Residents voted yes last year, but a town councillor is petitioning against it now
A Dawlish town councillor has launched a campaign to stop a new £260,000 play park from being built on one of the jewels of the town, the Lawn
Teignbridge Council – who manage The Lawn – say nothing has been decided yet, but the town council have asked for a play park on the Lawn to be provided.
OMG!!!!!!! Even the town clerk is now using this 77% of residents voted in favour nonsense!
Oh. no. they. did. not.
Gross misuse of statistics.
And, furthermore, it implies that there was an option for people to say they did not want a playpark on the lawn.
But. there. was. no. such. option.
A re-run of this consultation is necessary but this time with that option available.
From that newspaper article above.
She said that a public consultation on the scheme saw 77 per cent of residents vote in favour of a play park on the Lawn, and the consultation on the scheme lasted a month and saw 680 residents respond. "
@Lynne - would you expect any less from them. they seem to mis the point that they were elected by the people to serve the people not serve themselves.
The town clerk is an employee of the council. She was not elected into post she was appointed.
That the town clerk is commenting on all of this is not of concern to me, indeed it could well be argued that it is part of her job.
However, it is what she is reported to have said that is infuriating me (the 77% nonsense).
Well whats to say it is not nonsense? Whats to say she's not right?
Are we going around in circles here?
How can 77% of of residents vote in favour of a playpark on the lawn when the question was not even asked of the residents?
Please can someone show where and when it was that residents were asked "Do you want a playpark anywhere on the lawn?"
These are the questions that were asked.
NO 466 83%
And the very important fourth question was not asked at all.
Quite. Except that perhaps it should have been the very first question to be asked.
I can only imagine that this 77% figure has been reached by adding the 'Yes' % from question 1 (60%) with the 'Yes' % from question 3 (17%).
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.
And who decided which questions should be asked? The town council did!
(From the minutes of the town council meeting held 7th September 2016)
Which begs the question: why was there no question asking if people wanted a playpark anywhere on the lawn?
Does the answer lie at the Civic Amenities Committee meeting held in June 2016 perhaps?
At this meeting it was agreed by those present that the recommendation of the Town Center Development Manager for there to be a playpark on the lawn should be approved and recommended to the full town council.
So, was it those councillors at that CAC meeting (or those who voted the recommendation through) who effectively disenfranchised those in the town who did not/do not want a playpark anywhere on the lawn from being able to express that by way of a question on the consultation paper?
I have posted this on another thread but here it is again.
Councillor Linda Petherick used her casting vote in favour.
When have the town council ever listened and acted on what the residents of Dawlish want or need? How many times have they just done what they wanted and kept it quiet until the shtf when it's reported in the paper's or some one grasses them up! obviously this is only my own opinion and may not be factual...e & e.o. etc, etc...written without prejudice..........
Well, that depends doesn't it. I mean, I am sure that those in the town who wish for there to be a playpark on the lawn would say that the town council has indeed listened to, and acted on, what they want/need.
Conversely, and staying on the same subject, if the proposal for a playpark had been voted down then those, or some of those, who wish for there to be a playpark on the lawn would now be saying that the council never listens and acts on what residents of Dawlish want or need.
and another thing that I don't understand about the figures is this; we keep being told that 680 residents responded.
But where has this 680 figure come from?
I ask because if you add up the number of responses to question 1, question 2 and question 3 (see my post dated 22.9.17 @ 15.44) then the numbers are 571, 551 and 561 respectively.
I would imagine that it’s because not all of the 680 residents answered all three questions.
If that is the case why isn't that information in the public domain?
Or, if it is, where is it?
What information do you mean and how do you want it presented? As far as I can work out, the only meaningful way to present it would be to list every single response. And I’m personally not sure how that amount of detailed data would help anyone.
However, I’m definitely coming round to the notion that the consultation should have included a “No I don’t want a playpark anywhere on the Lawn”. I still believe the result would have been in favour of this amenity, but of course we’ll never know. Unless there’s a referendum (or whatever).
Even though only 680 residents responded, given what is being claimed from that figure (that 77% of Dawlish residents are in support of there being a playpark on the lawn) I think it is important that we have a breakdown of how those 680 residents answered the questions.
For example, if I had participated in the questionnaire and had voted Yes to question 1 and Yes to question 3 would my opinion have been counted once or twice?
And as we now have those who organise the Carnival saying that if the playpark goes ahead then it is highly likely that the Carnival won't, I think this whole thing needs revisiting. If the majority who participate still say they wish for there to be a playpark then so be it. But I really do feel this needs to be rerun and I agree totally that there needs to be a question asking
"Do you wish to keep the lawn as it is - ie with no playpark?" or some such similar wording.