Evaluation of the evidence
60 Mr Booth had numerous criticisms of the phone survey, of which three appear the most significant. First, the survey questions were slanted in favour of an answer that the respondent shopped in Batemans Bay town centre. (For example, Question 1b of the survey asks: "Where else, either in Batemans Bay town centre, other parts of Batemans Bay or elsewhere, do you do your non-food shopping?" It could have instead asked the shorter question: "Where else do you do your non-food shopping?").
61 Second, the survey asked respondents whether they would shop at the Woolworths supermarket if one were built. According to Mr Booth, hypothetical questions like this do not elicit a true answer. The problem is not that respondents deliberately lie, but that their answer is the first thing that comes to their head, which is not what they will actually do when the hypothetical event happens.
62 Third, the phone survey was constructed to deal with two issues, ie the impact of the subject proposal and the possible expansion of an existing Woolworths store in Batemans Bay. The dual purpose made the survey less reliable than if it had been constructed for a single purpose.
63 I accept the first two criticisms. As regards the third criticism, multi-purpose surveys are common. (Most people have experienced the kind of survey that begins by testing the respondent's attitude to questions of morality only to finish with questions about the brand of detergent they use.) I do not think that this invalidates a survey, though it probably weakens it. On balance, I accept that the phone survey is not a highly reliable basis for the assessment of the proposal's economic impact. I do not think that it alone renders the Shimmin/Dimasi assessment invalid, however, it is a negative feature of the method.
64 I turn to the question which of the methods used by the experts should be preferred. The Shimmin/Dimasi team used two methods, the competitive share method and the market share method. The fact that two methods were used giving the same result is a point in favour. However, the Shimmin/Dimasi method is also weakened by two circumstances. First, the input, (apart from the phone survey, from which, after some remonstrations by the Court, confidentiality was removed) was confidential information collected by Mr Shimmin and Mr Dimasi. A transparent method based on information available to everyone is always preferable to one that is secret and cannot be checked by others, for example by the objectors whose livelihood is at stake. Second, the IBECON Retail model was calibrated until it reflected the actual floor space of existing centres on the ground. This does not appear to be the case for the methods used by the Shimmin/Dimasi team.
65 For the above reasons I conclude that the IBECON Retail model is more likely to simulate reality than the two methods employed by the Shimmin/Dimasi team.
66 I turn to the assumptions on per capita spending. The total amount of retail dollars spent was not significantly different between the experts, mainly because Mr Booth considered not only resident spending but also spending by workers and tourists, whereas the Shimmin/Dimasi team considered only resident spending, probably on the basis that this was the most significant element for a Woolworths supermarket in Sunshine Bay. However, Mr Booth assumed much lower per capita spending by Eurobodalla residents than the national or State average. Mr Shimmin and Mr Dimasi assumed a figure close to those averages.
67 It appears to me that Mr Booth's assumption is too low. I accept that the residents of Eurobodalla spend less than the State average, but not 40% less, as Mr Booth assumed. I note that Mr Booth has carried out a sensitivity analysis, increasing his assumptions on per capita spending by 10%, and a further analysis using the same input as used by the Shimmin/Dimasi team. The fact that his results still show a high impact on the Batehaven and Surf Beach centres, suggests that the difference in per capita spending was not a major factor in the difference in results.
68 This raises the question: what was the major factor that led to such divergent results? The answer to that question, in my opinion, is to be found in the way the experts distributed the source from which the spending at the proposed supermarket in Sunshine Bay would come. The Shimmin/Dimasi team (or their methods) assumed that the vast majority of the spending would come from people who would otherwise shop at Batemans Bay. Batemans Bay is a large centre, so a supermarket of 3,000m2 would make a small relative dent on its turnover. Mr Booth (or his IBECON model) assumed that many of shoppers at the proposed supermarket would be people who would otherwise shop at Batehaven and Surf Beach. Those centres are smaller, so the same supermarket would make a large relative dent on their turnover. Putting aside for the moment the sophisticated modelling, given that the Batehaven centre is about three minutes drive from the proposal, the assumption that many of its customers would be those that would otherwise shop at Batehaven, at least for top-up shopping, does not seem unreasonable.
69 The above leads me to the finding that Mr Booth's results are more likely to reflect reality than those of Mr Shimmin and Mr Dimasi. The likely impact of the proposal on the Batemans Bay town centre is a reduction in spending of about 6%, on the Batehaven shopping centre a reduction in spending of about 30%, while on the Surf Beach shopping centre it is a reduction in spending of about 25%. The worst affected centre is therefore Batehaven.
70 I am strengthened in the above conclusion by the evidence of the shopkeepers at Batehaven and Surf Beach. That evidence appeared to me to be remarkably free of exaggeration. Mr Smith, who runs the IGA supermarket in the Surf Beach shopping centre, gave detailed figures on his turnover. His response that a 30% decline would move him to close his business, while a much smaller decline would require him to dismiss staff, appears to be an honest assessment of the situation.
71 Mr Burgess, the owner of the IGA supermarket at the Batehaven shopping centre, gave evidence that complements that of Mr Smith. His estimate that the Stockland mall at Batemans Bay reduced his business by 20% (though he had "clawed back" some of that loss since) reflects the fact that the available retail dollar is finite. Mr Burgess' fear that the proposal, which is much closer to him than Batemans Bay is, would have a greater effect on him, is neither invalid nor exaggerated. Mr Burgess nominated a 50% loss as the point that would cause him to cease trading. His comment, that the other stores in the centre rely for their custom on shoppers at the supermarket, is one that is supported by the shopkeepers as well as retail theory. Mr Scullin, who runs the newsagency at Batehaven, agreed, pointing out that all small businesses in the centre depended on the IGA supermarket. Ms Imms, who is the owner of the hardware store and nursery in the Batehaven shopping centre, confirmed that the opening of Stockland mall at Batemans Bay lost her business and she has not been able to "claw back" the loss.
72 I also note Mr Shimmin's response to a question from the Court on the size of economic impact on other centres that he had found in his past work to be unacceptable. Mr Shimmin could not think of a case where this happened. Given the hundreds of retail analyses that Mr Shimmin has carried out, it seems strange that not one of them was found to have an unacceptable impact on other centres.