Toondah PDA Phone Survey Report

In February 2014, at the end of the community consultation process for the Toondah Harbour and Weinam Creek PDA development schemes, the Redland City Council released a very strange document. Its title was “Community Research Report” and the Council claimed that this document provided evidence of community support for the proposed developments. (see Redlands2030 response post – Community Research or Push Polling).

NOTE: The Report ( has since been removed from the RCCouncil website.


On Saturday, 8 March 2014 12:46:23 UTC+10, (Google Group) dogsonpda wrote in response to the Report : Council Phone Survey – the HIDDEN FACTS, an Analysis of the Community Research Report

Summary of Report Analysis/Review

  • Q4a What do you want to see at Toondah Harbour? Finds port upgrade wanted at Harbour along with things to do while waiting – cafe, boardwalk. Also openspace is prominent in responses as is ‘no high rises’.
  • Q5 Finds 43% of respondents prefer ‘green space was preserved and building was done only in already developed areas‘.
  • Q6 How should Govt pay for infrastructure? is missing respondent replies that are ‘considered negative’.
  • Q8 Level of Support for recreational openspace along foreshores is high (15:1) and on supporting small businesses ‘in the Redlands’ (22:1).  With Level of support for commercial waterfront development down to (1:1) .



Council Survey Report tables 240 responses to Q4a (pp53-57) and provides selection of responses in Results (p12). This section has not been referred to in the Councils Storyline. It shows favor for port upgrade and ‘no high rises’. ‘Responses were varied to this question but the main theme appeared to be in favour of a port upgrade.

  • Cafes and shops  
  • BBQ facilities
  • Restaurants
  • Better public transport  
  • A shopping village  
  • Better dredging  
  • Coffee shop  
  • Eating areas that will attract more people  
  • Better access to Stradbroke  
  • More things to do while waiting for the ferry 
  • A marina  
  • Picnic areas   

Also comments such as:   

  • Don’t want to end up like the Gold Coast  
  • Have a moderate approach  
  • Don’t spoil it, we don’t want high-rises  
  • Lots of trees and shaded areas, places to to sit and enjoy the bay  
  • Just make it nice and tidy


Question 5 (pp 14, 20, 33) states –
“Higher buildings in key transit and commercial areas allow for greater population densities in those areas freeing more space for parks, reserves and other recreational purposes What do you think is more important to retain in the Redlands. I’d prefer………. “

  1. if green space was preserved and building was done only in already developed areas which means higher density housing in some areas  (RESULT 43%)
  2. if there was less focus on preserving green space, and that building or development was considered in these areas in order to maintain lower density housing (RESULT 12%) 
  3. a mix of shops, offices and industry close to where I live, if it means less commuting time (RESULT 32%)
  4. keeping shops, offices and industry away from where I live, even if it means more commuting time (RESULT 21%)
  5. that all areas have a mix of different housing types e.g. stand-alone houses, townhouses, apartments (RESULT 37%)
  6. that higher density housing is concentrated only in certain areas (RESULT 23%)
  7. Any Other Suggestion (RESULT 13% Includes NO HIGH RISE 6% )

See (RESULTS) on p33-34  Community Response has strong view that – 

  1. ‘green space was preserved and building was done only in already developed areas’. 
  2. ‘that ALL areas (of the Redlands) have a mix of different housing types’
  3. ‘that NO HIGH-RISE’ (p34) be retained within the Redlands

NOTE: This question has been omitted from the Council’s storyline.


Question 6 (p20) states – “Many pieces of critical infrastructure in our city require replacement or upgrade. These include major infrastructure such as the vehicle and passenger ferry terminals at Toondah Harbour at Cleveland and Weinam Creek at Redland Bay. How should local government pay for critical infrastructure? “

Result data for Report Q6 (p 15) is missing.

Question 6 Report (p15) provides some of the suggested ways for Govt to pay. NOTE: No statistical prioritising of responses can be achieved as all responses are omitted from the report (unlike Q4a above). In addition the Report contains the statement (p15) – “Many people genuinely thought about their answer to this question however negative responses were received, but that is to be expected with this question.”

Analysis QUESTIONS to consider –

  1. WHERE are the ‘considered thoughts’ of ‘many people’?
  2. WHAT were the ‘considered negative responses’?
  3. WHY were they omitted from the published report?
  4. HOW many ‘negative responses’ were received’?
  5. WHAT is meant by “but that is to be expected with this question”? HOW can a professional survey report express such a dubious opinion?
  6. WHAT changes to the results would have occurred if the ‘Negative Responses’ were incorporated in the analysis?

Question 7 – WHO SHOULD PAY?

Survey Report Question 7 (p16, 39) where respondents were asked (p 20) – 

“Public debt has been raised as a significant issue at all levels of government as has the amount we pay in rates and taxes. This places constraints on support for local government infrastructure projects from federal and state governments. Which would be your preference? 

  • that government cover the cost of critical infrastructure such as Toondah Harbour even if it means I have to pay more in rates and taxes 
  • that local and state government explore opportunities for commercial partnerships that facilitate the maintenance and upgrade of important infrastructure without raising rates and taxes
  • that government prioritise spending on transport infrastructure over other public spending such as hospitals and education and not raise taxes and rates

Council asserts in its story that “More than 76 per cent of respondents said they wanted Council and the State Government to look at opportunities for commercial partnerships to pay for the projects rather than ratepayers having to foot the bill.”

 Response to WHO SHOULD PAY – respondents would rather Govt “EXPLORE” opportunities to get the money from others rather than pay for it themselves. Does “EXPLORE” equate to ‘LICENCE’ for Council going into any potentially fixed commercial partnership without first seeking further guidance from the Community they represent.

Survey Question 8 – LEVEL OF SUPPORT
How strongly do you agree with these statements?

COMMUNITY SUPPORT – derived and reordered by TotalAgree/TotalDisagree (p41)

  • 22 : 1 – Small business development in the Redlands should be encouraged
  • 15.5 : 1 – There should be a network of bike and pedestrian pathways along the mainland foreshores
  • 13 : 1 – A self sufficient local economy should be viable in the Redlands
  • 11.7 : 1 – More foreshore parks will allow people to enjoy Moreton Bay
  • 9.4 : 1 – Tourism is important for this city’s economic growth
  • 3.8 : 1 – More boating facilities will allow people to enjoy Moreton Bay
  • 1.1 : 1 – Commercial waterfront development will add to Redlands’ lifestyle choices

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top
Web Design