Surveys taken at approximately 10-year intervals (in 1983, 1990 and 1999) have demonstrated a consistent and almost unanimous desire to retain and conserve the special rural-coastal character of our settlements and their environs.
AIDA has prepared a new questionnaire but unfortunately the Surf Coast Shire has so far declined to distribute it to residents and ratepayers of our district (as occurred for previous surveys), on the grounds of modern privacy provisions. AIDA is currently in discussions with the Shire on this matter.
THE 1983 SURVEY – “Where to now?”
The 1983 survey was carried out in December 1983, the first summer after the Ash Wednesday bushfires. A number of questions were posed. We have summarised the results to those questions.
- Question 1. “Do you want to see the community as before or would you like changes?” 50% of respondents said that they want no changes. The rest wanted “major” or “some” changes.
- Question 2. “Do you support the development of:” followed by a list of considerations. 46% supported development of recreation facilities, 61 to 72% were against tourist developments, more retail shops, or light industrial activities within defined commercial areas.
- Question 3. “Do you want to see the development of improved public facilities …in any of the following geographical areas?” A majority were against development at any of the beach or Painkalac Creek locations.
- Question 4. “Which tourist developments would you favour?” Two-thirds or more of respondents were against development of motel/hotel accommodation and private or public camp grounds.
- Question 5. “Which recreation developments would you favour?” About 50% favoured bicycle tracks, golf course, lawn bowling and horse riding.
- Question 6. “Do you favour improved municipal services in the township?” The majority rejected street lighting, street construction, and sewers and drainage. Not surprisingly, a significant majority favoured improved fire protection.
THE 1990 SURVEY – “Where to now – planning the future of Aireys Inlet”
The December 1990 AIDA newsletter reported that over 600 responses had been received since distribution of the survey to 1400 ratepayers and residents of the district in October that year. AIDA commented:
“Given the relatively small size of our district, that really is a remarkable response, particularly when you take into account that this means far more than 600 individuals, since most of the forms represented households with more than one person.
We have been left in no doubt at all, after reading the many thoughtful comments on the forms, that the unusualty high response rate is a clear indication of just how much people care about the future of the district. The message is very clear: there is tremendous support for our efforts to preserve the special character of the place, an unspoilt rural-coastal character that is often seen to be under threat. This survey will be of great assistance in our discussions with the planning authorities.”
To obtain the survey questions and the compiled responses click AIDA Questionnaire 1990.
THE 1999 SURVEY – “Aireys Inlet into the 21st century – planning our future”
In the April 2000 AIDA Newsletter, Gary Tuddenham reported the results of this survey as follows:
“The questionnaire which AIDA distributed in October was again very well received by the residents and ratepayers of the Aireys Inlet to Eastern View district. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the recipients took the time and made the effort to respond, an extremely good response rate for a questionnaire of this nature. This response rate is only slightly down on that for the previous (1990) questionnaire, and again indicates the strong interest our community has in having their say in the management of the district.
Once again, in addition to the thoughtful responses to our questioning we were deluged with additional comments. In summarising these comments I believe the vast majority could be placed into one or more of the following five categories:
1. We should employ every effort to preserve the unique character of the Aireys Inlet district.
2. There must be no unfettered development and all allowed development must be strictly controlled and policed, to protect neighbourhood rights.
3. We should create harmony from the chaos which currently exists between vehicles and pedestrians in commercial zones.
4. There should be safer pedestrian access to commercial and recreational facilities, both within and between the two communities of Aireys Inlet and Fairhaven.
5. It is essential to provide hygienic and safe toilet facilities throughout the district.
As in the 1990 survey, the answers to our specific questions showed the strongest support (averaging 90%) for the development of conservation zones on all forms of public land, from beaches and dunes to wetlands and forests. With regard to the district as a whole, 80% of respondents indicated that “the area should be conserved for its natural beauty and serenity as an alternative to big city living”, and more than 90% believed that “incidental development should be limited to the existing approved residential zones”. The support for this second proposition was significantly stronger than in the earlier survey, and may reflect the disquiet in the community over the effects of subdivisions which have been permitted to occur during the last nine years, particularly in the Painkalac valley and at Fairhaven.
Restrictive controls on allowable activity on private land in both the urban and the rural zones also received strong support (averaging 70%), and the specific question on the “introduction of siting and design controls that aim to improve the visual environmental impacts of future developments” was supported by 81% of respondents. The related question on the “conservation of the natural environment within the residential township areas” received 85% support.
Traffic management was also a significant issue, with 72% seeking better management of peak sumrner traffic, 62% requiring improved pedestrian crossing facilities and 55% supporting “the investigation of possible bypass routes for through traffic”.
With regard to the questions relating to development issues, only 30% (ie, less than one in three) supported the development of further retail outlets or any further tourist developments, and the zoning of any new commercial areas for light industrial activity was a definite “no- no”, with 80% opposition. The development of recreational facilities received qualified support from 58% of respondents. Specifically, less than one in four respondents wanted any improved facilities at any of the beaches, or in the townships – with the exception of Aireys township, where 39% of respondents indicated their wish for some improvements. From their comments it was clear that their main concerns were the inappropriate mix of pedestrians and vehicles in the commercial zones, and the general untidy nature of these areas. This latter question revealed a very significant change from the 1990 survey, where only 25% of respondents indicated support. This possibly indicates a degree of dissatisfaction within the community over the lack of progress in resolving these issues.
The related questions as to provision of bicycle tracks (74% support) and more walkirg tracks (88% support) continued to receive strong backing, but there was decreasing support (averagingless than one in three) for lawn bowling, more tennis courts or the sports oval. Horse riding, while receiving support from 44% of respondents, is possibly being questioned, with 39% opposed, and the remaining 17% eithet unsure or offering no response. This represents a significant drop in support since the 1990 survey, and may reflect some of the negative feedback conceming the large number of horses on the beach at Moggs Creek and Fairhaven.
The responses received regarding municipal services were more varied. The strong support for better controls to be established to help conserve the natural environment, and the rights of neighbours to maintain their privacy and appropriate viewscapes, and for a reduction in the visual and environmental impacts of future developments, has already been discussed. Improved rubbish collection services and better fire protection continue to rate highly with our respondents (60% support). The provision of improved drainage {40% support), street construction (29% support) and sewerage (24% support), rank progressively down the scale. Many of the accompanying comments regarding the provision of street lighting supported AIDA’s view that any further street lighting should be environmentally friendIy, to help preserve our ability to observe the night sky.
The significant increase in support for street construction (up from 23% to 33%) needs to be further analysed on a sub-regional basis, as does the decrease in support for sewerage (down from 40% to 24%). While the latter change probably reflects the completion of the sewerage scheme for Aireys Inlet and Fairhaven since the previous survey, the question of street construction is more complex. 55% of our respondents indicated that they are residents of Aireys Inlet with 30% from Fairhaven, and the remaining 15% from Moggs Creek/Eastem View. A more detailed analysis of these questions is required.
While the AIDA committee is encouraged by the general confirmation of our current “Aims and Policies”, as expressed in the responses to the questionnaire, the next step is to ensure that the Surf Coast Shire, as the responsible local government authority, is fully informed of your expressed wishes. To this end, AIDA has initiated discussions with the chief executive officer of the Shire in order to facilitate this process.