Key Finding: The community overall prefers Option 2 or a Hybrid (78.6% combined), driven strongly by demand for the pedestrian crossing and wall seat. However, conjoint analysis reveals that when pedestrian features are removed from the equation, 69% prefer to retain all 23 parking bays. The Hybrid option (23 bays + crossing + wall seat) received nearly equal support to full Option 2.
Part A — Shared Features: Ten features that appear in both design options were rated 1–5 (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). All features scored above 3.6 — strong community support across the board.
Average agreement rating (1–5 scale) · n=43
Ranked by agreement score
Part B — Importance of the three key differences: Rated 1–5 (Not Important to Critically Important). All three differences were rated similarly in importance — parking scored highest but only marginally above the pedestrian features.
Importance rating (1–5) · n=43
A — Front parking (23 vs 19 bays)
Avg: 3.84/5
B — Verge pedestrian crossing
Avg: 3.63/5
C — Shop front linear wall seat
Avg: 3.65/5
Part C — Conjoint analysis: Four package-choice tasks isolate which features drive preference. The results reveal a nuanced picture: while Option 2 wins the pure head-to-head, parking is the dominant factor when pedestrian features are removed.
Task 1 — Pure head-to-head
X = Option 1 exactly · Y = Option 2 exactly
X (Opt 1)
15
37.5%
Y (Opt 2)
25
62.5%
✓ Option 2 preferred
Task 2 — Parking + wall seat vary
No verge crossing in either package
X (23 bays)
21
63.6%
Y (19 bays)
12
36.4%
✓ Retain 23 bays preferred
Task 3 — Parking + crossing vary
No wall seat in either package
X (23 bays)
25
69.4%
Y (19 bays)
11
30.6%
✓ Retain 23 bays strongly preferred
Task 4 — All three features vary
Parking is the key swing attribute
X (23 bays)
22
61.1%
Y (19 bays)
14
38.9%
✓ Retain 23 bays preferred
Conjoint insight: Option 2 wins the pure head-to-head 62.5% vs 37.5%. But in Tasks 2, 3, and 4 — when crossing or wall seat features are removed — 61–69% prefer to retain the 23 parking bays. This indicates that the pedestrian crossing and wall seat are what makes Option 2 attractive, not the parking reduction itself. The community appears willing to trade 4 bays for those features as a package — but not on their own.
Part D — Relative importance (100 points total): Respondents distributed 100 points across the three key differences to show their relative importance.
Average point allocation
Point allocation breakdown
A — Parking count
49 pts
45%
B — Verge crossing
31 pts
29%
C — Wall seat
28 pts
26%
Parking dominates at 45% of relative importance — nearly double either pedestrian feature alone. But combined, the pedestrian features (crossing + wall seat) account for 55% of allocated importance, explaining why Option 2 wins the head-to-head despite parking concern.
Part E — Overall preference: 42 of 43 respondents stated an overall preference. Zero chose "Neither — needs more work", indicating strong confidence in both design options.
Overall design preference · n=42
Reading the result
Option 2 leads with 40.5% of respondents, followed closely by the Hybrid at 38.1%. Together, 78.6% of respondents want the pedestrian features (crossing + wall seat) included in the design.
Option 1 support (21.4%) likely reflects the strong preference for retaining 23 bays seen in the conjoint tasks.
For the submission: The Hybrid (Option 1 parking + Option 2 features) may represent a viable advocacy position — it maximises community support while avoiding the parking trade-off.
Retain Parking to support businesses. Control safety for pedestrians
Person 2
Sometimes planting can obscure the view of cars coming-perhaps convex mirror opposite bottle shop car-park
Person 3
In the busy months it is almost impossible to get a car park at the BB shops.
Person 4
From the village precinct -East and western streets need more angled parking.
Person 6
More outdoor eating, dining areas would be lovely
Person 7
I think it is important to retain the number of car parking spaces to support local businesses and because most people have to drive rather than walk to access the businesses. The verge crossing is very close to the roundabout and I think that speed humps and crossings either end would be more practical for traffic flow
Person 8
Typically able to park but find it very difficult to find somewhere to sit to have a coffee
Person 9
Parking is always limited during peak periods of holidays - but that being said, so is everywhere. During off-peak times there is ample spots for residents to park. Option 2 has the edge for liveability and safety with the pedestrian walkway, even with 4 fewer car parks.
Person 11
I like Option 1 because it retains the current parking spaces which is important, especially at peak holiday times. Option 1 also has pedestrian crossings at either end of the village shops - I think this would be safer and less disruptive than having the crossing with verge in the middle which I think is too close to the roundabout.
Person 14
Parking is at a premium during peak holiday periods. However, if the expectation of parking directly in front of the shop that you want to visit is lowered, ample parking can be found within 100 metres.
Person 15
I do think the speed limit needs to be reduced through the village area. Speed bumps and roundabouts will help this.
Person 16
Exiting at the parking at the pizza shop superette end is risky now will be better with circle provided traffic flows … Ped crossing will be safer but I’m a Jay walker so not fussed NO SPEED BUMPS!!! They bugger up cars. Waste petrol. Pollute with break dust. Wear out suspension = environmentally unsound !!
E3 — Additional comments on unaddressed needs (8 responses)
Person 1
Coastal styling is appreciated
Person 3
The position of the roundabout seems to be really unsafe to me. How will new residents access the shop if there is no appropriate crossing for them?
Person 4
Insufficient public green space
Person 6
Be sure to tidy up the rear areas of the shops.
Person 7
It is a small area and it would be difficult to come up with a practical design that offered more amenities.
Person 8
Bins are often overflowing, need more shaded areas
Person 9
It's great to see bike racks included in the concept design — and we really do appreciate the thought behind it. But for many of us who live here, it raises a bigger question that's hard to ignore: how are we actually supposed to get there safely by bike? Lakes Way connects communities like Tiona, Elizabeth Beach, Smiths Lake and The Palms, but right now it's not a road where most people would feel comfortable cycling.
Person 14
What about public toilets? This seems like a missed opportunity.
Key findings for community submission
1. Pedestrian features drive Option 2 preference. The conjoint analysis clearly shows that the verge crossing and wall seat — not the parking reduction — are the primary drivers of Option 2 support. When tested without those features, 61–69% of respondents prefer to retain 23 parking bays.
2. Hybrid is nearly as popular as Option 2. 16 respondents (38%) chose the Hybrid (23 bays + crossing + seat), vs 17 (40.5%) for full Option 2. This 2.4% margin is well within normal survey variability, making the Hybrid a statistically equivalent preference.
3. All shared features received strong support. Every Part A feature scored above 3.6/5. The highest-rated were: Formalised angled parking (4.42), Seating nook (4.38), Existing palms retained (4.21), and Speed humps at entry (4.16). The feature wall and timber fencing scored lowest but still above neutral.
4. Parking importance is real but context-dependent. Part D allocated an average 45% of importance points to parking — but the pedestrian features combined received 55%. Part B showed all three features rated similarly (3.63–3.84/5). The community cares about parking but not at the expense of pedestrian safety.
5. Strong engagement quality. 93% of respondents confirmed they reviewed the plans. 60% provided written observations about parking and pedestrian safety. Key themes in open responses: peak holiday parking pressure, concern about roundabout proximity to proposed crossing, support for coastal aesthetic, and calls for the Hybrid approach.
Suggested PPCA submission positions
Position 1 — Pedestrian features are essential
78.6% of surveyed community members support including the verge pedestrian crossing and wall seat. These features should be included in whichever option is selected.
Position 2 — Advocate for the Hybrid where possible
The Hybrid (Option 1 parking + Option 2 crossing and wall seat) maximises community agreement at 78.6% support (Hybrid + Option 2 combined). If architecturally feasible, Council should explore retaining 23 bays while adding pedestrian features.
Position 3 — Speed and safety at village entry
Multiple written responses raised concerns about the roundabout proximity to the proposed verge crossing. The PPCA should request Council confirm pedestrian safety assessment of the crossing location.