← Back to VillageFirst Project Hub Return to VillageFirst Website
58
Total Responses
58
Reviewed Design Plans
34
Parking & Safety Observations
23
Additional Comments
Key Finding: With 58 responses, the Hybrid option (23 front parking bays + formal pedestrian crossing + shop front wall seat) is now the leading preference at 45%, ahead of Option 2 at 31%. Together, options that retain the full 23 parking bays account for 62% of preferences (Hybrid 45% + Option 1 17%). The community continues to strongly support the shared features common to both designs (mean ratings 3.60–4.40 across all ten elements).

Who responded?

Overall preference (Part E)

Hybrid: 26 (45%) · Option 2: 18 (31%) · Option 1: 10 (17%) · Neither¹: 3 (5%)
Hybrid 23 bays + crossing + seat
26
45%
Option 2 19 bays + crossing + seat
18
31%
Option 1 23 bays, no crossing/seat
10
17%
¹ A small number of respondents (3 of 58, 5%) selected “Neither — needs rework”, indicating they do not support either concept design as currently presented. Their open-text feedback is included in the Responses section below.
Shift since 21 April snapshot (n=43): Hybrid has overtaken Option 2 as the leading preference. The “Neither” category appears for the first time.
Preference21 Apr (n=43)27 Apr (n=58)Change
Hybrid38.1% (16)45.6% (26)+7.5pp
Option 240.5% (17)31.6% (18)−8.9pp
Option 121.4% (9)17.5% (10)−3.9pp
Neither¹not reported5.3% (3)new
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 3.60 — strong community support across the board. Rankings are consistent with the 21 April snapshot.

Average agreement rating (1–5 scale) · n=57–58

Part B — Importance of the three key differences: Rated 1–5 (Not Important to Critically Important). Parking retains the highest importance score. The distribution for parking (b1) shows a strong skew toward 5 — 30 of 58 respondents rated it “Critically Important” — reflecting concern about future development pressure.

Importance rating (1–5) · n=58

A — Front parking (23 vs 19 bays)

Avg: 3.97/5

B — Verge pedestrian crossing

Avg: 3.66/5

C — Shop front linear wall seat

Avg: 3.62/5
Part C — Conjoint analysis: Four package-choice tasks isolate which features drive preference. The pattern is consistent with the 21 April snapshot — Option 2 wins the pure head-to-head, but when pedestrian features are removed, a strong majority prefer to retain 23 parking bays.

Task 1 — Pure head-to-head

X = Option 1 exactly · Y = Option 2 exactly
X (Opt 1)
21
40.4%
Y (Opt 2)
31
59.6%
✓ Option 2 preferred · n=52

Task 2 — Parking + wall seat vary

No verge crossing in either package
X (23 bays)
32
69.6%
Y (19 bays)
14
30.4%
✓ Retain 23 bays preferred · n=46

Task 3 — Parking + crossing vary

No wall seat in either package
X (23 bays)
34
69.4%
Y (19 bays)
15
30.6%
✓ Retain 23 bays strongly preferred · n=49

Task 4 — All three features vary

Parking is the key swing attribute
X (23 bays)
29
60.4%
Y (19 bays)
19
39.6%
✓ Retain 23 bays preferred · n=48
Conjoint insight: Option 2 wins the pure head-to-head 59.6% vs 40.4%. But in Tasks 2, 3, and 4 — when crossing or wall seat features are removed — 60–70% 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. This finding is consistent with the 21 April snapshot and stable as the sample has grown from 43 to 58 respondents.
Part D — Relative importance (100 points total): Respondents distributed 100 points across the three key differences to show their relative importance. Point allocation is closely aligned with the 21 April snapshot, confirming the stability of community priorities.

Average point allocation

A — Parking count
51 pts
45%
B — Verge crossing
32 pts
29%
C — Wall seat
29 pts
26%
Parking dominates at 45% of relative importance — nearly double either pedestrian feature alone. Combined, pedestrian features (crossing + wall seat) account for 55%, explaining why Option 2 attracts support despite the parking trade-off. These proportions are virtually unchanged from 21 April (45% / 29% / 26%), confirming stable community priorities.
Part E — Overall preference: 57 of 58 respondents stated an overall preference. The Hybrid option is now the clear leader, overtaking Option 2 since the 21 April snapshot. Three respondents (5%) selected “Neither — needs rework” for the first time.

Overall design preference · n=57

Hybrid leads with 45.6% — the option combining Option 1’s 23 parking bays with Option 2’s pedestrian crossing and wall seat.

Option 2 at 31.6% remains the second preference. Together, Hybrid + Option 2 account for 77% who want pedestrian features included.

Option 1 support (17.5%) reflects the strong preference for retaining 23 bays seen throughout the conjoint tasks.

For the submission: The Hybrid represents the single strongest community position — maximising parking while including pedestrian features that 77% of respondents support.
¹ Three respondents (5.3%) selected “Neither — needs rework”. This option was not recorded in the 21 April snapshot. Their open-text feedback is included in the Responses section below.
Comments are presented as submitted, lightly moderated for readability (minor typos corrected; no names or identifying details included). Person numbers are anonymised reference codes only.
Person 1

Retain parking to support businesses. Control safety for pedestrians.

Person 2

Sometimes planting can obscure the view of cars coming — perhaps a convex mirror opposite the 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 and dining areas would be lovely.

Person 7

It is important to retain the number of car parking spaces to support local businesses and because most people have to drive to access the businesses. The verge crossing is very close to the roundabout and speed humps and crossings at 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 holiday periods — but so is everywhere. During off-peak times there is ample space. Option 2 has the edge for liveability and safety with the pedestrian walkway, even with 4 fewer car parks.

Person 11

Option 1 retains current parking spaces which is important at peak holiday times. Option 1 also has pedestrian crossings at either end of the village — I think this would be safer and less disruptive than having the crossing in the middle, which 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 you want to visit is lowered, ample parking can be found within 100 metres.

Person 15

The speed limit needs to be reduced through the village area. Speed bumps and roundabouts will help.

Person 16

Exiting at the parking at the pizza shop / superette end is risky — will be better with the roundabout. Pedestrian crossing will be safer. NO SPEED BUMPS — they damage cars, waste petrol, pollute with brake dust, wear out suspension — environmentally unsound.

Person 21

During holiday periods there is limited parking availability. A time limit could help — 30 min pickup and 1 hour for those using restaurants.

Person 24

Peak-time parking is inadequate.

Person 26

Pedestrian issues persist for an older cohort — youth riding e-bikes and scooters knocking over older pedestrians on the village footpaths.

Person 28

Long-term resident. Many near misses from the existing exit near the bottle shop, or people exiting from the wrong end.

Person 30

So much more parking is needed, plus a pedestrian crossing, before a fatality happens — plus a speed hump.

Person 32

Regular observer at Kembali Cafe. Pedestrians crossing from shops need clear line of sight. Vehicles travelling faster than is pedestrian-safe. Many delivery trucks entering and reversing.

Person 33

A designated formal verge crossing is necessary to direct pedestrians — there is much informal crossing behaviour, particularly in busy times — and Blueys Beach Village is continuing to get busier.

Person 35

Increasingly young people on bikes use the area. Safer formalised crossings placed within lines of desire are important so they will actually get used.

Person 36

When it’s busy — let’s accept that. Places have peaks. Most of the time it isn’t busy. Design for what happens 90% of the time. If parking is full, people will park a little further away and walk. Having a larger area for tables and chairs will help businesses. Don’t make the whole design about the cars — there should be a balance.

Person 38

More work needed regarding peak times in the village area.

Person 39

Parking demand is currently high during peak season. Parking availability must be maintained, especially as developments will increase the population. Both options reduce the current parking availability.

Person 40

The main issue is that the current speed limit is too fast.

Person 41

There already isn’t enough parking during school holidays, so I avoid shopping there during these times.

Person 43

This does not really meet holiday-period needs but will be great for non-holiday periods. Important to keep a community feel and not lose it.

Person 44

Parking availability is far worse than it used to be. With new developments, parking will be next to impossible. We cannot afford to lose any spaces. Need a footpath towards the beach on the south side of the road. Need a formal crossing near the bottle shop. Need very short-time (10-min) parking for the post office.

Person 48

Parking is at a premium — bad enough in quiet months; in busy months it’s a no-go zone.

Person 50

In busy and holiday times, all of the above improvements are needed.

Person 51

During holiday peak times there is a lack of parking and pedestrians cross everywhere.

Person 52

Drivers need clear vision when leaving the parking area. Speed limit should be 40 km/h from the Medical Centre to Red Gum Road — that entire section is very dangerous. Some time restrictions on parking, and dedicated short-term parking for the post office.

Person 54

On weekends and holidays there is a lot of traffic and parking demand. As much parking as possible is needed. The extra parking from the developer will help.

Person 57

Parking not usually problematic. No need for a crossing within the parking area outside the shops. Crossing the road to Kembali and the pharmacist needs care — a crossing and speed humps there would help. The village needs to be more pedestrian-friendly.

Person 58

Parking is an important issue and is only going to get worse — reducing it is counterproductive. Vehicle speed and wayward pedestrians need attention. All informal parking spots are used in peak times. People cross anywhere and are at times oblivious to oncoming vehicles.

Person 1

Coastal styling is appreciated.

Person 3

The position of the roundabout seems really unsafe. How will new residents access the shops 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 — more shaded areas needed.

Person 9

It’s great to see bike racks included. But how are people supposed to get there safely by bike? Lakes Way connects communities like Tiona, Elizabeth Beach, Smiths Lake and The Palms, but it’s not a road where most people would feel comfortable cycling. A broader vision — safe separated cycleways connecting these communities — would be a genuine game-changer. Is there a plan? If not, we’d encourage Council to start that conversation.

Person 10

Heavy goods vehicles and trucks should not be allowed to access the village centre.

Person 11

Allowing eateries to have outdoor seating is always welcomed. The high-bench seating outside Drift Cafe works well — it doesn’t take up much space and adds versatility.

Person 15

More shops and a medical centre are needed. The current shops will not be sufficient for the increase in population. The medical centre is proposed for relocation with no alternate in Pacific Palms proposed.

Person 16

Mark out parking bays along the road beyond the 19/23 formal bays. Why not require developers to provide underground parking?

Person 21

Cars need to slow down coming into the area from both directions — signage prior to the village, similar to school zone arrangements during peak periods.

Person 24

More parking for the post office.

Person 26

Why not open up the space behind the post office for vehicle parking? There is insufficient parking now for safe access for the older cohort of residents, let alone the influx from new developments.

Person 32

Is it possible to utilise and formalise the space behind the shops?

Person 35

Only 3 bike racks are provided in both options. This should be increased to future-proof the proposal — as e-bike use grows, demand for bike parking will increase significantly.

Person 36

Perhaps getting the entire length of the footpath in front of the existing shops 500mm wider (if there is space). Consider turning curves for delivery vehicles.

Person 39

Make Option 1 speed humps and formal pedestrian crossings standard features.

Person 44

Too many shop staff tying up parking. Need to ensure very short-term (10-minute) parking for the post office.

Person 52

More areas for seating to eat. A local map, perhaps designed by a local artist.

Person 54

There is no long-term master plan for expansion of shops. What happens when Ingenia, Lot 23, and the other developments are all fully built and inhabited?

Person 57

My preference is Option 2 with no verge crossing (no crossing within the parking area outside the shops).

Person 58

If the speed were reduced to 30 km/h the crossings could possibly be removed. It may also be possible to widen the pavement in front of the shops to allow for more seating options.

1. Hybrid is now the leading community preference. At 45.6%, the Hybrid option (23 bays + pedestrian crossing + wall seat) overtook Option 2 (31.6%) between the 21 April and 27 April snapshots. Together, options retaining all 23 parking bays — Hybrid and Option 1 — account for 62% of preferences.
2. Pedestrian features continue to drive Option 2 support. Conjoint analysis confirms — at a sample of 58 — that the verge crossing and wall seat are the primary drivers of Option 2 support. When tested without those features (Tasks 2–4), 60–70% prefer to retain 23 parking bays. This finding is stable across both snapshots.
3. All shared features received strong support. Every Part A feature scored above 3.60/5. Highest-rated: Formalised angled parking (4.40), Seating nook (4.35), Existing canopy palms (4.24), Subtropical planting (4.14). Rankings are consistent with the 21 April snapshot.
4. Community priorities are stable across both snapshots. Part D allocation: parking 45% / crossing 29% / wall seat 26% — virtually unchanged from 21 April. Part B means: parking 3.97, crossing 3.66, wall seat 3.62 — all three attributes rated closely, parking marginally highest.
5. “Neither — needs rework” appears for the first time. Three respondents (5.3%) selected this option. Their feedback focuses on roundabout proximity, pedestrian priority concerns, and preference for a different crossing location. 95% of respondents support one of the three design options.
6. Strong engagement quality. 100% of respondents confirmed they reviewed the design plans. 34 of 58 (59%) provided written observations; 23 of 58 (40%) provided additional comments. Key themes: peak-season parking pressure, future development impact, roundabout proximity to the proposed crossing, e-bike and pedestrian safety, and calls for the Hybrid approach.
Position 1 — Advocate for the Hybrid as primary position

The Hybrid (Option 1 parking + Option 2 crossing and wall seat) is now the leading single community preference at 45%. It maximises community agreement — retaining all 23 parking bays while including the pedestrian features supported by 77% of respondents. The PPCA should formally advocate for this outcome if architecturally feasible.

Position 2 — Pedestrian features are essential regardless of option

77% of surveyed community members support including the verge pedestrian crossing and wall seat (Hybrid 45% + Option 2 31%). These features should be included in whichever option Council selects.

Position 3 — Parking capacity is a critical future-proofing concern

Conjoint analysis and open-text responses consistently show that retaining 23 parking bays is the dominant concern, particularly in the context of new residential developments. The PPCA should request Council address how parking demand will be managed as the area’s population grows.

Position 4 — Safety assessment of the verge crossing location

Multiple written responses raised concerns about the roundabout proximity to the proposed verge crossing. The PPCA should request Council confirm a pedestrian safety assessment of the crossing location and consider whether crossings at either end of the village (as in Option 1) provide a safer alternative.