A proposal supported by a few members may relate to a specific need that the majority rarely encounter. The number of supporters is information, but it does not exhaust the merit. Organizational examination should distinguish the spread of need from its severity and the cost of a possible response.
I propose a recognizable path to collect the request and return an evaluation. Observable conditions and realistic alternatives are needed. The competences of the bodies and the applicable procedures remain those of the cooperative; this path concerns the quality of preparation and communication.
Let's imagine a few members with particularly difficult deliveries for geographical reasons. A dedicated service might be too onerous, while a different planning might be feasible. Examination of the situation allows a more precise response than a simple accession count.
Even a negative response should explain the decisive constraint and when it could be revised. The ICA includes democratic control among the cooperative principles. In operational terms, I think it would be useful to preserve the possibility of contributing to the discussion even when the proposed solution is not adopted.