Both groups ranked the same six pre-defined values, developed in earlier rounds of engagement. Here is what each returned for water.
| Rank | People’s Panel | Survey (Your Voice Our Coast) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Good quality water | Good quality water |
| 2 | Reliable services | Affordable |
| 3 | Affordable | Reliable services |
| 4 | Environmental focus | Environmental focus |
| 5 | Effective planning | Effective planning |
| 6 | Transparency and education | Transparency and education |
Four of the six positions match exactly, and the top one does too. Everything hinges on second and third place trading. The council’s own reading of the survey result is that it puts “affordability ahead of reliability”, and that this suggests “cost sensitivity within the broader community”.
On sewer, the two groups agreed completely
Asked the same question about sewer services, the panel and the survey produced the same ranking as each other: quality treatment first, reliable services second, affordable third, then environmental focus, effective planning, and transparency and education. The council notes the rankings were consistent across both methods, and reads it as indicating “greater concern about sewer network failures than water outages”.
That is the comparison that gives the water result its meaning. It is not that Coast residents rank cost above everything. Asked about sewer, the same people put reliability above affordability without disagreement. The cost sensitivity shows up specifically where the service failing is an inconvenience rather than a catastrophe.
What the difference between the two groups might mean
Our view, labelled as such. A deliberative panel and a pop-up survey are not two samples of the same thing. The panel sat through an in-depth session; survey respondents ranked six values at a stall. The predictable effect of deliberation is that people move toward the long-run view, and reliability is the long-run value while affordability is the immediate one. So the swap may be measuring how much information a person had when they answered, as much as what they believe.
Neither reading is dismissible. If deliberation reveals a considered preference, the panel is the better guide. If a stall captures the pressure households are actually under, the survey is. A council can honestly cite whichever supports its case, which is precisely why publishing both rankings side by side, as this report does, is worth crediting.
Where this ends up
Since 2021 this engagement has informed Council’s submissions to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which sets what the council may charge for water and sewer services. The values framework it produces is not a survey result filed away; it is an input to a pricing case.
The report also records themes raised beyond the rankings: affordability, long-term planning, and a call for increased preventative maintenance to reduce reactive costs and maintain system reliability, alongside environmental concerns including PFAS. The council notes these introduce no new themes but give greater depth on existing ones.
The preventative-maintenance point deserves flagging, because it cuts across the ranking argument. Spending more now to fail less later is simultaneously a reliability measure and a long-run affordability measure, and a community asking for it is not choosing between the two values it was asked to rank.
How we sourced this
Both rankings, the 189 survey responses, the six pop-up events, the in-depth People’s Panel session, the sewer rankings and the council’s statements about cost sensitivity and about greater concern for sewer failures than water outages, the themes raised including preventative maintenance and PFAS, and the note that no new themes emerged are from Central Coast Council’s engagement report “Shaping our future water services 2026 - close the loop”, a 16-page document read in full on 31 July 2026 from the council’s Your Voice Our Coast platform. The statement that this engagement has informed the council’s IPART submissions since 2021 is from that platform’s project page.
We have not seen the survey instrument, the panel’s session materials or any IPART submission, so we cannot say how the six values were worded to participants or how the council has used them. 189 responses on a coast of roughly 350,000 people is a small base and the report does not present it as representative; neither do we. The sections headed “What the difference between the two groups might mean” and the closing observation on preventative maintenance are our interpretation, built on the sourced facts above.
Sources
- Central Coast Council, Shaping our Future Water Services 2026 (project page, Your Voice Our Coast, read 31 July 2026), and its engagement report Shaping our future water services 2026 - close the loop (PDF, 16 pages, read in full 31 July 2026): both water rankings and the shared sewer ranking, the 189 survey responses collected at six pop-up events, the People's Panel in-depth session, the council's readings of cost sensitivity and of sewer-failure concern, the themes including preventative maintenance and PFAS, and the statement that the engagement has informed submissions to IPART since 2021.
See something wrong? Request a correction and we will check it against the sources and log the outcome here.