safety.

P

Facilities forwalking andcycling

Picnic areas

Pathways

Carparking,publictransportlinks

Revegetation

SecurityWaterfacilities

6

INTRODUCTION


PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

This report provides an analysis of the community consultation responses received on:

The issues or attributes that must be addressed for an IRD on The Spit to best benefit the Gold Coastand the broader community; and

The best investments to make in protecting and enhancing the value of the Spit Parklands.

PROJECT SCOPE

On 18 December 2016, the Government announced an independent public consultation on the IRDproposal, planned for the southern end of The Spit, seeking community and business views about how anIRD could best benefit the Gold Coast and the broader community and what initiatives could enhance theSpit Parklands.

DCG was commissioned in January 2017 to first design and then undertake the community consultationphase, in the period between 8 February 2017 and 7 April 2017.

DCG was to collate the community feedback and prepare a report for the State Government to informongoing discussions with the IRD proponent and to enable decision-making about the next steps on theSpit Parklands. The work was exploratory – the Government wanted ideas.

KPMG had completed discussions with some stakeholders prior to this project and advised theGovernment that the IAP2 model should be used to guide the consultation activity. The IAP2 spectrumwas used in this consultation, applying the “consult” level of participation, shown in the second column ofthe model. Information about IAP2 can be found at: https://www.iap2.org.au/About-Us/About-IAP2-Australasia-/Spectrum

CONSULTATION OBJECTIVES

The consultation was expected to deliver the community’s ideas and advice on both the issues to addresswith the IRD proposal and the enhancements suggested for the Spit Parklands.

DCG was to publicise and promote the opportunity and to create as many channels as possible to attractinquiry and then the submission of either completed surveys or submissions.

The Government wanted the consultancy conducted both professionally and respectfully, so as to attractas much advice and response as possible, in the available time.

Finally, the Government wanted a report that was robust and could be shared with the community.

DCG’s brief was to design, conduct and document the output from a broad community consultation:

“Design” means developing the questions to ask, establishing the channels to enable the capture ofcommunity advice, establishing the protocols to ensure both valid data and our independence, andfinally to provide information to be made available to the community during the consultation period;

“Conduct” means briefing many community groups, promoting completion of the questionnairesthrough media outlets, inviting submissions and then collecting and verifying the legitimacy of allresponses; and

“Document the outputs” means to collate and present the community’s advice, including languageand sentiment on one hand and hard numbers on the other, in a small report.

Specifically, the questions answered for the IRD site and Parklands enabled DCG to:

Prepare part of this report, documenting the preferred attributes of any IRD on The Spit site;

Include the benefits the community would want to see from any development; and

Prepare the other part of this report, showing the community’s preferred investment inenhancements to the Spit Parklands.

THE PROJECT PLAN

Following the Minister’s announcement of a 3-month community consultation on the 18th of December2016, the project moved swiftly:

January 2017 was used to do the design work for the process, the content to support it and thechannels to engage with interested communities;

February was used to schedule and do promotional work across both the media and face to facebriefings and then begin to capture community advice (and test it);

March and the first week of April were used to complete the capture of advice and then close offpromotional activity, materials and media channels; and

April and early May were used to produce and deliver this report.

The “community engagement” phase for the IRD and Spit Parklands community consultation wasconducted over a two month period, between 8 February 2017 and 7 April 2017.

https://www.iap2.org.au/About-Us/About-IAP2-Australasia-/Spectrum

7-Apr to 10-May-17Analysis▪ Undertake data analysis, data

validation and determine key findings▪ Analysis on: 5,935 online surveys, 78

emails, 477 hardcopy surveys, 34 organisation submissions, and 17 personal submissions

▪ Clean up duplicates (removing 54 hardcopy surveys, 208 online surveys, and 1 email)

Reporting▪ Produce and deliver report (IRD and

Parklands), containing community advice

Feb-17Schedule▪ Briefings with stakeholders

Promote▪ Launch Government website on

08 February▪ Implement media plan▪ Stakeholders promote via their

networks

Community Advice Capture▪ Capture community advice▪ Respond to community Q’s

Testing for Legitimacy▪ Conduct sampling with

demographic profile

Jan-17Media▪ Advertisement on 21 January

2017 in the Gold Coast Bulletin (GCB), announcing the consultation

Design▪ Process to use in promoting

input and attracting and storing community advice

▪ Content to support the engagement, made available both online and in brochures

▪ Channels to engage with interested communities

▪ Questions to reflect the brief provided and to comply with the IAP2 standard

Mar to 7-Apr-17Complete Advice Capture▪ Add together online & paper

survey responses, submissions, emails

▪ Design analysis tools and sample responses to test

Close off Promotional Activity▪ End the media campaign to

attract responses

Close off Media Channels▪ Media channels close on 7 April

SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT BY TIMELINE

7

Dec-16Media Statement▪ On 18 December, the State

Development Minister Dr Anthony Lynham announces a community consultation on the concept for a proposed IRD on the southern end of The Spit and on enhancements to the Parklands on The Spit

Procurement▪ The Department of State

Development (DSD) goes to market to procure consulting services


8

PROJECT CHALLENGES

DCG team members needed to:

Remain independent, having only limited contact with public media and no contact with social media;

Attract broad opinion, ideas and advice, while acknowledging that local postcode communities mightknow and care much more than those farther away;

Establish, test and apply robust decision rules about managing the responses and the respondents;

Adjust to changes in the scope, the number of briefings and the duration of the consultation;

Verify unique identities for all respondents; and

Weight responses from individuals and groups (to be fair to them both) and from the specific answersprovided to questions against the more general advice tendered by some individuals.

Some respondents criticised:

The lack of detailed information about the IRD proposal;

The perceived limited period for consultation;

The confusing boundary between State and Local Government jurisdictions and the intermittentannouncements from the latter;

The language used, including the notion of “sale” versus “lease” and the notion of a 5-hectare siteseparated from the remainder of The Spit; and

The Government’s terms of reference: seeking ideas/advice on the matters to address in progressingdiscussions on an IRD, rather than “a vote” in favour or against an IRD on the nominated site.

DCG countered these criticisms by providing 8 weeks from 8 February to 7 April for community membersand groups to complete a well-defined survey on either the IRD site or the Parklands, or both.

As well, DCG provided media releases and multiple channels for the community to seek information ormake contact, so as to clarify uncertainties, before submitting their views. These included a 1800 number,an email address, business and community briefings, a media campaign, a Government website and more.

INTRODUCTION


IRD COMMUNITY CONSULTATION HIGHLIGHTS


9

10

54% OF THE COMMUNITY SURVEY RESPONDENTS ARE EITHER STRONGLY IN FAVOUR OR

TEND TO BE IN FAVOUR OF THE PROPOSED INTEGRATED RESORT DEVELOPMENT (IRD)

50% 24%

46%

48%

58%

17%

BELIEVE THE PROJECT WILL DEVELOP MUCH NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR

PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND ACCESSIBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE

WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO

STOP TALKING ABOUT ITAND GET IT DONE

ANY DEVELOPMENT MUST CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT AND

HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE AREA

$

THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE AN

INCREASE IN TOURISM AND VISITOR PATRONAGE

THE DEVELOPMENT WILL

CREATE AND SUPPORT ONGOING JOBS

THE DEVELOPMENT WILL MAKE

BETTER USE OF THE AREAWHICH IS IN NEED OF A TIDY UP AND INVESTMENT

Note: Numbers below are based on total number of online survey respondents and may include responses from those who are indifferent (~4%), as long as the specific response was positive

2,309 PEOPLE

IN FAVOUR 54%

Of all respondents

45%

Strongly in favour

9 %

Tending to be in favour

42% OF COMMUNITY RESPONDENTS ARE EITHER AGAINST, OR TEND TO BE AGAINST, THE

IRD PROPOSAL, LEAVING 4% UNDECIDED. DCG IDENTIFIED 6 OF THE MOST IMPORTANT

REASONS FROM THEIR OPEN-ENDED STATEMENTS

24%

14 %

12%26%

29%

44%BELIEVE THE AREA IS THE LAST REMAINING OPEN SPACE AND MUST

BE PRESERVED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS

BELIEVE THE PROPOSAL ISAGAINST THE CITY PLAN

DO NOT WANT A CASINOTHE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

HIGH-RISES WILL

SPOIL THE AREAAND ITS PUBLIC APPEAL

WILL BE ABLE TO ALLEVIATE CONGESTIONOR IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE AREA

NO TRANSPORT AND/OR INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS

11

Note: Numbers below are based on total number of online survey respondents and may include those who are indifferent (~4%), as long as the specific response was negative

1,780 PEOPLE

OPPOSE 42%

Of all respondents

38%

Strongly oppose

4 %

Tending to oppose

12

Legend

Positive Negative

0 1 2 3 4 5

From 0 1 147 292 438 584

To 0 146 291 437 583 729

Legend

Got to 827

Average Sentiment (by postcode) No. of Responses (by postcode)

THE MAPS BELOW ILLUSTRATE THE SENTIMENT AND QUANTUM OF RESPONSES FROM SELECTED

POSTCODE DISTRICTS IN THE GOLD COAST (GC) REGION ON THE IRD. 89% OF THE ONLINE SURVEY

RESPONSES* WERE FROM GOLD COAST RESIDENTS

Balanced

THE SPIT THE SPIT

* Includes hardcopy and onlinesubmissions, but excludesemails and other submissions

** The maps are illustrativeonly, although all statisticscontained herein (whenreferencing Gold Coastresponses) incorporate allpostcodes within the City ofGold Coast boundary

Main Beach

Circa20kmradius

Mt Tamborine

WestBurleigh

Main Beach

Circa20kmradius

Mt Tamborine

WestBurleigh

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

21-J

an-

17

22-J

an-

17

23-J

an-

17

24-J

an-

17

25-J

an-

17

26-J

an-

17

27-J

an-

17

28-J

an-

17

29-J

an-

17

30-J

an-

17

31-J

an-

17

01-F

eb-1

7

02-F

eb-1

7

03-F

eb-1

7

04-F

eb-1

7

05-F

eb-1

7

06-F

eb-1

7

07-F

eb-1

7

08-F

eb-1

7

09-F

eb-1

7

10-F

eb-1

7

11-F

eb-1

7

12-F

eb-1

7

13-F

eb-1

7

14-F

eb-1

7

15-F

eb-1

7

16-F

eb-1

7

17-F

eb-1

7

18-F

eb-1

7

19-F

eb-1

7

20-F

eb-1

7

21-F

eb-1

7

22-F

eb-1

7

23-F

eb-1

7

24-F

eb-1

7

25-F

eb-1

7

26-F

eb-1

7

27-F

eb-1

7

28-F

eb-1

7

01-M

ar-1

7

02-M

ar-1

7

03-M

ar-1

7

04-M

ar-1

7

05-M

ar-1

7

06-M

ar-1

7

07-M

ar-1

7

08-M

ar-1

7

09-M

ar-1

7

10-M

ar-1

7

11-M

ar-1

7

12-M

ar-1

7

13-M

ar-1

7

14-M

ar-1

7

15-M

ar-1

7

16-M

ar-1

7

17-M

ar-1

7

18-M

ar-1

7

19-M

ar-1

7

20-M

ar-1

7

21-M

ar-1

7

22-M

ar-1

7

23-M

ar-1

7

24-M

ar-1

7

25-M

ar-1

7

26-M

ar-1

7

27-M

ar-1

7

28-M

ar-1

7

29-M

ar-1

7

30-M

ar-1

7

31-M

ar-1

7

01-A

pr-

17

02-A

pr-

17

03-A

pr-

17

04-A

pr-

17

05-A

pr-

17

06-A

pr-

17

07-A

pr-

17

Gold Coast Other Cum. [RHS]

GOLD COAST RESIDENTS CONTRIBUTED TO 89% OF THE (ONLINE IRD) RESPONSES RECEIVED*

DSD website

went live

Gov’t Media Release

Gov’t Media Release

GCB AdvertisementNine News Report &

Information Day

13

DCG Media Release

GCB Advertisement Letterbox Drop

GCB Advertisement

BusinessBriefing

Submissions received

Gold Coast Bulletin (GCB) Advertisement

Satisfyingly, a very Gold Coast community

consultation!

* Contributing 93% of total IRD responses, i.e., hardcopy and electronic

Gold Coast Sun & GCB

AdvertisementsGold Coast Sun Advertisement

GCB Advertisement

SPIT PARKLANDS COMMUNITY CONSULTATION HIGHLIGHTS


14

THE COMMUNITY SAYS IT CURRENTLY USES THE SPIT PARKLANDS FOR ITS BASIC AMENITIES, SUCH

AS: PICNIC AREAS, SEATING, PLAYGROUNDS FOR CHILDREN, RELAXATION, THE BEACH, EXERCISING,

WATER-SPORTS, TAKING THE DOG(S) FOR A WALK AND ACCESS TO SURROUNDING WATERWAYS

Note: Based on a sample size of 2,432 and analysis combines responses from Questions 1-2

150%

0%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

4%

4%

4%

5%

12%

17%

21%

33%

35%

37%

55%

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Helicopter flights

Go kiting

Photography / filming

Bird watching

Driving / out for a drive

Visiting Sea World

Going to work

Retail shopping

Boating facilities (eg public ramps)

Public events

Dining / food & beverage

Fishing

Go kiteboarding / wind surfing / paddle boarding / kayaking / surfing / snorkelling / jet skiing

Facilities & access for dogs

Accessing the beach

Exercise: eg Walking/running/cycling/diving

Sight seeing / relaxing

Picnic areas / facilities / amenities / recreation (onshore & nearshore)

Why do you visit the Spit Parklands / what activities do you undertake?

0%

2%

2%

7%

15%

33%

33%

35%

37%

41%

41%

44%

54%

61%

62%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

None / Do nothing

Don't Know

Other

Maritime Stadium

Boating Ramps

Stronger Enforcement of Regulations

Road Access

Beach Access

Dune Stabilisation

Food & Beverage

Vegetation improvement

Lighting & Security

Car Parking

Showers & Toilets

Picnice / BBQ Facilities

What new or improved facilities or uses, if any, would help to improve The Spit Parklands?

* Based on a sample size of 1,105

Representative Sample (for testing findings)Widespread Community Consultation

LOOKING AHEAD, CONSULTATION RESPONDENTS HAD A GREATER RESPONSE TOWARDS ‘DO

NOTHING’ COMPARED TO THE RESPONSES FROM THE SMALL REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE.

OTHER SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS WERE COMPARABLE

16Note: Based on a sample size of 2,432

The sources are 603 on the GC, 252 near the GC

(Logan, Scenic Rim & Redlands) & 250 in

Brisbane

6%

6%

6%

7%

7%

7%

8%

8%

18%

21%

24%

24%

37%

50%

55%

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Make it is a botanical garden

Dune stabilisation

Build a cruise terminal

Lighting and security

Clean & shaded areas

Some commercial development

Improved waste management

Build children playgrounds (onshore & nearshore)

Improved and regular maintenance


Replantation of vegetation

Increase the number of safe bike & walker trails

Improvements to transport connectivity & capacity

Nothing - leave it as it is


What new or improved facilities or uses, if any, would help to improve The Spit Parklands?

17

METHODOLOGY


Community ConsultationThe long consultation designed to attract

widespread input from any interested person or

group

Uniquely, this consultation:

■ Attracted self-selecting, passionate

respondents, typically users of The Spit

■ Ran from 8-Feb to 7-Apr (2 months) [the

entire project ran from early January to early

May – 4 months]

■ Received both electronic and paper survey

forms and submissions from individuals and

groups

■ Involved 54 briefings, responses to inquiries

and a public information day

■ Provided multiples ways to hear about the

opportunity and then respond

Representative SamplingThe short consultation designed to produce

statistically representative advice from

individuals

Uniquely, this consultation:

■ Formally captured advice based on a

demographic profile of the community in the

Gold Coast-Brisbane corridor (age, gender) –

refer to Appendix 2, page 34

■ Was conducted over approximately 10 days

■ Specifically selected a mix near The Spit,

distant Gold Coast and Brisbane residents to

sample

THE CONSULTATION APPROACH

The primary approach was to:

Reach out to and brief very large numbers of community members (and their networks) to attracttheir advice – the consultancy team briefed 54 groups and reached over 132,000 community membersthis way, attracting 4,321 responses on the IRD* and 2,432 on the Parklands** – both completedsurvey forms and submissions, the majority online and a small number on paper.

As well, the DCG team:

Commissioned the sampling of representative numbers from a demographic profile of the Gold Coast-Brisbane corridor, so as to test the widespread community consultation – the sampling team reachedapproximately 1,000 community members on the Gold Coast (GC) and in South-east Queensland byonline polling, 100 members by phone-call and 32 people in 4 focus groups.

Gold Coast residents contributed 89% of the online responses (using the IRD as the example) received bythe team.

COMPARISON OF THE CONSULTATION & SURVEY

The community consultation and the representative sampling had in common:

Only willing community members responded;

Both attracted approximately 1,000 responses;

Both asked the same questions.

These questions were designed to respond directly to the instructions provided by theGovernment; a large number were tested and distilled to the few that focused best on theinstructions and could fit the commonly used time period for online/telephone surveysand for respondents

Whilst specific questions were designed to understand the perceived benefits the IRDmight create, the survey enabled community members to respond to 6 questions withopen-ended statements (positive or negative), all of which were analysed and included

Both captured input from Gold Coast residents and “outsiders”; and

Both were conducted to professional survey standards.

* The IRD consultation received a total of 4,550 submissions, 202 of which were duplicates and thereby excluded, as well as 27 paper-based submissions (which were submitted, but excluded from this analysis and assessed separately – they did not include responses to specific questions asked in the survey)

** The consultation received a total of 2,517 submissions, 61 of which were duplicates and thereby excluded, as well as 24 paper-based submissions (which were submitted, but excluded from this analysis and assessed separately – they did not include responses to specific questions asked in the survey)

18

METHODOLOGY


CONSULTATION CHANNELS

The consultation team provided regular formal and informal community updates to ensure awareness ofthe consultation, seeking as much public input as possible. Awareness of the consultation process wasprovided over a 2 month period through the following channels (see Appendix 4 at pages 35-36 forstatistics showing the use of these channels):

A public website and encouragement for early registration of interest;

9 local newspaper paper (Gold Coast Bulletin and Gold Coast Sun) advertisements;

3 State Government media releases and 6 Radio advertisements;

A dedicated telephone number;

54 separate public briefings for stakeholder groups;

Approximately 132,000 third party distributions (by stakeholders, following their briefings) to promotethe consultation program;

A Business Information Evening (20 attendees) and 3 DSD Office briefings;

A community Information Session (~300 attendees); and

16,000 letterbox drops (in postcodes 4215 & 4217); and 102 local business letterbox drops.

CONSULTATION RESPONSE TOOLS

The public was invited to submit its views by completing and submitting any of the following (on whichDCG’s analysis is based):

Online survey – see Appendix 4 & 5, pages 37-41;

An email;

Hardcopy, paper-based survey form; and/or

Hardcopy, detailed submissions.

The vast majority of respondents submitted completed online surveys, a small number submitted PDFsand an even smaller number provided emails or other paper-based submissions. Some organised groupsconducted their own surveys and submitted the findings or produced submissions.

VALIDATION OF FINDINGS

The consulting team designed and applied decision rules, weighting rules and duplication rules to ensurethat respondents had and used a single identity rather than many, that advice belonged to an individualrather than being anonymous and that passionate groups were heard.

In determining the final response numbers to be analysed:

All responses were monitored to mitigate duplication. Of 7,067 responses received for both the IRDand Spit Parklands community consultations, 208 online surveys, 54 hardcopy survey forms, and 1email were removed for this reason;

Where duplicates were identified, where survey forms were inappropriately completed, or where aresponse could not identify an individual, the respondent was contacted – only one response perindividual was accepted (whether it be hardcopy or electronic);

51 submissions either made no reference to the questions asked or only commented on the processused and as such, were set aside and analysed separately. They have of course, been delivered toGovernment;

Responses on behalf of organisations were fully considered as long as they signalled clearly that theyhad traceable support for the views expressed, from their constituents.

In undertaking the analysis of responses:

Responses were analysed either manually (if a hardcopy or email submission was received) orelectronically (if the submission was made online);

In the event of online submissions, the IRD survey comprised 6 drop-down questions and 6 open-ended responses. Drop-down answers were quantitatively assessed, posing no complication. Open-ended responses were analysed by identifying up to 800 possible phrases/key words for eitherpositive or negative sentiment;

Depending on how a respondent submitted their overall sentiment toward the IRD Proposal (found inQuestion 6), the Model associated the response with approximately 25 positive affirmativestatements or 25 negative statements;

19

METHODOLOGY


If an individual was unsure on the IRD Proposal, an assessment of the response was conducted toascertain whether the response contained more negative words or positive words. Depending on thisresult, the response was then assessed accordingly. Where the Model failed to categorise anindividual’s response, the response was first labelled as ‘unknown’ and then manually checked to seethe merit in adding new key phrases/words to the Model; and

Our analysis assessed each question on its own merit, but also assessed all other comments providedby the respondent. Comments throughout the survey were then amalgamated to understand theoverall sentiment and avoid duplication, when any comments were repeated by a respondent throughthe completion of their survey.

In undertaking response validation:

Throughout the engagement process, responses were iteratively analysed to populate keyphrases/words for the Model and identify appropriate assessment criteria statements, being positiveor negative;

Audit checks of the Model were periodically conducted to ensure (a) question-specific comments werepicked up that might have only been provided because a specific question was asked, and (b) that anyother comments likely to be made by an individual (whether it be positive or negative) were includedin the analysis for each opportunity, where an open-ended response was made available;

All responses categorised as ‘unknown’ were manually reviewed to ensure the quantum of thiscategory was small, and to add new key phrases/words wherever practical;

300 (randomly selected) IRD survey responses were manually analysed and cross-checked to ensurethe Model’s assessment was valid and accurately fleshed out respondent sentiment; and

The consulting team tested the responses from the representative group with that of the communityrespondents to look for difference if it existed or to confirm the strength of opinions submitted.

The Spit Parklands methodology was very similar to that described above for the IRD.

In terms of third party software, we used Survey Monkey for online surveys, analysed data throughproprietary Excel modelling, and stored respondent information, using Consultation Manager (seeAppendix 6, page 42 for an overview).

RESPECTFUL BEHAVIOUR

Despite both written and verbal provocation about the IRD site, the DCG team members have sustained arespectful posture with the community, remained independent of Government, publicly provided only theagreed briefing information, and gave considerable emphasis to the process for participating, rather thanengaging in the content of community members’ opinion.

The team seems to have earned begrudging respect in the community, no matter what the view of itsmembers.

In practice, the team:

Heard everyone out, especially in some briefings where groups extended contact about issues andquestions or advice;

Engaged responsibly with the media;

Directed community members to the survey tools, rather than try to note down advice;

Referred community members to the Government website or to the ASF website, for furtherinformation;

Conducted in parallel, the representative test sampling and the widespread community consultationfor the IRD and captured good quality and consistent advice on the Parklands;

Responded politely to community members with difficulties in completing or submitting surveys; and

Ensured everyone knew their advice was welcomed.

DCG UNDERTOOK WIDESPREAD COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (INCLUDING A SMALL REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE) AND USED 8 DIFFERENT CHANNELS TO GATHER PUBLIC OPINION ON THE IRD

6multiple

choice

6open-

ended

Question formation IRD question composition

A

B

+132,000DCG developed both hardcopy questionnaires and onlinesurveys for both projects. The IRD questionnaire wascomposed of an equal mix of multiple choice and open-ended questions. The public was also invited to submit hard-copy paper-based submissions and emails.

Consultation

The team briefed 54 groups and reached over 132,000community members, attracting 4,321 responses – bothcompleted survey forms and hardcopy forms. Engagementmediums included: website, email, focus groups, publicevents, surveys, face-to-face meetings, telephone polling,and social media.

community

consultation

representative

sampling

2 x consultation approaches

Analysis

responses assessed

4,321

community members

approached

54 %

of people in favour

of an IRD

manual

validation

automated

evaluation

2 x evaluation approaches

20

Proprietary software was used to analyse and validate onlinesurvey quantitative and qualitative responses; cleansingresponse grammar, and capturing repeated words / phrasesused by the community. The consulting team designed andapplied decision rules, weighting rules and duplication rulesto ensure respondents had only one voice, and that advicewas owned by individuals rather than remaining anonymous.

Note: of the 4,550 submissions received, 27 were submissions, addressing issues other than the questions. These submissions were reviewed, themes identified, grouped and submitted to DSD as part of the consultation. 202 were duplicates and therefore removed.

DCG UNDERTOOK WIDESPREAD COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (INCLUDING A SMALL REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE) AND USED 8 DIFFERENT CHANNELS TO GATHER PUBLIC OPINION ON THE SPIT PARKLANDS

Question formation

DCG developed both hardcopy questionnaires and onlinesurveys for both projects. The Parklands questionnaire wascomposed of a mix of multiple choice and open-endedquestions. The public was also invited to submit hard-copypaper-based submissions and emails.

Consultation

The team briefed 54 groups and reached over 132,000community members, attracting 2,432 responses – bothcompleted survey forms and hardcopy forms. Engagementmediums included: website, email, focus groups, publicevents, surveys, face-to-face meetings, telephone polling,and social media.

Analysis

Proprietary software was used to analyse and validate onlinesurvey quantitative and qualitative responses; cleansingresponse grammar, and capturing repeated words / phrasesused by the community. The consulting team designed andapplied decision rules, weighting rules and duplication rulesto ensure respondents had only one voice, and that advicewas owned by individuals rather than remaining anonymous.

+132,000

community members

approached

60 %

of people in favour of an

improvement of basic facilities

manual

validation

automated

evaluation

2 x evaluation approaches

responses assessed

2,432

community

consultation

representative

sampling

2 x consultation approaches

7multiple

choice

9open-

ended

Spit Parklands Question composition

A

B

Note: of the 2,517 submissions received, 24 were submissions, addressing issues other than the questions. These submissions were reviewed, themes identified, grouped and submitted to DSD as part of the consultation. 61 were duplicates and therefore removed.

21

DCG UNDERTOOK WIDESPREAD COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (INCLUDING A SMALL REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE)

Widespread Community Consultation Representative Sample (for testing findings)

1,000

100

4

10day

consultation

……………………………………

online

surveys

telephone

polls

focus group

sessions

……………………………………

……………………………………

……………………………………

79

531

8week

consultation

……………………………………

email

submissions

hardcopy

submissions

……………………………………

……………………………………

Rich “all comers” quantitative and qualitative advice Validated demographic, quantitative and qualitative advice

Feb’

……………………………………

22* Focus groups were used formaking sense of survey findings

2xsurveys

Parklands IRD

6,143Online

surveys

* Final numbers are afterduplicates have been removed

IRD COMMUNITY CONSULTATION


23

45%

9%4%

4%

38%

Strongly in favour Tending to be in favour Neither in favour or opposed Tending to be opposed Strongly opposed

COMMUNITY CONSULATION RESPONDENTS HAD A MUCH MORE POSITIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD THE IRD PROPOSAL COMPARED TO THE REPRESENTATIVE TEST SAMPLE. SUGGESTED BENEFITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT WERE REMARKABLY COMPARABLE ACROSS THE TWO

12%

23%

31%

17%

17%

Strongly in favour Tending to be in favour Neither in favour or opposed Tending to be opposed Strongly opposed

* Based on a sample size of 4,250 (online surveys and hardcopy surveys)

* Based on a nett sample size of 1,084 – 21 declined to give a response

21%

39%

36%

29%

42%

45%

42%

40%

50%

48%

57%

- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Landmark buildings and design

Improved patronage of existing local restaurants and businesses

Investment in public open space elsewhere on The Spit

Marine infrastructure (eg berthing, water taxi, boat tours)

Investment in environmental improvement and management on The Spit

New public open spaces on the IRD site and associated public access

New/improved public transport infrastructure in the local area

Improved Gold Coast tourism offer (eg new six star hotel, restaurants etc)

Improved vehicle and pedestrian access to and from The Spit

Investment in reducing traffic congestion in the local area

Long-term jobs for Gold Coast locals

What benefits would there be if an IRD were to be approved?

Representative Sample (for testing)


Widespread Community Consultation

40%

41%

43%

43%

46%

47%

48%

48%

50%

50%

58%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Landmark buildings and design

Improved patronage of existing local restaurants and businesses

Investment in public open space elsewhere on The Spit

Marine infrastructure (eg berthing, water taxi, boat tours)

Investment in environmental improvement and management on The Spit

New public open spaces on the IRD site and associated public access

New/improved public transport infrastructure in the local area

Improved Gold Coast tourism offer (eg new six star hotel, restaurants etc)

Improved vehicle and pedestrian access to and from The Spit

Investment in reducing traffic congestion in the local area

Long-term jobs for Gold Coast locals

What benefits would there be if an IRD were to be approved?

24

These are the passionate (usually local) people –

for or against



Brisbane

Gender and age balanced to represent

the population

40%

60%

72%

28%

60%

40%

56%

44%

COMMUNITY CONSULATION RESULTS SHOW SUPPORT FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDING, IF IT ENABLED LARGER PUBLIC SPACES AND IMPROVED PUBLIC AMENITY - BUT BOTH SURVEYS SIMILARLY SHOW SUPPORT FOR AN IRD, SHOULD TRANSPORT, PARKING AND ACCESS CONSTRAINTS BE RESOLVED


25

Widespread Community Consultation Representative Sample (for testing)

Public commentary has identified the height of buildings on the IRD site as a matter of interest. If it

enabled larger public spaces and improved public amenity at ground level, would you

support high rise buildings on the IRD site?

Public commentary has identified traffic congestion in the area as a matter of interest.

If transport solutions could be implemented, including better parking and access to The Spit,

Southport and Main Beach would you support the development of an IRD on The Spit?

* Based on a sample size of 4,250 (online surveys and hardcopy surveys)

The local community will accommodate an IRD

with high-rise, subject to effective delivery of

larger public spaces and improved public amenity

The local community will accommodate an IRD,

subject to effective delivery of improved

traffic solutions, access and parking capacity



Brisbane

917

1,230

578

919

Postcodes 4215 & 4217 Gold Coast postcodes outside postcodes 4215 & 4217

858

1,138

636

1,012

Postcodes 4215 & 4217 Gold Coast postcodes outside postcodes 4215 & 4217

COMMUNITY CONSULATION RESULTS SHOW RESIDENTS CLOSER TO THE IRD TEND TO SUPPORT THE IRD –MORE SO IF TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION CAN BE RESOLVED


26

Widespread Community Consultation

Legend

Yes No Positive NegativeBalanced* Based on a sample size of 4,250 (online surveys and hardcopy surveys)

Postcodes 4215 & 4217 indicated overall support and

submitted the largest number of surveys by

postcode

These two postcodes “punch above their

weight” in responses

Note: The below map is illustrative only and the statistics to the left,incorporate all postcodes within the City of Gold Coast boundary

Public commentary has identified the height of buildings on the IRD site as a matter of interest. If it

enabled larger public spaces and improved public amenity at ground level, would you

support high rise buildings on the IRD site?

Public commentary has identified traffic congestion in the area as a matter of interest.

If transport solutions could be implemented, including better parking and access to The Spit,

Southport and Main Beach would you support the development of an IRD on The Spit?

THE SPIT

Main Beach

Circa 28km radius

4215

4217

SPIT PARKLANDS COMMUNITY CONSULTATION


27

28

* Based on a sample size of 2,432 and analysis combines responses from Questions 3-5

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

4%

4%

4%

6%

6%

6%

7%

7%

7%

8%

8%

17%

18%

21%

24%

24%

37%

50%

55%

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Removal of bollards

Charging an access fee for facilities

Caravan park / legal camping grounds

Disability access

Boating

Better signage

Maritime parkland for snorking

Improve beach access

It needs a clean-up


Public events


Dune stabilisation


Lighting and security

Clean & shaded areas

Some commercial development

Improved waste management


Increased policing

Improved and regular maintenance


Replantation of vegetation



Nothing - leave it as it is


What new / improved facilities or uses do you recommend / where should money be spent?

WHILST THE PUBLIC SEES VALUE IN IMPROVEMENT TO (OR ADDITIONAL) PUBLIC AMENITIES IN THE SPIT

PARKLANDS, A MATERIAL PROPORTION BELIEVES THAT NO CHANGE IS NECESSARY. THE STRONGEST

IMPROVEMENTS WERE AROUND NEW PUBLIC AMENITIES, ACCESSIBILITY, IMPROVED PATHWAYS AND

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR REVEGETATION/MAINTENANCE

1%

3%

5%

5%

6%

6%

7%

8%

24%

37%

57%

60%

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Caravan park / legal camping grounds

Improve beach access





Better promotion of the area



Dining / food & beverage


Maintain it as is - no change

How do you think The Spit could best contribute to the broader Southport and Main Beach precinct?

SIMILARLY, THE PUBLIC SEES VALUE IN THE SPIT PARKLANDS CONTINUING TO SERVE THE WIDER SOUTHPORT-MAIN BEACH

AREA AS A FAMILY-ORIENTED DESTINATION: ONE THAT ENCOURAGES VISITORS AND PATRONAGE THROUGH ITS

OUTDOOR AMBIENCE, SERENITY, SAFE PATHS, AND ITS PICNIC AND KID-FRIENDLY FACILITIES

29

* Based on a sample size of 2,432 and analysis is based on Question 7

SUMMARY: 54% OF THE RESPONDING COMMUNITY HAS FAVOURED AN IRD. THIS NUMBER INCREASES IF TRANSPORT/ACCESSIBILTY, PUBLIC SPACE, AND AMENITY ARE IMPROVED

30

THOSE WHO FAVOUR

THEIR SUPPORT DEPENDS MOST UPON:

▪ Creating many worthwhile jobs right now▪ Creating many worthwhile jobs, associated with the IRD, that last for the

longer term▪ Having measurable impact on local traffic congestion, in part with new

infrastructure and in part with better public transport (both land and water)and pedestrian access to/from the area

▪ Leveraging the development to increase tourist and visitor patronage, whileprotecting local restaurants and businesses

▪ Protecting the environment and investing in the nearby open spaces availableto the public

▪ Creating landmark buildings and a precinct that balances the perceived lossof visual or public amenity

THOSE WHO OPPOSE

THOSE REPORTING THEY’RE OPPOSED:

▪ Perceive a loss of visual amenity and the area’s public appeal▪ Are unconvinced that any viable transport and infrastructure solutions exist or

are affordable or don’t just move the problems to nearby locations▪ Believe that the site will be lost as an open space or that it is part of their

understanding of “The Spit” (which the Government has committed to preserving), but either the State or Local Government will simply march north with the next proposal (the “thin edge of the wedge”)

▪ Believe that the development will have adverse environmental impact that won’t be or can’t be stopped

▪ Believe that a casino is unwarranted, either because of its social costs or its impact on competing local gaming activity

▪ Consider that providing a long term lease is the equivalent of “giving away” what they regard as public land

31

WHAT PEOPLE CURRENTLY DO

STRONGEST REPORTED USES

▪ Picnic and toilet facilities, showering and BBQ facilities▪ Sight seeing and relaxing▪ Facilities that support walking, running, cycling and dog walking▪ Facilities that support water sports▪ Access to the beach for walking, fishing and water sports

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

MOST VALUED IMPROVEMENTS

▪ More picnic areas with tables, toilets, BBQs, seating, water outlets▪ Better carparking or public transport links▪ Better (hard and safe) walking and biking paths▪ Improved, regular maintenance and (re)vegetation▪ Facilities to support water sports, including showers▪ Facilities to support walking, running, cycling and dog walking▪ More policing for safety

SUMMARY: MANY OF THE RESPONDING COMMUNITY WOULD APPRECIATE AN INVESTMENT TO

MAKE THE FOLLOWING SHIFT IN THE SPIT PARKLANDS (EXCEPT FOR A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER

ADVISING GOVERNMENT TO SIMPLY LEAVE IT ALONE)

Ministry of Justice, Niger State, Strategic Plan 201632

Appendices


33

APPENDIX 1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONDENT IRD SENTIMENT AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASF PROPOSAL

I have a goodunderstanding ofthe ASF Consortiumproposal

I have heard aboutthe ASF Consortiumproposal but do notknow much of thedetail

I am not aware ofthe ASF Consortiumproposal

Strongly opposed 936 360 46 34%

Tending to be opposed 69 97 10 4%

Neither in favour or opposed 27 57 63 4%

Tending to be in favour 77 254 40 9%

Strongly in favour 1,242 566 96 48%

60% 34% 6%

The matrix to the left counts the number of respondent answers to Question 5 and Question 6, i.e., there were 1,242 respondents (32%) who were strongly in favour and who consider themselves to be knowledgeable of the ASF proposal (top left); and there were 936 respondents (24%) who were strongly against the ASF proposal who consider themselves to be knowledgeable (bottom left)

APPENDIX 2: DCG’S “REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE” RESPONDENT PROFILING

34

13%

21%18% 18% 17%

13%

18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+

33%

18-34 YRS

36%

35-54 YRS

30%

55+ YRS

Base: Total online and telephone samples (n=1,105)

Prompted, single response

Weighted data

Age

Dis

trib

uti

on

BRISBANE

(N=250)

LOGAN / REDLANDS /

SCENIC RIM

(N=252)

GOLD COAST

(N=603)

49% 49% 48%

51% 51% 52%Ge

nd

er

by

Re

gio

n

Integrated Resort Development Outcome

Engagement (for Spit Parklands and IRD projects)

Number of individual briefings 54

Third party distributions to promote consultation program 132,000

Business Information Evening attendees 20

Community Information Session attendees 280 - 300

Website visits (“Community Consultation” page of DSD website) 11,500 total views

Letterbox drop (postcodes 4215 & 4217) 16,000

Local businesses letterbox drop 102

Submissions (for IRD only)

Online (Survey Monkey) 3,940

Email 71

Hard copy 310

Organisations 17

Personal submissions 10

Market Research (for Spit Parklands and IRD projects)

Online surveys 1,000

Focus group responses 32 (4 groups x 8 attendees)

Telephone surveys 100

Advertising (for Spit Parklands and IRD projects)

Number of print advertisements Gold Coast Bulletin x 7

Gold Coast Sun x 2

Number of radio advertisements – information available from

DSD

200 insertions, Australian

Traffic Network (13 February

– 29 March)

Multiple submissions from individuals (for IRD only)

Online 171

Email 1

Hard copy 30

Number of challenges to multiple submissions 202 (from 89 individuals)

Number of individual replies to multiple submission challenges

(nominating a selection) 37

Number of project team selections for multiple submissions 122 (from 52 individuals)

APPENDIX 3: FINAL SURVEY STATISTICS

Page 2

Spit Parklands Outcome

Engagement (for Spit Parklands and IRD projects)

Number of individual briefings 54

Third party distributions to promote consultation program 132,000

Business Information Evening attendees 20

Community Information Session attendees 280 - 300

Website visits (“Community Consultation” page of DSD website) 11,500 total views

Letterbox drop (postcodes 4215 & 4217) 16,000

Local businesses letterbox drop 102

Submissions (for Spit Parklands only)

Online (Survey Monkey) 2,203

Email 8

Hard copy 221

Organisations 17

Personal submissions 7

Addendums (re: inclusion of Muriel Henchman Park & Phillip Park) 161

Market Research (for Spit Parklands and IRD projects)

Online surveys 1,000

Focus group responses 32 (4 groups x 8 attendees)

Telephone surveys 100

Advertising (for Spit Parklands and IRD projects)

Number of print advertisements Gold Coast Bulletin x 7

Gold Coast Sun x 2

Number of radio advertisements – information available from

DSD

200 insertions, Australian

Traffic Network (13

February – 29 March)

Multiple submissions (for Spit Parklands only)

Online 37

Email 0

Hard copy 24

Number of challenges to multiple submissions 61 (from 35 individuals)

Number of individual replies to multiple submission challenges

(nominating a selection) 21

Number of project team selections for multiple submissions 50 (from 14 individuals)

1

Integrated Resort Development questionnaire

The project

The State Government has commissioned an independent consultation program to seek the views of community

members, community organisations and businesses about how an Integrated Resort Development (IRD) on The Spit

could best benefit the Gold Coast and the broader community.

The feedback will inform the next steps in the State Government’s discussions with the ASF Consortium, over its

proposal for the IRD site.

The State Government would like you to describe the preferred attributes of any Integrated Resort Development on

The Spit site and nominate the community benefits you would want to see from any development.

Personal details

Note: Your responses will be included in a Community and Stakeholder Engagement Report to the State

Government. If you DO NOT want your details disclosed, please place a tick in this box �

Name

Street address (optional)

Suburb Postcode

Email

Telephone (optional)

Your feedback

1. The State Government has identified a site on The Spit as a possible location for an Integrated Resort

Development (IRD). In your view, what issues, if any, would need to be resolved before an IRD could proceed?

2. If an IRD was to be approved, how should the City of the Gold Coast and the broader community benefit? For

example (please select as many as appropriate):

� Investment in reducing traffic congestion in the local area

� Improved vehicle and pedestrian access to and from The Spit

� New/improved public transport infrastructure in the local area

� Long-term jobs for Gold Coast locals

� Improved Gold Coast tourism offer (eg new six star hotel, restaurants etc)

� Improved patronage of existing local restaurants and businesses

� Marine infrastructure (eg berthing, water taxi, boat tours)

� New public open spaces on the IRD site and associated public access

� Investment in public open space elsewhere on The Spit

� Investment in environmental improvement and management on The Spit

� Landmark buildings and design

� Other: _

APPENDIX 4

2

3. Public commentary has identified the height of buildings on the IRD site as matter of interest. If it enabled larger

public spaces and improved public amenity at ground level, would you support high rise buildings on the IRD

site?

� Yes. Why? _

� No. Why? _

4. Public commentary has identified traffic congestion in the area as a matter of interest. If transport solutions

could be implemented, including better parking and access to The Spit, Southport and Main Beach would you

support the development of an IRD on The Spit?

� Yes. Why?:_

� No. Why? _

5. How aware are you of the concepts in the ASF Consortium’s proposal for the IRD site?

� I am not aware of the ASF Consortium proposal

� I have heard about the ASF Consortium proposal but do not know much of the detail

� I have a good understanding of the ASF Consortium proposal

6. Based on your understanding and knowledge of the ASF Consortium proposal for the IRD site, how would you

describe your position on the proposal (please select one):

� Strongly in favour

� Tending to be in favour

� Neither in favour or opposed

� Tending to be opposed

� Strongly opposed

� Please explain why?: _

7. If you would like to be kept informed of any State Government updates on the IRD project, please nominate

your preferred method?

� Email

� Text messages (please provide your mobile phone number)

� Web updates

� Media (eg news stories and/or public advertising)

8. Any other comments or advice? _

Thank you.

Your responses will be included in reports for stakeholders and the community, and for the

State Government to inform ongoing discussions with ASF over its proposal.

1

Public open space questionnaire

Project Overview

The State Government has commissioned an independent consultation program to seek the views of community

members, community organisations and local businesses about how best to rejuvenate and permanently protect

public open space on The Spit.

The State Government would like you to nominate the attributes you desire for The Spit parklands and provide your

views on how best to plan for and manage its long term future.

This first phase of consultation will help to determine the most effective way to undertake formal planning for the

parklands.

Personal details

Note: Your responses will be included in a Community and Stakeholder Engagement Report to the State

Government. If you DO NOT want your details disclosed, please place a tick in this box �

Name

Street address (optional)

Suburb Postcode

Email

Telephone (optional)

Your feedback

1. Do you visit the Spit (please select one):

� Regularly

� Rarely. Why? _

� Never. Why? _

2. When at The Spit, what sort of activities to do you undertake (please select as many as appropriate):

� Boating

� Fishing

� Accessing the beach

� Accessing the Broadwater

� Public events at Doug Jennings Park

� Events at the Marine Stadium

� Picnics/BBQs

� Exercise: eg Walking/running/cycling

� Not applicable

� Other_

3. What new or improved facilities or uses, if any, would help to rejuvenate The Spit parklands?

APPENDIX 5

2

4. In your view, where should funds be spent to improve The Spit parklands? (please select as many as

appropriate):

� Vegetation improvement

� Dune stabilisation

� Food and beverage outlets (mobile and/or fixed)

� Lighting and security

� Road access

� Car parking

� Beach access

� Picnic/BBQ facilities

� Boating facilities (eg public ramps)

� Marine Stadium

� Showers and toilets

� Stronger enforcement of regulations (eg no

illegal camping)

� Other_

5. The section of The Spit Parklands to the east of Seaworld Drive is known as Federation Walk Coastal Reserve.

This is 93 hectares of coastal dunes and includes a 3.5 kilometre track running north-south, and a number of

tracks running east-west to provide beach access. What improvements, if any, could be made to this area?

6. Have you had any water-adjacent parkland experiences elsewhere in Australia or overseas that could provide a

good example for The Spit parklands rejuvenation?

� Yes. Please provide/describe your example:

� No

7. Would you like to be consulted if formal planning for improvement of The Spit parklands is undertaken?

� Yes

� No

8. What do you think would be the most effective consultation methods for formal planning? For example (please

select as many as appropriate):

� Inquiry by Design workshops (group workshops with planners and/or designers who interact with

participants to interpret and present community feedback “on the spot”)

� Community workshops (group workshops with professional facilitators to encourage and record community

feedback on proposals/plans)

� Community information days (public events where individuals can review project information and interact,

at their leisure, with project specialists to ask questions)

� Updates via websites and social media (register for updates via electronic platforms, with the ability for you

to provide formal feedback)

� Project updates with feedback forms (register for updates via printed platforms, with the ability for you to

provide formal feedback)

� Other_

3

9. If you would you like to be kept informed of planning and/or consultation activities related to The Spit

parklands, please nominate your preferred method?

� Email

� Text messages (please provide your mobile phone number) :

� Web updates

� Media (eg news stories and/or public advertising)

10. Any other comments or advice?

Thank you.

Your responses will be included in reports for stakeholders and the community, and for the State Government to

inform the consultation methodologies for any formal planning process on The Spit parklands.

Online

Surveys

Database

Management

Data

Analysis

42

APPENDIX 6: THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE USED TO GATHER, ANALYSE, AND STORE DATA

What it was used for…

Survey Monkey was used as an online survey software tool to collect and record survey responses from

online respondents


Consultation Manager was used to record all respondent information, including individual contact

details, response details (including time) and any other associated material. It was primarily used for

database management and ensuring information received was appropriately recorded and retained


Excel was used for data analysis, bias elimination, and data representation tools


For further details please contact:

Brian Donaldson

Email: [email protected]: www.donaldsonconsulting.net.au

Documents

Gold Coast Integrated Resort FINAL REPORT Development & Spit … › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0015 › ... · 2018-03-07 · Gold Coast Integrated Resort Development & Spit