Wormholt Park Consultation Report
Groundwork London, August 2011
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
Contents Table
Page
1. Executive Summary
2
2. Introduction
3
3. Survey Analysis
5
4. Open Space Community Consultation Event
21
5. Feedback from Stakeholder Groups
a) Consultation with regular park users
29
b) Hammersmith and Fulham Parks Constabulary
31
c) Community and residents group meeting
33
d) Friends of Wormholt Park Survey
35
e) Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum
37
f) White City Community Information Day
38
6. Youth Focus
a) Introduction, background and aims
42
b) Methodology
43
c) Timetable of Activities
44
d) Wormholt Primary School
45
e) Canberra Primary School
47
f) SAFE (Shepherds Bush, Activities For Everyone) holiday
66
programme at Phoenix High School
67
g) Conclusion of No Particular Place to Go 7. Consultation Conclusion
68
8. Contact details
70
9. Appendices
71
Appendix 1: Wormholt park Survey Appendix 2: Friend of Wormholt Park Survey Results Appendix 3: Canberra School Site Inspectors Posters Appendix 4: Canberra School Inspirational Visit Follow Up Appendix 5: Canberra School ‘My Ideal Park’
1
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
1. Executive Summary Between May and August 2011, Groundwork London carried out an extensive community consultation with residents in the Wormholt and White city area of Hammersmith and Fulham about how people want to see Wormholt Park improved. This consultation was funded by Hammersmith and Fulham Council, and match funded by a current Groundwork project, No Particular Place to Go. No Particular Place to Go is funded by the Big Lottery’s Playful Ideas fund and aims to engage children and young people in decision making processed in their communities. Consultation aims
To find out priorities for improvement from local residents
To engage the whole local community, including young people in the process of regeneration and local decision making
To facilitate all local people, including young people, in identifying the strength and weaknesses Wormholt Park.
To facilitate all local people, including young people, in reflecting upon and discussing their needs and wants for Wormholt Park.
Consultation outputs
4500 surveys distributed and responses collated and analysed
Website created (www.wormholtpark.org.uk)
An open space Community Consultation Event
Youth engagement sessions carried out
Community group meetings held
Stakeholders engaged with on the consultation
A consultation report.
2
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
2. Introduction Wormholt Park is located in the Wormholt and White City ward of Hammersmith and Fulham, between Bryony Road and Sawley Road, W4.
(Google Maps)
It is just over 2 hectares in size and has been a public park for almost a century The park is rich in biodiversity, including large Oak and London Plane trees. It has two children play areas at opposite ends of the park, a multi‐use game area, dog exercise area, cricket nets, tennis courts and a number of benches. On the east side of the park, Bloemfontein Road side, a Primary Care Trust (PCT) building, with residential apartments, is in the very early stages of being built. It is due for completion in 2013. Groundwork London were approached by Hammersmith and Fulham Parks Department in early 2011 with a view to Groundwork London delivering a consultation programme to engage residents (adults and young people) in a decision making process about the improvements to Wormholt Park.
3
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 The consultation ran from May to August 2011 and aimed to outreach to as many local resident and park users as possible. We used a variety of methods to achieve this, and attempted to answer the question “How can Wormholt Park better suit the needs of the local community?” Methodology
4000 surveys distributed to accommodation near the park
500 surveys made available in the local area
Website created (www.wormholtpark.org.uk) and survey made available on
this site
The Open Space Community event, open to all residents was held on 18th June 2011 in Wormholt Park.
An additional meeting for community groups operating in the area, and tenant resident associations was held on 26th July 2011.
The consultation was represented at the White City Community event in Hammersmith Park on 26th July 2011.
Youth sessions took place at Canberra Primary School and Phoenix High School summer play scheme.
Gained information from various stakeholders and community groups via email correspondence and informal meetings.
Held informal conversations with user groups in the park
Used information already gathered, from developers of the PCT building and
the Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum.
4
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
3. Survey Analysis 4500 Surveys were distributed to private properties, community organisations and businesses in the local area. 4000 Surveys were distributed to properties in the area from A40 to Old Oak Road, to Uxbridge Road, to the White City Estate. In addition 500 Surveys were distributed at community events in the area, local libraries, leisure centres, community centres and charities. Surveys were also given to Tenant residents associations. The 4 page Survey was distributed with a flyer inviting people to the Open Space Event in Wormholt Park on 18th June 2011. The survey can be found in Appendix 1. A total of 318 Surveys were returned. 314 were returned by freepost envelope. 3 were filled in online on our website www.wormholtpark.org.uk Of those that declared where the lived, 53 of those received were from the White City Estate and the remaining were from the houses surrounding the park. The survey gave an option to provide personal information, asking for number of people in the household, ages of the household, and ethnicity. The average amount of people per household was 3 people.
5
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Ages: What are the ages of people in your household? 200
155 150
108
107
79
100
53
35
50
16
29
34
16-19
20-25
55
42
13
0 0-5
6-10.
10-13.
13-16
25-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
80+
Children up to 16 years (29%) made up the majority of the people living in the households of respondents, with younger children (0‐5 years) having the highest prevalence within this age group at 14%. Those aged 30 to 40 made up the second highest proportion at 21%, 40 to 50 came in at 14%, and those ages between 20 and 30 at 11%. This shows that families with children made up a significant proportion of respondents. Ethnicity: What is the ethnicity of your household?
200
179 180
160
140 120
100
80 60
43
40
19 20
23 13
14
0 White British and other White
British
Mixed
A sian or A sian Black or Black British British
Chinese or other ethnic group
6
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Of the 291 respondents who answered this question, the vast majority (61%) class themselves as White British/Other White, with an additional 15% classing themselves as British. Minority ethnic groups, cumulatively make up 24% of those who responded to this question, with Black/Black British making up 7% of the responses. Those responding White British/Other White is representative of the ethnic make up of the ward, where, White British account for 63% of the population of the area. However Black British account for 23%, which is not representative in the responses we received.* * Source: “Supporting communities, preventing social exclusion and tackling need: a report to Hammersmith United Charities on four low income estates in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham by LSE Housing” by Laura Lane and Anne Power, LSE Housing June 2009
7
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Q1: How often do you go into the park
Q2: How often do you go into the
in Autumn/Winter?
Spring/Summer?
How often do you go into the park in Spring/Summer?
How ofte n do you go into the pa rk in Autum /W inter? 100 90
80
90
80
60
80
67
70
90 84
70
59
55
60
49
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
47
45
Less than once a month
Never
41
0
0 Most days
Once or tw ice a w eek
Once or tw ice a month
Less than once a month
Most days
Never
Once or tw ice a w eek
Once or tw ice a month
The results of Questions 1 and 2 shows that the park is relatively well used amongst local residents. Of those who returned the survey, 25% use the park once or twice a week in Autumn/Winter and 28% in Spring/Summer. The number that uses it most days rises from just 15% in Autumn/Winter to 26% in Summer/Autumn, with those never using it, falling from 21% in Autumn/Winter to 14% in Summer/Autumn. This shows that Wormholt Park is better used in warmer weather than colder weather, and suggests that the current provisions do not provide comfortable recreation in the park in the winter months. Q3: How does the park meet your needs? How does the park meet your needs?
58% of people asked thought that the park ‘partially meets my needs’, whilst only 11%
It doesn't meet my needs 31%
It meets my needs f ully 11%
thought it fully met their needs. This demonstrates that improvement is a priority
It partially meets my my needs 58%
for Wormholt Park.
8
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Q4: What do you currently use Wormholt Park for? There is a lot of variety in the W hat do you currently use W ormholt Park for?
responses to the question; “What 0
20
40
I don't use the park
60
80
100
120
140
do you currently use Wormholt Park for?” Of the 318 people who
44
returned the survey, 44 people 130
Play for children
park at all. There were 569
57
Sports
(13%) said they did not use the
answers given for the reasons for 123
Go for a w alk
use the park, the majority were
Relaxation/a place to sit
Picnic w ith f amily and f riends
using the park. Of those that do
98
for ‘play for children’ (22%) with ‘going for a walk’ (21%) being a
35
close Walking dogs
55
second.
Other
highly
marked reasons are ‘relaxation’ (17%) and ‘as a cut through’
A s a cut through
71
(12%). ‘Picnics’ and ‘Sports’ came
in low (6% and 10% respectively). 55 people (10%) use the park as a dog walking space, which whilst being low is comparison to other reasons, is still a high percentage.
9
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Q5: How do you get to the park? Results from this question shows How do you get to the park?
By bike By car 2% 8%
that 90% of people travel by foot. When asked how far people travel, all answers were less than one mile. This indicates that this is a park used by local people and
By f oot 90%
people do not tend to travel very far to get to the park.
10
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Q6: How satisfied are you with the features of the park?
How satisfied are you with features of the park? very satisfied 0
20
quite satisfied
40
not very satisfied
60
not satisfied at all
80
100
120
140
98
The am ount of open s pace
125 11 3 1 79
The trees
131 25 5 20
The play area
57 78 64 15
The tennis courts
54 77 49 8
The cricket nets
64 48 47 33
The s pace for dog walking
73 27 33 30
The m ulti-us e gam e area
75 47 29 16
The flower planting
77 84 48 18
The bins
94 75 31 14
The s eating
86 85 45 14
The railings
108 56 27 11
The general appearance
75 86 71
Security
5 60 77 85
4 greatest dissatisfactions:
Security (71% of those who answered are either ‘not very satisfied’ or ‘not satisfied at all)
Tennis Courts (65% of those who answered are either ‘not very satisfied’ or ‘not satisfied at all’)
General Appearance (65% of those who answered are either ‘not very
11
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 satisfied’ or ‘not satisfied at all). The flower planting also was viewed as not very satisfactory.
The Play Area (64% of those who answered are either ‘not very satisfied’ or ‘not satisfied at all)
4 greatest satisfactions:
The amount of Open Space (93% of those who answered are either ‘quite satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’)
The trees (87% of those who answered are either ‘quite satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’)
The railings (59% of those who answered are either ‘quite satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’)
Multi‐use games area (58% of those who answered are either ‘quite satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’)
Q7: Why don’t you use the park? W hy don't you use the park? 160
135
140
119 120 100
88
80
61 50
60
47
41
40 20
1
0
0
T
Th
re he
eg
is n
s r as
o th
la ,p
i ng
n ts
re th e
an
d
fo r
e tr e
me
sa
Th
ba re
ac ef
il iti
T
m dly es
ar
s he
t ai n
ain
o ep
po
o rl
ie rt f
ed ym
a
/c o l ds
in inta
ur t
sa
/b ed
re
r ok
o po
en
m rl y
ain
ta
I fi
ine n
rok d /b
un d it
en
fr ie
nd
ly o
Ih
tim r in
av
e
d ha
Ge
i da
ti n
ab
ttin
g
g
ad
t to
ex
he
r ie pe
pa
r
nc
et
he
diff k is
re
i cu
lt (
tt Ge
pu
ing
I
t bl ic
into
am
ran
th
spo
a ep
rr ie wo
r t)
rk
db
is d
if
e y th
lt fic u
do
gs
(ac
o
ss ) ce
th of
el
ea
da
n
o dd
gm
s es
This question showed that the reasons people do not use the park are predominantly; Dogs and dog me, Security and Maintenance issues. Difficulties getting to the park were the least pressing issue for the respondents. Having a ‘bad experience there’ received 41 answers.
12
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Q8: How important do you consider the improvement of the features listed? How important do you consider the improvements of the features listed? very important 0
20
40
quite important
60
not very important
80
100
would not want 120
140
160
180
158
More play provision for under 5s 70 20 11
More play provision for 5-8 years
151 69 21 11 139
More play provision for 8-13 years 60 35 13
Youth provision (e.g. youth shelter, skate park)
88 62 36 51 79
Outdoor fitness equipment 67 64 33 43
A pond
52 80 65 128
More flowers/shrubs/trees 98 39 3 45
Food growing spaces 32
96 63
W alled garden
34 47 106 44 64
Artwork/sculpture/water feature/ Mounds or hills 55
77 46
Grassland/lawn
138 85 16 4 130
Paths 81 24 3
170
Lighting 72 17 3
Bins
170 79 12 1 103
Drinking fountain 78 61 20
More dog exercise areas
62 51 62 59 86
More dog free space 44 55 51
115
A kiosk/café 69 54 25
139
Toilets 61 48 27
13
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 This question was designed to find out the priorities for the park of those surveyed, by finding out what is important to people in terms of improvement to specific features. Those features considered most important for improvement can be grouped into 3 priorities: 1. Play Provisions 2. General aesthetics and functions 3. Amenities
1. Play provisions
Play Provisions were thought to be a ‘very important’ feature for improvement. More provisions for under 5s was thought to be ‘very important’ by 61% of people who answered this question compared to 4% who ‘would not want’ this to be improved. A similar pattern emerged for play provisions for 5‐8 year olds and 8‐13 year olds, with 59% and 56%, respectively, thinking improvement to these features ‘very important’, compared to only 4% and 5% (respectively) who ‘would not want’. Those who answered ‘quite important’ always ranked notably higher than those that answered ‘not very important’ to these questions.
2. General aesthetic and functional improvements; planting, open space,
paths, bins and lighting. More lighting ranked very high, with 65% ranking this as ‘very important’ compared to only 1% saying they ‘would not want’ this. Bins also ranked high with 65% ranking this as ‘very important’ compared to only 0.4% saying they ‘would not want’ this.
14
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 More flowers and trees came in at 47% ‘very important’ compared to only 1% saying they ‘would not want’ this. Grassland/Lawn came in at 56.6% ‘very important’ compared to only 1% saying they ‘would not want’ this.
3. Amenities‐ toilets and a kiosk
50% of those who answered this question thought that Toilets were very important. 9% said they ‘would not want’ this. 43% thought a kiosk/café was ‘very important’ with 9.5% saying they ‘would not want’ this. The item that was most divided between important and important was More Dog Exercise areas, which saw 26% thinking it was ‘very important’, 21%, ‘quite important’, 26% ‘not very important, and 25% ‘would not want’. Of those who answered ‘very important’ or ‘quite important’, all said that they use the park for dog walking in Question 4. Of those items thought to be ‘not very important’, Food Growing Spaces and a Walled Garden ranked highest. Of those items ranking highest in ‘would not want’, a pond and food growing spaces were the most answered and the only answers where either ‘would not want’ or ‘not very important’ outnumbered ‘very important’ or ‘quite important.
15
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Which other parks do you use and why? What other parks people use? 160
147
140 120 100 80
58 60
47
40
29
22
17
20 0 Ravenscourt Park
Hammersmith/ BBC Park
Holland Park
A cton Park
Hyde Park
Richmond Park
What is the reason for using other parks? 100 90 80
90 79
39
32 12
8
17 8
Better for families
Better Facilities for younger children Better facilities for older children Less initmidating
More Nature
Better Security
4 Friendlier
Café
Has dog free areas
More things to do
Better Planting
Bigger
Well Maintained
8
Toilets
15
3 Better for cycling/scooting
21
Better pathing
46
41
Better for sports
52
Better Located
20 10 0
68
62
70 60 50 40 30
Local Park, Ravenscourt Park is the most used park by residents living locally to Wormholt Park. Hammersmith Park (known locally as BBC park) also is well used, with Holland Park, Acton Park, Hyde Park and Richmond Park also mentioned as park used. The 4 main reasons that people prefer to use this park, rather than Wormholt Park are:
Better facilities for young people
16
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
Well‐maintained
Better facilities for older children
Better security
Any other comments:
“It is a big space and as it is neglected. It does not give a friendly atmosphere for families”.
“It has one good big play area than two poor ones”
“We need more dog free zones”
“I don’t use it because of intimidating youths hanging out in groups”
“Need play area for all ages”
“There are never park wardens visible”
“Needs more plants and vegetation”
“Maybe hold events to bring a focus for the community”
“Need to get rid of the binge drinking and drugs in the park”
“I am looking forward to going to the park when my baby arrives in September, only if it is renovated and has dog free zone”
“I have used this park since 1949 but seen it deteriorate since then. It would be nice to see it without the mess and have someone maintain it properly”.
“I would feel safer if it was policed more even by park patrol as I have Parkinson disease and walk around the park for exercise”.
“Cricket area is not used so can get rid of this to make more space for something else.”
“Believe that the park is in reasonably good shape but safety is paramount and could be improved and the overall look of the park could be spruced up”.
“The layout of the park is very good but needs maintaining”.
“We love Wormholt Park and are excited about the idea of regeneration”.
“Do not lose any of the open space”
“I love the park. Most houses around Wormholt Park do not have gardens so the big open space is welcoming. There is need for serious improvements and
17
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 more security to crack down on people smoking weed.”
“A dog warden needs to be in place”
“Maybe have a focus on the park being for families?”
“It would be nice to know what schools think about the park and how they could use it”
“The park has lots of potential but is poorly maintained”
“I think that even though we are getting money for the new NHS building at least we are having money to make the park nice”.
“Build a more sporty pathway with proper tarmac instead of concrete
“Get rid of people that use drugs; have an operation in place to reduce drug taking in the park”
“Could have an area where youth groups could run activities?”
“Us2 it as a place to learn new skills once a week?”
“Have security presence in terms of CCTV or every few hours the park officer or police come in for a few minutes”
“Need more seats for the elderly people and an area for people only over 50 with CCTV”
“The dog run area should be moved away from housing area
“High iron fencing for the dogs area”
“Need more flowers for the elderly as they cannot do many physical things so the visual and fragrance of the flowers will be pleasing.”
“Picnic area”
“Private garden for elderly people”
“Play area and café close to each other as mums can have a chat and coffee while children play in the play area”
“The areas that youth can hide and smoke drugs should be eradicated”
“Visual division from lawn and path so then it stops the alcoholics urinating in the bushes”
“There should be more bins for the dog bags and a bigger dog area”.
“Change location of the football. Take it away from the back of the park”.
“Swimming area for young children”
18
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
“Resurface the path”
“Need a bin near the play area”
19
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
4. Open Space Community Consultation Event
On 18th June 2011, Groundwork London held a meeting in Wormholt Park for local residents of the park. Invitations were sent out with the surveys, posters were put in the park, and it was featured in the Hammersmith and Fulham Chronicle. We offered activities for children and refreshments. The day ran from 11am until 3pm. The day was delivered using Open Space Technology, which is a way of holding meetings that support self‐organisation. Those that attended the meetings were asked to come up with their own agenda that aims to answer the question “How can Wormholt Park better suit the needs of the local community?” At the beginning of the meeting people were asked to come up with questions or topics that they wish to discuss, and those that asked the questions convened the discussions around their own topic. Moving from one group to another when participants have contributed all they can was fully supported. 34 people, not including staff attended the day and all were engaged in at least one topic.
20
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 The topics that were discussed throughout the day were:
Parks Maintenance
Dog Usage
Plants and Flowers
Facilities for children
1 big play area/1 big doggy run/1 open area
Paths
Football/basketball pitches
Tennis courts
Community garden/old English Garden
Children’s use of the park
The consultation as a whole.
At the end of day we held a closing circle. The write up from the day is below including closing comments. Topic: Park Maintenance Key ideas discussed: 1. Money for staff onsite/ no space for toilets and cafés/ paths/ tennis courts/ bins/ cleanliness of site. 2. Closing time is too late – gates are open past 10pm 3. Maintenance fund to be put aside 4. CCTV – opposite effect/ integrate/ play area – hole in the corner of fence. Recommendations: 1. Information, temporary signs for members 2. single point of contact to report issues 3. Put aside maintenance money for repairs from capital investment. 4. Improve horticultural standards 5. put in items that require less maintenance – community gardens/ volunteer involvement/ get involved in food growing 6. Take over maintenance
21
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Topic: Dog Usage Key Ideas discussed: 1. Dog Free Zone/ Dog on lead zone/ Dog run Zone. 2. Consultation with more dog owners. 3. Dog owner responsibility 4. Respect between non dog owners and owners Recommendations: 1. Every part of the park can be split into 3 zones. 1) dog free zone 2) Dog lead zone 3) Dogs on lead zone/ face to face interviews with more dog walkers. 2. Provide dog owners training 3. Enforce dog mess being picked up, dog poo bag Topic: Plants and Flowers. Key ideas discussed: 1. Make the Park a nicer place to come ‐ not the prettiest parks, not very colourful, needs more scented flowers 2. Trees are fantastic – can do a tree trail. 3. More colour would be lovely, Tree labels/Plant labels – why we have chosen particular plants 4. Flowering Shrubs are better 5. Shady area of north east corner could be woodland area 6. nature/ wild are would be good – but also must be maintained 7. wildflower meadow to encourage wildlife educational resource Recommendations 1. Trees and Green spaces work well but we could help people appreciate them more. – Tree Trails/ labels on trees 2. We would like a bigger range on planting – more flowers plus colour plus more scented flowers to make it a nicer place to sit and visit. 3. A nature/wild area would be great. The shady north east area would be great for this or wild flower meadow.
22
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 4. Involve schools more in planting. Use the park as an educational resource. 5. Nature flowers/plants wherever possible Topic: Facilities for Children Key Ideas Discussed: 1. Extend the time and age group use of the park for local residents. 2. Desire for Paddling pool and foundation 3. Facilities especially for older children as there needs to be provisions for them 4. Toilets 5. Top play area – desolate – fence broken – problem with dogs 6. Need of other users e.g. ludi players, need table Recommendations: 1. New play areas which are designed for different ages 0 – 3, 4 – 7, 8 – 11. Preferable near each other but separate. 2. Easy access to toilets/café/ shops in new development. 3. a fenced off grassy area – totally dog free ball games, picnics etc & picnic tables 4. Wild spaces – for innovative play in natural environment/ path/ hills. 5. maintenance – upkeep of play area/ toilets etc. Without proper maintenance rebuild is pointless. Topic: 1 big play area/ 1 big/1 small doggie run/ open area Ideas discussed/Recommendations: 1. Both play areas in one 2. Slightly separated in ages 3. More frames and stuff to do 4. One small doggie area for aggressive dogs Topic: Paths
23
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Key ideas discussed: 1. Existing buyout ok 2. Width Ok 3. Existing Activity works Recommendations: 1. maintain existing green areas 2. resurfacing a priority (existing) 3. Widths nice and wide (no wider) 4. Maintain the paths Topic: Football and Basket Ball Pitches Key ideas discussed: 1. Location of Sports and Children’s playground 2. Reposition basketball and football away from park boundaries 3. children’s play area – singular location 4. Dog walkers area, singular location. Recommendations: 1. Reposition basketball and football pitch away from neighbouring houses and gardens Topic: Tennis Courts Key ideas discussed: 1. Could the tennis courts be in a multi use games area? (although probably not with football pitch as this would be unpopular with some people thought It was more important to maintain the tennis court.) 2. They should be promoted so that more people are aware of them and come to use them. 3. Schools could use the tennis courts too Recommendations:
24
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 1. Tennis courts should be maintained (kept) in proper condition and improved. 2. Consider combining in multi games pitch (mark out for netball etc too) but would need system of booking facility. 3. Schools could use the tennis courts too. 4. Tennis courts should be provided Topic: Community Garden/ Old English Garden Key ideas discussed: 1. Gardening club with shared access to allotments, liked to old style garden/ scented garden/herb garden/ relaxation garden (Ravenscourt Park scented garden style). 2. Those in club maintenance allotments & relaxation garden (minimal cost) ‐ keep community involved. 3. Possible link up with phoenix school that have already done this. 4. Shared shed to store tools? 5. Large formed allotments can be ugly/ takes up too much room Recommendations: 1. Merge Ravenscourt Park scented garden style with small allotment spaces (like Norman Park). 2. Maintained by gardening club 3. Involve schools and nurseries Topic: How can we get non park users engaged in the consultation Key ideas discussed: 1. How important it is that it reaches the right people 2. How to get the community groups involved 3. Consultation in non park venues 4. Schools, health centres & community groups 5. How to increase the numbers of people engaged in consultation. Recommendations: 1. Consultation to take in consideration the new building
25
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 2. Get in touch with health centres to make the connection between well being and health of park users. 3. Hold a meeting of community leaders in order to get them to lead the consultation with their users. 4. Use schools to outreach to more community members 5. If you cant reach individuals, reach community groups Closing Comments
Make a swimming pool – I think there should be a swimming pool with a diving board in the park.
Thinking about the children – lots of different play equipment for different ages. – Toilets so that they can use it all day – water feature important.
Leading the consultation – it’s been really interesting – especially learning about how the consultation should be done. – I have had lots of help to do + ideas + great to meet lots of nice people
Kids would love a new swimming pool and new things children can play with.
Most interesting thing is that I met some people who I’ve not met before.
Need climbing frames and equipment for children to climb on for older children.
I have always been reluctant to make use of the green area due to dog mess.
It’s been really great meeting lots of new people the community. This is a great park + it needs to be safe and fun to come again and again. Any positive changes welcome.
This space is not safe for toddlers – dogs etc. so needs re‐ planning as a park + compared with other parks in borough – provide something that’s not available in other parks. Get ideas from elsewhere to make it safer. Café needed. People want to come and spend the whole day here.
Great to see everyone out here today. Everyone is passionate about this park. Wormholt has great potential – love to see things that fulfil community needs.
Need to find out from those who haven’t come today to what their needs are
26
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 so we can meet their needs too.
Echo other comments – excited to get to this point.
Representing new building in edge of park. Plea that we need to think about park in relation to new building. – health and wellbeing aspect of it.
Mental health champions not here today – we need to involve them.
Been interesting today – lots of talk about improvement with park but also people focusing about what they love about it – really striking.
Been doing dog discussion. It is important to bridge gap between dog users and non dog users/ be friendly/ talk to each other.
Need to talk about security of the park.
My key outcome is to increase use and participation – need security and also need to represent all local community – older, families etc so all can use it.
27
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
5. Feedback from stakeholder groups a) Consultation with regular park users Consultation with regular park users (with Hammersmith and Fulham Parks Constabulary) 8th August 2011 Introduction Due to the concerns that the consultation was not reaching out to the regular park users, Groundwork London spent some time on a sunny day talking to these users, accompanied by Hammersmith and Fulham Police Constabulary who are on friendly terms with these users. Comments: Dog Walk by users:
Keep dog exercise area‐ used by people who have dogs which are deemed as being anti‐social
Maintain it better; fence is broken which can hurt dogs
Concerns that the area in the middle will be dog free. This is viewed as unfavourable by the dog walkers we spoke to.
Ludi Players:
Would like a table to play Ludi on.
Parks Constabulary think that if the Ludi players are playing in designated areas, then this would stop people being intimidated by them, because they are using a designed purpose of the park.
Children:
Choose to come to this park because the paths are wide enough to ride bikes and scooters
Other comments:
Cricket nets are a waste of space. Not used often
If they are kept, need to have some intervention to help people to use them.
Broken nets mean dogs get in the area, and it becomes impossible to police
Drugs are the biggest problem in the park. Need to get rid of hidden area and
28
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 hidden benches
Two new users who were visiting their Grandchildren, said how impressed they were with the park, and that it seemed well‐looked after, had good amenities, nice wide paths, and they could see their grandchildren easily.
Considerations for improvement : Regular Park users (those that use the park almost daily for one reason or another) would like to see the park improved to better suit the purposes they use it for; better dog walking facilities and improvement of the dog area, improved children’s facilities, broken fences repaired, a table for games, and better security. Park users want to see their park better suit their needs and serve the local community better.
29
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 b) Hammersmith and Fulham Parks Constabulary Group: Hammersmith and Fulham Parks Constabulary 2nd August 2011 Present: Hazel Ryan (LBHF Parks Constabulary and Ambassador for Wormholt Park) Stan Davies (LBHF Parks Constabulary) Amy Lee (Groundwork) Monika Nadolny (Groundwork) Background: Hazel Ryan is LBHF Park Constabulary’s Ambassador for Wormholt Park. This means, that whilst all officers from the constabulary patrol Wormholt Park, any crimes or issues with the park are reported to her and she retains an overview of the park. According to Hazel and Stan, Wormholt Park in one of 54 spaces patrolled by 15 officers. It is one of the most diverse and highly populated parks in LBHF. It is a park for local people, used by local people. It has a large amount of ‘through traffic’ and people use it as a cut through from Sawley Road to Bryony Road often. In 2010 there were 3 arrests in Wormholt Park. 2 were for drug related offences, and 1 was a dog related incident, resulting in criminal damage. Hazel and Stan thought that Wormholt Park lacks the focus other parks in the borough has. It is thought to be quite ‘shabby’ and that it needs some work. Who uses Wormholt Park?
Predominantly dog walkers and play for children
Lots of family groups use this park
Regular users
Group of men known as the “Dominos Players” are the most long term and frequent users of the park. Tend to be from the White City Estate and other surrounding estates.
The Travelling Community are big users of the park
Any problems within the park tend to be from these groups
Can be quite a hard group to infiltrate and are wary of change. Also wary of
30
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 the ‘Friends of’ group, who they feel “sprang up from nowhere”. Concerns about park that need to be taken into consideration when planning improvements Dogs:
Concerns about loosing the Dog Exercise area, due to owners having unsociable dogs. Owners themselves don’t want to exercise their dogs in open spaces.
Dog exercise area can do with being prettied up a bit‐ not currently a very nice place to be
Trees are particularly vulnerable to certain dogs in Wormholt. There needs to be guards around the trees.
Play areas need to be fenced off. No fences mean it’s very hard to enforce the ‘no dogs in children’s areas’ regulations. When the area is fenced off, a dog in the children’s area is a ‘straight offence’.
Amount of dogs mess is quite small, when taking into consideration the amount of dogs. Majority will pick up, especially when parks constabulary is present.
Area to the east of the park (Bloemfontein Road side)/Anti‐social behaviour:
This area is so covered. It provides a rat run through tennis courts
Easy way to break into property when new buildings are built
Seating area by bushes at the back needs to be removed. It is very covered and impossible to police because people see police before they even get there. Can’t be snuck up upon‐ needs to be opened up.
This is a priority because when the PCT opens there will be more use of the park (overflow)
Considerations for improvement:
In Normand Park there is a community run kiosk, which works really well and keeps anti‐social behaviour down because it is more community led. Could be considered for Wormholt Park Make more use of the cricket nets. They should be used by community groups to engage children in the sport. Consideration needs to be given for the fences on west‐side where the balls keep going over into the neighbours gardens. Maybe this should be moved
31
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 c) Community and residents group meeting Group: White City and Wormholt Community Groups and Resident Group meeting at White City Community centre 26th July 2011 Present: Amy Lee (Groundwork) Monika Nadolny (Groundwork) Leslie Joseph (White City TRA) Harry Audrey (Chair of White City TRA) Nicola Kingston (Primary Care Trust) PC Van Cuylenbure (Metropolitan Police, Wormholt and White City) PC Zulfiquar (Metropolitan Police, Wormholt and White City) Background: The aim of this meeting was to give community groups from the local area a chance to represent the views of their service user and/or residents. PCT building/Janet Adegoke site
There is a need for joined up thinking between building and the park.
Park needs to reflect the purpose of the building i.e. Health and Well‐being
4 months ago local residents were consulted on the building and park. Meeting was initiated by Nicola and Sylvie Pearce (included in this report)
With the new building, the nature of the park will change. Therefore there must be some joined up thinking and congruence between building a park.
With the building of the new health centre, Wormholt needs to become Borough’s “healthy park”
Additional piece of land given to the park, must reflect the use and views of the health centre
Different provisions in Wormholt than Hammersmith Park
Sporting facilities need to be different in each park. Needs to be a distinction. And complementary
Due consideration is needed between what is being developed in Hammersmith Park
A joined up approach needs to be addressed in the development of both
32
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 parks
Multi‐use sports areas would be more appropriate
Provisions provided for schools in the area who have to use facilities that are further away at present
Safety and policing issues
Police are patrolling the park daily
Biggest issue with the park is drugs and drinkers
It was suggested that the reason people feel unsafe in the park, as the congregating groups are very visible and can be perceived as a threat, whereas in somewhere like Hammersmith Park they are more hidden.
Suggestions to improve the safety of park:
Lights at the back‐ need to be well‐lit
Cut back bushes and minimise unseen spaces
Point to note: Once the new health centre is opened, and there are flats overlooking it (500 people), the feel and attitudes to the park will change. Anti‐social behaviour is likely to be reported. Also, when areas are developed people tend to respect it more. Dogs
Higher prevalence of dangerous dogs recently
Police report that people don’t like to use dog exercise area because it is too small and not well kept enough. Not a nice place for dogs.
Dog area often reported to be inadequate
“Not all dogs are dangerous or not controlled”
Considerations for improvement: Safety of the park, making it more suitable for dog walkers, ensuring that improvements tie in with the new PCT building, ensuring new facilities meet a need that are not already provided in neighbouring parks.
33
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 d) Friends of Wormholt Park Survey Friends of Wormholt Park Survey July 2011 Respondents A total of 85 identified Friends completed the survey: 79 through a basic on‐line surveymonkey, and 6 on hard copy that had been hand delivered. Guidance Respondents were invited to complete the survey so that we would have a mandate to tell H&F Council what the Friends of Wormholt Park want. They were informed around £1million is going to be invested in Wormholt Park, and asked what priority should we give when spending the money Results Overall priorities Respondents were asked to rank all the following areas in order of priority, from 1 to 7, where 1* = their highest priority and 7 = their lowest priority. Area
Number of people ranking the area as 1st priority
Security/safety in the park
35 (27%)
Facilities for babies, children and young people
27 (22%)
Plants, wildlife and green spaces
16 (12%)
Sports facilities
16 (12%)
Designated dog and no‐dog areas
13 (10%)
Paths, seating and layout
10 (8%)
Leisure facilities i.e. toilets, café
7 (7%)
*Note: 10+ respondents entered 1 against more than one/several areas. Summary of overall priorities No one area is seen as a paramount priority compared to the other areas when collectively ranked. There is a wide range of priority rankings across the respondents. The collectively highest ranked priority of the seven areas is Security/safety in the
34
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 park. The second highest collectively ranked priority (Facilities for babies, children and young people) and third highest collectively ranked priority (Plants, wildlife and green spaces) are given near equal collective ranking. Full survey results can be found in Appendix 2
35
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 e) Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum Group: Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum 25th May 2011 (2pm‐4pm) Service provider: H&F council Topic: Wormholt Park visit, to investigate what changes or improvements on access need to be made during the regeneration of Wormholt Park. Disability Forum: Jane Wilmot; Andrew Hodgson and Luis Carbonell Ferrer; Friends of Wormholt Park: Bob Still and Gary McMillan (Phoenix High School, Director of Facilities and Development). Hestia: Ijeoma Igwume and Ceara McNulty Issues highlighted by members
No toilets
Few adjoining benches to encourage people/ families to sit down and have picnics together
Few park benches had arms and surfaces around benches not always level making it difficult or impossible for a wheelchair user, or an ambulant disabled person to use them.
The 6 entrances to the park had uneven surfaces.
Not all entrances were clearly identified as entrances to Wormholt Park with their own names
Footpaths around the park were uneven in places with big pot holes and in some surfaces had adverse camber which makes it difficult to push a wheelchair user. One drainage hole was significantly raised from the ground, which could be a severe trip hazard.
The children’s play area was not inclusive. There were no benches for mothers to sit in the enclosed play area. (Observation: mothers were sitting on the floor).
There was evidence of drug use.
The cricket pitch was over grown and appeared unused. The netball and tennis courts had no nets.
There were few flowers or facilities to encourage older and disabled people
36
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 to use the park
The park was used as a cut through by cyclists.
Friends of Wormholt Park reported that
Dog poo in the park is a serious problem and puts families off.
Rubbish was thrown around the park,
There was no zebra crossing at the middle entrance of the park from Bryony road to Phoenix school, which is an issue because most children live within a mile and walk to school
Both pedestrians and cyclists use this park as a cut through
The drug problem was an issue
The current children’s area will be used by the White City Collaborative Centre redevelopment project as a storage site during construction. Improvements to children’s play area will be delayed.
£1 million to improve Wormholt Park will not go a long way so the challenge will be to get best value for money that benefits everyone.
Wormholt Park Friends Picnic Day has been scheduled for Sunday 26th June 12‐4pm to encourage people from the neighbourhood to come together.
Issues raised by a few disabled people and carers observed in the park
A mini coffee shop area, to encourage people to see the Park as a fun place to spend their weekends.
A garden area with seats to encourage older people to enjoy the park
Benches and picnic area to encourage families to spend more time in the park.
Clear signs at each entrance to the park.
Accessible toilets.
A play ground area that will include children 11+.
Address the dirt in the park and the dog poo.
Level footpaths
Recommendations by Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum
Wormholt Park needs new signage in and around the park. Signage should be
37
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 large and clear enough for a child to read at a reasonable distance.
Surfaces at each entrance to be level and each gate entrance to be clearly labelled. (e.g. Entrance A,B, C, ...)
Footpaths to be level with adverse cambers removed and pot holes filled in
All play and sports areas to be inclusive
Accessible benches with arms so disabled and older people have a choice of seating.
Seats arranged to encourage families, older people and disabled people to sit together
The problem of dog poo needs to be addressed as it is a health hazard for wheelchair users if dog poo get on the wheels and into homes etc.
Toilets including an accessible toilet to be provided and open at all times the park is open.
fast cycling through the park should be designed out.
improvements to Wormholt Park should design out crime and ASB to encourage families with children including disabled children, older people and disabled people to use the park. Careful planting with flowers etc could assist in making the park welcoming
On 8th August 2011, Amy Lee spoke to Jane Wilmott, Chair of the Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum. Jane reiterated the facilities and improvements that would make the park more accessible for people with disabilities, including better surfacing, inclusive play and sports facilities, benches with arms. Any toilet facilities that may be added should be designed using standard local "Access For All" general guidance on planning accessible facilities.
38
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 f) White City Community Information Day White City Community Information Day Report on Activities 7th July 2010 Author: Sylvie Pierce, 13th July 2010 Introduction The day was organized by the Hammersmith &Fulham Public Health Team (part of the NHS Inner North London cluster). The aim was to promote the work of the Community Champions, and to encourage other residents to get involved. The Community Champions have grown from two initiatives. A health researcher’s programme, commissioned by local Residents Association. This scheme was delivered by Turning Point, and the intention was to understand better the needs of “hard to reach” communities. The then PCT also funded health champions, whose goal was to promote changes in practice from health professionals to better meet community health needs. From these very successful initiatives have come Community Champions. There most recent work has been promoting Lung Cancer awareness. Venue and Activities The day was held at the White City Community Centre; and there were several stalls, providing information and advice:
Hammersmith & Fulham Adult Services Lung Cancer Awareness Hammersmith & Fulham Community Champions Health trainers Stroke awareness Hammersmith & Fulham Action on Disability Sexual Health Hammersmith & Fulham Circle Volunteers Centre Kick It (Smoking) Safer Neighbourhood Team Nubian Life
39
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Content of the Day As well as providing information and advice; the atmosphere was very informal and friendly; food and refreshments were provided, and there was every opportunity to meet neighbours and friends, whilst children played together. Conclusions/Next Steps Based on discussions on this occasion and at other community/consultation events, my recommendations are:
The possibility of greater engagement of the public health team around the design of the building should be explored. There is a danger that the new building doesn’t reflect all the work that has gone on in the community. This could potentially lead to frustration and a sense of exclusion.
The Council’s consultation needs to reflect the fact that there will be a new 7 storey building in the park; and that this presents opportunities and restrictions on the design of the park.
Explore the potential for employment and start up businesses linked to the new building.
Actions
Write to the public health team suggesting that they talk to the commissioners of the building just to check that the work going on at a community level is known about.
Continue to work with the local community organisations, the NHS in Hammersmith &Fulham and the Borough – with a watching brief re the proposals for the park and its relationship with the building.
Contact the Chair of the Residents Association and the Neighbourhood Steering Group to discuss whether they wish to commission some work re social enterprise etc – for example there is interest in the creation of community gardeners' small business to take on some or all of the park maintenance.
Attend meetings as required.
40
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
6. Youth Focus‐ No Particular Place to Go. a) Introduction, background and aims Between June and July 2011, Groundwork London carried out a series of school‐ based and community activities to facilitate young people’s involvement in the consultation process for the improvement of Wormholt Park. These activities were part of a wider consultation process funded by Hammersmith and Fulham Council and was funded through Groundwork London’s Big Lottery project ‘No Particular Place to Go’. This project is funded through the Playful Ideas fund and is in the 4th of a five year project. This project empowers young people to actively design outdoor community space to better meet their needs and those of their community. It gives the young people the freedom, skills and resources to determine what happens to their outdoor space and leads to a sense of ownership over the space and a connection to it. In regard to Wormholt Park consultation, No Particular Place to Go aimed to: • engage young people in the process of regeneration and local decision making • facilitate young people in auditing the local space and suggesting improvements • empower young people in making decisions that impact on their lives • assist young people in presenting their ideas to the local community
41
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 b) Methodology In carrying out any No Particular Place to Go project, we aim to access and encourage the opinions of as many of the young people living locally to the site proposed for development. We do this through youth outreach and schools sessions. There are three schools very close to Wormholt Park; Wormholt Primary School, Canberra Primary School and Phoenix High School. As the majority of the children and young people that use the park locally go to these schools, we were very keen to engage all three schools. Canberra Primary School was willing to engage with the project, and a 4 week programme of work was carried out and delivered. Wormholt Primary School had previously worked with Hammersmith and Fulham Parks Department and Hammersmith and Fulham Urban Studies Centre, and so was not able to commit more time to the project. Some of the findings from this work will be presented here. Unfortunately, we were not able to arrange sessions with Phoenix High School for a number of reasons. Therefore a decision was made to work with summer schemes in the area instead, attending the SAFE (Shepherds Bush, Activities For Everyone) holiday programme at Phoenix High School. We employed a variety of consultation methods to facilitate the young people in engaging in their open space. These methods were drawn from experience of previous consultations and tailored to meet the needs and demographics of the local area, ensuring that they are suitable to the site in question. The methods employed included:
Play consultation sessions and workshops
Site Audit 42
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
Observational visits and playground visits
Presentation of findings
c) Timetable of activities Date
Activity
Group
2009/2010
Play Sessions with Hammersmith and
Wormholt Primary School
Fulham’s Play Development Officer and Hammersmith and Fulham Urban Studies Centre 20th June 2011
Session 1: Project introduction and play Canberra Primary School audit
23rd June 2011
Session 2: Mapping and Site Inspectors
Canberra Primary School
4th July 2011
Session 3: Site Inspectors follow‐up
Canberra Primary School
8th July 2011
Session 4: Inspirational Trip
Canberra Primary School
11th July 2011
Session 5: Inspirational Trip Feedback
Canberra Primary School
Session 4th July 2011
Session at SAFE (Shepherds Bush,
Phoenix High School
Activities For Everyone) holiday programme
43
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 d) Wormholt Primary School In 2009/2010, Hammersmith and Fulham council’s Play Development Officer in collaboration with Hammersmith and Fulham Urban Studies Centre undertook play sessions with Wormholt Primary School. This was part of the Department for Children, School’s and families (DCSF) play builder scheme which aimed to provide ‘natural and adventurous’ play facilities for 8 to 13 yr olds. With the change in Government in summer 2010, the funding was subsequently pulled, and the new play area was never realised The data that was gained from the children, through a series of site visits, experiential play experiences, and model making can be seen below. This data is from a class of year 5 students (aged 9 and 10 years old). The selection of equipment is those pieces of equipment available from Timber Play, natural play specialists. The survey showed that the4 most desired pieces of equipment are:
Tyres
Revolving Disks
Bike Play (boys)
Climbing frames (girls)
44
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
Voting Play Features Girls Greenery/Gravel Garden
0
6
Fruit A rt
12
12
Wall A rt
11
8
Floor A rt
10
12
Hanging Frame
4
Wobbling Bridge
20
Boys
4
Tyres
16
18
Maze
10
Mounds
10
Bolder Climbing
3 6 11
3
Log Stepping
9
10
Wood Chairs
5
7
Climbing Rocks
4
10
Zip Wire
3
5 20
Normal Sw ing Bike Play
9
20
Witches Hat
5
4
Sand Pit 10 Tunnels
6
9
Chair Roundabout
2
8
Bird Nest Roundabout
2
3
Disc Roundabout
5
9
Revolving Discs
15
15
Bouncing Disc Sw ing
5
4
Hammock Sw ing
7
10
Bird Nest Sw ing
6
8
High Sw ing
7
6
Cimbing Frame
8
13
Log Climbing
6
8
Rock Climbing
7
6 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 e) Canberra Primary School Sessions These sessions were carried out in Canberra Primary School with 16 students aged between 8 and 10. The children are elected members of the school council. They are of varying backgrounds and abilities. Session 1: Play Audit‐ 20th June 2011 Aim: To a) introduce children to the project and b) facilitate young people in analysing Wormholt Park and how well they know it and how much they use it. Outcomes:
Children gain an interest in the park outside of school
Children consider the park
Children communicate what they think is good, bad and ugly about the park
To introduce the project we put together a specially designed quiz that helped the children to think about the park in ways they perhaps hadn’t before, and for Groundwork to see how engaged with it they are. Question 1: Wormholt Park has a golf course. True or False Answer: False All 4 groups got this right. Question 2: Dogs are allowed to run around without a lead on Wormholt Park. Answer: True All 4 groups got this right. Question 3: A Challenge. Write one happy memory of visiting Wormholt Park for every person in your group.
46
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Examples include playing sports, playing on the playground, relaxing, walking the dog, children’s parties. Only one child had never visited Wormholt Park before Question 4: A Challenge. Write 5 activities you can do on Wormholt Park. Examples include football, tag, bike riding and dodge ball. Question 5: A Challenge. Look at the maps (a Google images map of Wormholt Park). Write on the maps where the gates are. These maps were used for the following week’s session. All groups were aware of the gates and the fact they are always open. They were also aware that some of these gates were missing. Next we started talking more in‐depth about the park and facilitated discussions about how what the children think about Wormholt Park. Findings: The Good‐ What are the good things about Wormholt Park?
You can walk through it on your way to school
There is a lot of space to run around in
You can play ball games
It has a play‐ground
The trees look nice
The Good‐ What are the bad things about Wormholt Park?
Lots of dog mess
No facilities (including toilets and cafes)
No park rangers
The Ugly‐ What are the Frightening or Threatening things about Wormholt Park?
Lots of people drinking alcohol
Quite dark
47
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
Teenagers from Phoenix High School can be scary
Groups of people sitting in the park
Conclusions drawn from this session: Children are somewhat engaged in the park, but do not tend to consider it a part of their community. All children, bar 1 of the group of 16 students have been into the park at some point. Generally they were not regular park users, although 2 of the group were. The entire group agreed that they did not recreationally use Wormholt Park very often, and if they were to visit the park, would use Hammersmith Park, even when further away from their house than Wormholt. As a consensus it was decided that Hammersmith Park offers more in the way of opportunities for play and other activities. In terms of Wormholt Park, they identified some positive aspects, like the amount of open space and the fact there are two play equipment areas. They did however identify many negative aspects, in particular the amount of dog’s mess, other park users and the lack of maintenance or facilities. Session 2: Site Inspectors‐ 23rd June 2011 Aim: To give children an opportunity to explore the area for which they will design a play park. Outcomes:
Understanding and experience of the design features of the park.
Understanding and experience of how the park is used, and potential problems, by all service users.
1. Journey mapping The students were all given a map of the area around the park and asked to draw on it where they live, where they play and the journeys that they make in the area. This highlighted that many of the students pass Wormholt Park on a regular basis and so would often call in to play for a short period of time. It was also used as a shortcut
48
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 for those living to the west of Tiverton Road and walking to their school on Christchurch Avenue. 2. Site Inspectors Site Inspectors was designed to facilitate discussion about the green space and to enable the children to gather evidence that relates to 4 questions that we posed about the park. These questions allowed children to look more in depth at the green space and consider it from the point of view of service users and the limitations the current design features might hold. Thorough evaluation and collation of information was done in sessions 4, 5 and 6 and an assembly presenting their findings held to the whole school and local community in session 7. Methodology of Site Inspectors: We divided the students into 5 different groups, and gave each group a camera, comments sheet and the questions to gather evidence for. We tool the students to the park and each group surveyed the park, concentrating on the questions they were provided with. The Questions: Site Inspectors Group 1 Main Question: Is the space easy to get around? Sub questions:
Is this space easy to get around if you have a pushchair or wheelchair?
Are the surfaces even?
Are there pathways and are they well maintained?
Are there signs?
Could very old or very young people get around easily?
Site Inspectors Group 2 Main Question: Is the space clean and well looked after? Sub questions:
49
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
Does it look like the community care for the space?
Does it look like somebody looks after the space?
Do you ever see anyone looking after this space?
(Warden/Caretaker)
Do people from the local area feel proud of this space?
Site Inspectors Group 3 Main Question: Is the space safe and comfortable in the day and night, in all weathers? Sub questions:
Can you enjoy this space all year round?
What would make it easier to enjoy in all weathers?
Do you feel safe in the park in the night time?
Do you feel safer in the day or night time?
Does everyone feel safe or unsafe here or does it vary for different groups?
Site Inspectors Group 4 Main Question: Are there enough plants and animals in this space? Sub questions:
Do you think there are plants and animals for this type of space?
Do you think this is a place that encourages wildlife?
Would you like to see more plants and animals in this space?
Is this place popular for dog walkers?
Site Inspectors Group 5 Main Question: Is this space really important to the local community? Sub questions:
Are there things for people of different ages to do?
Do community events happen here?
Do you do lots of different things in the space?
50
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
Does the space help you to be physically healthy?
Can you learn anything new here?
Session 3: Site Inspectors follow‐up. 4th July 2011 Aim:
To gather the information collected from the site visit
To aid children in gaining perspective on Wormholt Park and the different park users, so recommendations are not only centred around themselves
Outcomes:
A poster answering the questions posed
A greater understanding of park use.
This session took place in the school and was designed to capture the information that was gathered at the park. We did a whole class discussion on the findings, and using print outs of the photos that were taken on the site visit, each group made a poster capturing what they discovered and their conclusions. Photos of the posters can be seen in Appendix 3 Results: Site Inspectors Group 1 Main Question: Is the space easy to get around? Overall Conclusion: Not very. Sub questions:
Is this space easy to get around if you have a pushchair or wheelchair?
Comments: “It is really hard to travel into the park through the park gate, because the railings are damaged, and the gate keeps getting jammed because it is rusty.”
51
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
Are the surfaces even?
Comments: “The space is not easy t get around because there are cracks on the floor which makes it hard for people with pushchairs and wheelchairs to get around”
Are there pathways and are they well maintained?
Could very old or very young people get around easily?
Comments: “The Park needs to have the ground at the same level and they need to put on new railings and paint them nice and bright”
Are the signs useful?
Groundwork Comments: We spoke a lot about signs with the group. They thought the signs were useful, but people didn’t read them enough (concluded from the fact there was dog mess, and people didn’t always pick up). It was thought the notice boards looked ugly and needed to be more community focussed. Other comments: “There are gigantic puddles on the side of the pavement which makes it hard for people on bikes to see the curbs” Site Inspectors Group 2 Main Question: Is the space clean and well looked after? Overall Conclusion: Not really Sub questions:
Does it look like the community care for the space?
Comments: Not really. There is a lot of rubbish and litter. The bins weren’t cared for.
Does it look like somebody looks after the space?
Comments: The trees and plants look cared for and the grass it cut. “The fence is all broken, and if the kids play with it, they are going to hurt themselves. Also when they fall over they might fall in poo”
Do you ever see anyone looking after this space? (Warden/Caretaker)
Comments: The Parks Police were there when we were.
Do people from the local area feel proud of this space?
52
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Comments: Maybe not, because the signs had been burnt, the railings look bad. “Different things are broken and children can hurt themselves”. Site Inspectors Group 3 Main Question: Is the space safe and comfortable in the day and night, in all weathers? Overall Conclusion: Not really Sub Questions:
Can you enjoy this space all year round?
Comments: There is no shelter, meaning that you would not be very comfortable in the rain. The benches mean people can sit down a lot.
What would make it easier to enjoy in all weathers?
Comments: Shelters and less mud.
Do you feel safe in the park in the night time?
Comments: “Not at all! Because there are lots of drunken people, no light, and the gates are too short.”
Do you feel safer in the day or night time?
Comments: Daytime, because there aren’t many lights.
Does everyone feel safe or unsafe here or does it vary for different groups?
Comments: Elderly people may feel unsafe and young children because of the groups that hang around here. Children may also feel intimidated. Site Inspectors Group 4 Main Question: Are there enough plants and animals in this space? Overall Conclusion: Yes
Do you think there are plants and animals for this type of space?
Comments: There are a lot of plants and animals in the space. There are a lot of dogs.
Do you think this is a place that encourages wildlife?
Comments: There are a lot of trees and plants, so yes.
Would you like to see more plants and animals in this space?
53
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Comments: Yes. Plants and animals are good for soil and we need to see more biodiversity. “Plants look nice in our community park. If we plant more flowers we will have more nature and other animals, like birds”
Is this place popular for dog walkers?
Comments: Yes! “Dog owners should clean up their dog’s toilet after use. And if they don’t, that is unhygienic”. “Dogs are very important in every park. If our park is allowed dogs, more people will come”. Site Inspectors Group 5 Main Question: Is this space really important to the local community? Sub questions:
Are there things for people of different ages to do?
Comments:
Do community events happen here?
Comments: Not really. It would be good to see more things for children and adults happening here.
Do you do lots of different things in the space?
Comments: Not really. There are things to do, like using the play ground or playing ball games, but there are not many things to do, or activities.
Does the space help you to be physically healthy?
Comments: Quite. You can run around, play crickets and ball games and use the play ground. We would like to see more organised activities here.
Can you learn anything new here?
Comments: “You don’t really learn that much in this park”. The park is not challenging, like other parks we sometimes go to. Other Comments: “I would like to see more events in the park” Session 4: Inspirational Park Visit, 8th July 2011
54
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Aim: To give children an opportunity to experience other parks in their local area and to examine different design features. Outcomes:
Children given a comprehensive view of the facilities provided in the parks in the local area
Children able to gain inspiration for their local park
Site 1: Holland Park Points of interest‐ Open Space, Nature Trail, Adventure Playground, Art Work and Sculptures, Planting Schemes Observations: 6 of the children in the group have visited Holland Park before, with one of the group regularly attending and knowing the park very well. On arrival they immediately became excited by the condition of the space and how well it was cared for. They enjoyed the trees and running around them, and were talking about what games they play with trees. Unfortunately the Japanese Garden, which usually provides inspiration for relaxing spaces, was closed for renovation. However, we were able to discuss why relaxation in parks was important and what would help a person to feel relaxed. The children commented that seating, water and plants were important contributing factors. The children spent a very long‐time in the Nature Trail which opened last year, which consisted of fallen logs, loose branches, walk ways and dens. They spent a long time in the area and played as a whole group on many occasions. Children also went off in small groups and engaged themselves in activities such as den building and log walking challenges. Children fed back that they enjoyed the challenge of the area and the apparent “danger” it posed, whilst being safe!
55
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 We spent some time looking at sculptures and art features around the park, and discussed what they liked about it. The children thought sculptures that were related to the space, gave it an identity and thought of lots of ways to originally represent the word “Wormholt”. They also enjoyed the flowers, which were in full bloom, very much. The adventure playground was well‐received, but all agreed that the playground to the magnitude of Holland Park would not be suitable in Wormholt Park. The equipment that proved most popular was equipment where children could play in groups, like the large tyre swing and “Spider Web”. Comments: What did you like? “I liked the rockets, also tyre swings” “I loved the pretty flowers” “I liked the peacocks and the nature garden best. Also the beautiful red blossomy trees” “I liked the nature walk” “I really liked the junior playground” “I liked the play areas, shade, statues, logs, flowers and pinecones” “I loved the nature resort [meaning area]” What did you NOT like? “”The pathway because there is stuff on the floor kids can fall on [sic]” “I didn’t like the muddy bit” “I did not like some of the grass, and the poo and smell and dirty stuff” “I did not like the sand place and I always go there to play and I have to take my shoes and socks, and when I have to go home, I always have to clean my feet and when I walk my socks are sandy” “Nothing!”
56
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Site 2: Wormwood Scrubs Points of interest: Large pieces of natural play Observations: On the Old Oak Lane side of Wormwood Scrubs are 6 pieces of large play equipment, which are designed for challenging group play, and are all wooden and can be classed as Natural Play. We were very keen for the children to experience this play as it differs greatly from their experiences of play in their local parks. Whilst the equipment is with 2 miles of their school and homes, none of the children had visited this area before. The play equipment caused a lot of excitement. They thought it was dangerous to begin with and many children took a while to get their confidence up, thinking that the equipment was broken or about to fall over! Once they began playing, they were very engaged in the play experience. Comments: What did you like? “I like the see‐saw. It looked like you were exercising and it was like you were getting fit” “The free running space to run around” What did you NOT like? “I did not like the three bouncing things. It was kind of broken and it looked dangerous if you fell” “The poo and the mud” “It’s next to the prison” Site 3: Roundwood, Harlesden Points of interest: Bird Avery, Flowers, Café, Trim Trail, Fallen logs, basketball courts, mounds.
57
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Observations: The children appreciated the wide expanses of grass to run around and enjoyed the undulating landscape. They enjoyed walking around and climbing on the fallen logs. The basketball courts excited the children, although they think that multi‐use games areas are more use to children. The immaculate flower beds were appreciated by the children, but didn’t like the fact you were not allowed to walk on the grass. They enjoyed bird aviary, and spent a long time identifying birds. Concerns for the birds’ safety were expressed should something similar be put in Wormholt Park, and many did not like to see the caged birds. All children played on the Trim Trail/assault course and they enjoyed challenging each other and forfeiting those that fell or got mud in certain areas. We ate lunch in the café, and the general view was that whilst it is a nice place to go it was not something that would be appropriate for Wormholt Park. Comments: What did you like? “I liked the flowers and the views” “The flowers which attract people to enter” “The view and the colours” “I liked everything” “I like the flowers, trees and the beautiful wet green grass” What did you NOT like? “The different animals that were kept in the cage but not let free” “I did not like the grass because it was slippery”
58
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 “The long walk” “I did not like the inside of the bird house. I saw a bird fighting with another bird” “I did not like the Trim trail because it was really slippery and it was not fun. They could put more in to make it exciting” Site 4: Little Wormwood Scrubs Points of interest‐ Dog toilet, Nature Trail, Adult Gym, Adventure Playground. Little Wormwood Scrubs was by far the most popular choice of park, mainly due to the (council run) adventure playground. The group took great interest in the dog toilet and most thought this would work well in Wormholt Park, although many wondered about how welcome the smell of it would be. The adult gym, whilst amusing, was something that quite a few children thought their parents would use, if not themselves. The smaller nature trail was of little interest to children, but this could be due to the comparisons made between this and the adventure playground and also the nature trail in Holland Park. What did you like? “I loved the run and catch game” “Everything was fun” “All the things you can do there” “I like the big slides and the swings” “I like the very long swings and the red bridge that looked very scary” What did you NOT like? “Nothing” “I did not like the table tennis” “Play area, fresh grass, trees, fun stuff, plants, shade” “I did not like the two top stages because it didn’t have any colour and it looked boring” “The stench of dog poo
59
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Feedback from students as a result of the Inspirational trip: Which was you favourite Park and why? Little Wormwood Scrubs: “Because it has space that you can walk your dog and a place that your children can play” “Because it was just fun” “Because its really fun and playful and you can relax, and when its raining someone comes out o dry it” “Because it was fun to play there” “Because it has new games to play” “Because it has lots of things to do and a big slide” “Because there’s more of different things kids and adults can have fun a. It’s clean “because dogs have their own toilet area” Holland Park: “Because it was amazing and the park was very good” Full versions of a selection of Surveys can be found in Appendix 4 Conclusion: The group thoroughly enjoyed the visit and it gave them a really good idea not only of what they want to see in Wormholt Park, but also what facilities are available for them in the local area. Session 5: Inspirational trip follow up and concluding session. 11th July 2011 Aims:
To draw together thoughts from inspirational park visits
To help children to make recommendations about Wormholt Park
Outcomes:
Recommendations from children
60
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 This session was designed to help children create an idea of their idea park. Using inspirational images, standard park images, and photos taken throughout the project, children created their ideal park. First we started off thinking about what makes a good park. (Ideas below) What makes a good park?
Good Play areas
Open space
To run around in
Play ball games
Relax
Walk dogs
Have picnics
No dog poo
Benches
Flowers and plants
Clear signs
Activities going on in the holidays
A café
Art and sculpture
Things for all ages
Sports
What would you like to see in Wormholt Park and why?
“Ponds, new sings, big slides and an area full of sand. Because we need ponds so ducks can go in…We new swings because the old swings don’t go that high. We need big slides because the old ones are too little”
“I want a café and a swing and catch game [as seen in Little Wormwood Scrubs, so people can really enjoy it”
“A table tennis court‐ even if people don’t know how to play, they will get used to it. Slides‐little kids love slides, so it’s good to see them playing on it.
61
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 Children’s log adventure‐Children find going on logs hard. If they do it, they will find it easy. Different types of flowers‐people get attracted by flowers, so people can come often”.
“Table Tennis and everything in Little Wormwood Scrubs”
“Two big slides, the zoom thing [zip wire] and the swing. Because the slide is so big, and zoom thing because it goes fast and the net swing because you can lie down”
“The swing and catch game because when we played it we all enjoyed it and had a lot of fun”
“Two big slides and net swing. Because children might find it fun and exciting”
“A fun play area like a big slide and a climbing area and a pond and a café. I would like to see more flowers and relaxing place and a little place for babies and children. Adults and children can have fun too”.
Some ideas from “my ideal park” activity: “We need a water fountain to keep us hydrated after we play” “We need toilets for little children and dogs” “I want to see Wormholt Park cleaner and more fun! I want to see flowers, lot of grass and a nice football pitch” “Water Fountain. We need it because if you forget your drink you can get it” “The café was good” “A dog toilet is a good thing because the park won’t be dirty” “Wormholt is an exciting place, but there’s a big open space so these are ideas for that space: We need a café so people can eat, drink and chat. We also need food plants and crops” “We can have lots of different slides for them to play. We can have long slides or short slides, some for big and older people, and short slides for small people” “I want everyone to say how good this park is” “Adults need a little playground for keeping fit”
62
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 ‘My Ideal Park’ posters can be found in Appendix 5 Next we asked them Question 8 from the survey, ‘How Important do you consider the improvement of the features listed?’ 5 most important considerations:
Toilets
Bins
Kiosk/Cafe
Paths
Drinking fountain
Completed surveys can be found in Appendix 6
63
How im porta nt do you conside r the im prove m e nts of
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2 011 the fe a ture s liste d? V ery important
Quite important 0
Not very important
2
4
6
More play provision f or under 5s More play provision f or 5-8 years More play provision f or 8-13 years
Would not w ant
8
10
12
14
8 5 0 0 6 7 0 0 8 4 1
Y outh provision (e.g. youth shelter, skate
0 9 3 0 1
Outdoor f itness equipment
10 3 0 0 4
A pond 3
4 2
More f low ers/shrubs/trees
8 5 0 0 9
Food grow ing spaces 2 1 1 3
Walled garden
7 3 A rtw ork/sculpture/w ater f eature/ Mounds or hills
0 9 3 1 0 8
Grassland/law n 4 0 1
11
Paths 1 1 0 8
Lighting 4 0 0
12
Bins 0 0 0 11
Drinking f ountain 2 More dog exercise areas
0 0 9 4 0 0 10
More dog f ree space 3 0 0
12
A kiosk/caf é 0 1 0
13
Toilets 0 0 0
64
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 f) SAFE (Shepherds Bush, Activities For Everyone) holiday programme at Phoenix High School In the first 3 weeks of the summer holidays, The Metropolitan Police hold a summer sports holiday programme for young people at Phoenix High School. The programme is for local children aged 8‐16, and so therefore provided a perfect opportunity for us to talk to this age group about Wormholt Park, and how they use it. Because it was summer holidays, it would have been inappropriate to carry out a project similar to that of Canberra Primary School. Instead we held sessions with groups that were casual conversation about what they thought of the park. Out of the 17 children we spoke to, only 6 children visited the park, with 11 never going. The most citied reason for not visiting the park were because it is not near their home, and all the children questioned would not travel to go to a park‐ they only used the ones local to them. Other reasons were that they found it unsafe; it wasn’t well‐lit at night and the threat of gangs. They also said that dangerous dogs and mess was an issue. Of those that visited the park for Sports and Relaxation was the most cited reason for going there. The suggestions for improvement, again was predominantly practical improvements, such as lighting, dog only areas and toilets. They felt that better playgrounds would not make them use it any more, because they would only ever go to the play parks that were close to them.
65
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 g) Conclusion of No Particular Place to Go The No Particular Place to Go element of the Wormholt Park consultation gave us an excellent insight into the way the park is viewed by the children and a formal and structured way to listen to the suggestions on improvements to the park in order for it to better suit their needs. The project was successful in assisting children in taking and interest in, and responsibility for their local area and community. Children were given the opportunity to look at their community from a different perspective and in doing so, became more respectful and understanding of the way their community functions. In working with the young people we discovered that they need to feel safe and comfortable in order to use a park. They want the park to be better lit, and to more secure and better maintained. Practicalities such as a drinking fountain and toilets were high on their list of priorities. All children agreed that better play facilities are needed. Whilst they felt relatively satisfied with the sporting facilities, they felt the play facilities needed to be improved. Large pieces of adventurous play equipment were the most desired, including tyres and swinging equipment.
66
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011
7. Conclusion In carrying out the consultation on Wormholt Park, Groundwork London employed a number of methods to get as clear a picture as possible of how the local community wants to see the park improved to better suit their needs. Whilst we were not able to gather the opinions of all the park users and non park users in the area surrounding, we feel this report adequately represents the majority view of the park and the current problems and suggestions for improvements based on the responses we were able to access. The consultation has shown that Wormholt Park is a well used and important part of the Wormholt and White city area of Hammersmith and Fulham. Whilst there are a few concerns about the park, it is clear that Wormholt Park has great potential for improvement. There is also clear support from those we engaged with for improvements to the park to take place. The views that we gathered showed the main concerns surrounding the park are based around security and maintenance. The lack of adequate lighting and hidden areas means that is viewed by some as an unsafe park. Many of the facilities are in need of repair or need to be replaced as they are broken and seen as dangerous; namely in the children’s area, broken fencing around the cricket nets, and uneven paths. Other concerns centre on dog walking in the park. This includes dog mess and intimidation from dogs (either perceived or real), and from the point of view of dog owners the dog exercise areas, which are thought of as inadequate and in need of refurbishment. The location of the Multi Use Games Area is also a concern for those living directly behind this area, due to noise and balls going into gardens which cause disturbances.
67
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 In terms of improvements, three main areas emerged as important; improvements to play areas and the creation of better children facilities, improvement of planting and lawns, and better amenities, including lighting, bins and signage. Inclusivity should be paramount in development plans. The consensus was that residents want the park to remain a ‘local park, for local people’. It is suggested that more community events, activities for young people which help them learn to use the facilities appropriately, and liaison with local schools will achieve this. Current and future development in the local area also needs to be taken into consideration. The new Primary Care Trust building, which is currently in its early stage of construction, should be taken into consideration when planning improvements to the park. The very nature of the building, one that is centred on health and well‐being, will change the nature of the park, and increase the amount of people using the park as they wait for their appointments. The residential nature of the building will mean that more people will overlook the park. With sensitive planning, responding to the needs of local people and listening to their views, Groundwork London is positive that Wormholt Park can become a well‐ used and valued park for years to come. With special thanks to: Les Jackson (White City), Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum, Friends of Wormholt Park (Bob Still, Lorraine Caie, Niniola Adetuberu, Cat Moulton, Garry McMillan), Rob Kelly, Stefan Czeladzinski, Pauline McCormack (LBHF), Sylvie Pierce, Nicola Kingston (Inner North West London Primary Care Trusts), Hammersmith and Fulham Park Constabulary, Metropolitan Police, Harry Audley (White City Resident Association), Canberra Primary School, Wormholt Primary School, Phoenix High School and all those that responded to our survey and took time to talk to us.
68
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 8. Contact Details This report was written by Amy Lee, Community Programmes Manager at Groundwork London (West). Groundwork London is one of a federation of around 40 Groundwork Trusts operating in the UK. We are a charity providing environmental regeneration in deprived areas, and have been delivering sustainable improvements to communities in London for over 20 years. Groundwork's projects cover a wide range of disciplines; from regenerating neglected land for community use to working with local businesses. We work in partnership with local councils, housing associations, tenant and resident associations, schools, community groups, voluntary organisations, regeneration agencies and the private sector to deliver our projects. By involving a wide range of local stakeholders, we work to cerate a sense of community ownership of our projects that will ensure their impact is long lasting. The Groundwork London team offers a wide range of skills and experience, including community development, landscape design and consultation. Our multi‐disciplinary and highly motivated team also contains specialists in youth work, business development, project management, marketing and fundraising. Contact Groundwork London at: 6 Stanley Gardens, London, W3 7SZ. info@groundwork.org.uk
69
Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011 9. Appendices Appendix 1: Wormholt Park Survey Appendix 2: Friend of Wormholt Park Survey Results Appendix 3: Canberra School Site Inspectors Posters Appendix 4: Canberra School Inspirational Visit Follow Up Appendix 5: Canberra School ‘My Ideal Park’
70