LLoyd and Aveling Park

Consultation Summary

The Coach House • 143 - 145 Worcester Road • Hagley • Worcestershire • DY9 0NWt: 01562 887884 • f: 01562 887087 • e: info@cfpuk.co.uk • w: cfpuk.co.ukCompany Registration Number: 4738700

London Borough of Waltham Forest

Lloyd and Aveling Park

Consultation Summary

Issue number: 1

Status: DRAFT

Date: 1.5.2009

Prepared by: H Le Geyt

Authorised by: I. Baggott

London Borough of Waltham Forest

Lloyd and Aveling Park

Consultation Summary 1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 2. A planned approach .................................................................................... 1 3. Awareness raising and feedback ................................................................ 4

3.1 Newsletter.............................................................................................. 4 3.2 Web site................................................................................................. 4 3.3 Marketing and Promotion....................................................................... 5

4. Range of consultation / awareness raising undertaken............................... 5 5. Residents / community ................................................................................ 6

5.1 Friends of Lloyd and Aveling Park ......................................................... 6 5.1.1 Task Groups.................................................................................... 6 5.1.2 Other methods used to consult the friends group............................ 7

5.2 Council Newsletter (WFM)..................................................................... 7 5.3 Events in the park .................................................................................. 7

5.3.1 User surveys at exhibitions in the park............................................ 7 5.4 Other user surveys ................................................................................ 8

5.4.1 GreenSTAT..................................................................................... 8 5.4.2 Observational Survey...................................................................... 9 5.4.3 Activities Consultation ................................................................... 10 5.4.4 Consensus Survey ........................................................................ 13

5.5 Non- User Consultation ....................................................................... 13 5.6 Design Focus Workshops.................................................................... 13 5.7 Ward Forums....................................................................................... 13 5.8 Residents Groups ................................................................................ 13

6. Minority Groups......................................................................................... 14 6.1 Focus Groups ...................................................................................... 14

6.1.1 Disabled ........................................................................................ 14 6.1.2 Non-User Families ........................................................................ 16 6.1.3 Young People (14-15) ................................................................... 16 6.1.4 Older Non-Users ........................................................................... 17 6.1.5 User Families ................................................................................ 17

6.2 Depth Interviews ............................................................................... 18 7. Internal Stakeholders/Staff ....................................................................... 19

7.1 Project Board....................................................................................... 19 7.2 Staff meetings...................................................................................... 19 7.3 Members Briefings............................................................................... 19

8. Education establishments ......................................................................... 19 8.1 Depth Interviews: ................................................................................. 19

8.1.1 Pre School..................................................................................... 19 8.1.2 Primary schools............................................................................. 20 8.1.3 Special needs school .................................................................... 20

8.2 Other Contact with local schools.......................................................... 21 8.3 Other contact with Further Education Establishments ......................... 22

9. Other stakeholders / business community................................................. 23 10 Statutory Consultees / Special Interest Groups........................................ 23

10.1 Task Groups ...................................................................................... 23 10.1.1 Inclusion, volunteers, training, activities, arts and culture ........... 24 10.1.2 Play, youth engagement, sport and schools................................ 24 10.1.3 Conservation and the environment ............................................. 24

10.2 Depth Interviews................................................................................ 25 10.2.1 Skateboarders............................................................................. 25 10.2.2 Graffiti artist................................................................................. 25

10.3 Special Interest Groups ..................................................................... 25 10.3.1 Bowling Club ............................................................................... 25 10.3.2 Skateboarders............................................................................. 26 10.3.3 Artists .......................................................................................... 26

1

1. Introduction This report sets out a summary of the awareness raising and consultation work undertaken as part of the works in the production of a Stage 2 Parks for People bid for Lloyd and Aveling Park. The document need to be read in conjunction with other stage 2 reports as the issues raised here will be picked up in other reports for example design issues will have been picked up in the overall master plan and detailed drawings, activities consultation will be picked up in the audience development plan, access issues in the access plan etc.

2. A planned approach In order to respond to issues that arose as part of the assessment for the stage 1 submission and also to maximise the consultation and engagement opportunities in the development stage, a consultation strategy was produced early in the project. This document set out what consultation had taken place at stage 1 including;

• Exhibition at the Changing Room Gallery, Lloyd Park Centre, Selbourne Walk Shopping Centre and YMCA publicised by:

o Letter to various groups/stakeholders/statutory consultees o Posters displayed in the park/libraries/leisure centres o Local newspaper articles

• Comments boards to accompany the exhibition • Questionnaire to accompany the exhibition • Questionnaire for Selbourne Walk Shopping Centre • Workshops

It further described how consultation would be planned linking in to the various documents and designs that needed to be produced for the stage 2 submission which included: A - Evidence of community involvement and developing the project to stage 2 B – Information about visitors and non-visitors to the park C – Audience Development Plan including ‘part 4’ action plans D – Training Plan including ‘parts E & F’ E – Volunteer Action Plan J – Evidence of community and specialist support N – 10 Year Management and Maintenance Plan Key consultation opportunities were identified and mapped to explore which issues were best targeted at which audiences / stakeholders and this is represented in the diagram below.

2

Beyond the initial planning regular consultation team meetings were held to help co-ordinate activities across all involved and also to share findings as they emerged and address any issues as they arose.

3

4

3. Awareness raising and feedback A key part of the stage 2 process was to try to raise awareness of the project with groups and individuals who may have not previously been consulted and also to ensure those individuals and organisations who took part received appropriate feedback on their contributions. 3.1 Newsletter One method of achieving this was to develop a project newsletter distributed to people who expressed an interest in being kept informed and also in the local community. It was designed to be a pull-out of the WFM publication which is the council’s free magazine delivered to all the houses of the borough (see section 5.2). However the first newsletter was delivered as a stand-alone newsletter to Waltham Forest Direct Shops (x4), libraries (x10), council buildings (x3), park buildings and stakeholders e.g. café, William Morris Gallery and bowls clubs. Two editions of the newsletter have been produced including the following features:

1. Dec 08 – 4 page centre spread – Introduction, project update, masterplan update, Friends update, programme and further information, how to get involved, ‘Friends of Lloyd Park back the proposals’.

2. Feb 09 – 1 page update – exhibition update, notification of planning application and how to comment.

In addition, there is another newsletter to follow in June:

3. June 09 – 2 page- consensus check, final proposals and masterplan, opportunities to comment, project champion’s statement, progress report.

3.2 Web site The LBWF website was also used to provide regular updates and progress on the project and was an excellent media for displaying plans, sketches and illustrations of the proposals as well as providing a good means for feedback. The following are the promotional methods used to ensure that the website reached a sufficiently wide audience:

• Publicity in WFM newsletters and in all consultation correspondence (which included mail outs via e mail / letter to residents on mailing lists and stakeholders).

• It was also mentioned in individual responses to consultation enquiries.

5

• It was listed at the end of the consultation questionnaire (which was at the café and sent out electronically in response to individual requests).

• No post cards/fliers were produced but WFM newsletters were displayed in the park, at One-Stop shops and at the William Morris Gallery;

A formal e-newsletter will be developed, but during Stage 2 development, it has consisted of regular consultation/development updates. The current number of people on this mailing list is 426. 3.3 Marketing and Promotion A communications plan has been developed and there have been 3 communications meetings. There will be one more meeting in the near future.

4. Range of consultation / awareness raising undertaken The development phase of the project has seen a considerable emphasis placed upon engaging with the broadest possible audience to ensure that a consensus is developed around the proposals. The table below illustrates the range of target groups and how the consultation was undertaken. Audience Method Residents / community (see section 5) Project newsletter (see above)

Council website (see above) Friends of Lloyd and Aveling Park Task Groups WFM (council newsletter) Events in the park including:

• User surveys at exhibitions at the park

Other user surveys including • GreenStat • Observational surveys • Activities consultation • Consensus Survey

Non user surveys Ward Forum Residents Groups Design focus workshops

Minority groups (see section 6) Focus groups aimed at hard to reach groups including:

• minority ethnic groups • young people • elderly • people with disabilities

Depth interviews Internal Stakeholders/Staff (see section 7)

Project Board Staff meetings

6

Members Briefings Education establishments (see section 8)

Depth Interviews with local schools: Primary Special Needs FE / HE providers Other school meeting Other meeting with Further Education Establishments

Other stakeholders / business community (see section 9)

Stakeholder group meetings Depth interviews: Tourism

Statutory Consultees / special interest groups (see section 10)

Task Groups Depth interviews: Skateboarders and Graffiti Artists Special Interest Groups: Bowling Club Skateboarders Artists

5. Residents / community 5.1 Friends of Lloyd and Aveling Park The friends group has been consulted in the following ways: 5.1.1 Task Groups Members of the Lloyd and Aveling Park Friends Group are involved in the task groups run by Sarah Reid (LBWF Development Programme Manager) which were originally set up to enable Stage 2 detailed consultation on the designs and other HLF plans with experts/people with particular interests. The groups include:

• Play, Youth Engagement, Sports and Schools • Conservation and the Environment • Inclusion, Volunteers, Training, Activities, Arts and Culture.

The group conducted an internal consultation of their members to develop ideas for improving Lloyd and Aveling Park through the task groups. This was conducted on 9th July 2008 at their AGM. Further information on the contribution of these task groups can be found in section 10 below Statutory Consultees / Special Interest Groups.

7

5.1.2 Other methods used to consult the friends group

• A special evening meeting was organised for all the friends • All wider consultation opportunities were advertised to them • Chair and secretary are on the Project board • Ellie Mortimer of LBWF attends their committee meetings • LBWF has individual meetings with the Chair

In addition the group will be filling out an activities questionnaire as part of their meeting to decide on their future remit/activities. 5.2 Council Newsletter (WFM) WFM is a fortnightly publication with a circulation of over 110,000, distributed to every household within the borough and also available at Waltham Forest Direct Shops. For consultation purposes it has been used to display contact details to encourage local residents to attend the project exhibitions and email responses to the redevelopment plans. See section 5.5.1 for how this was used as part of the user survey consultation. In addition, as mentioned previously, a pull out project newsletter relating to the redevelopment of the park has been attached to 4 of the WFM editions (see section 3.1). The following editorial features were also included:

• Stage 1 pass • Appointment of Plincke • End of design consultation period • Successful planning application.

These were designed by Plincke and LBWF Green Space, with advice from LBWF communications team. 5.3 Events in the park 5.3.1 User surveys at exhibitions in the park Two consultation sessions were organised to provide people of the community served by Lloyd and Aveling Park a chance to view the redevelopment plans and then fill out a survey to register their views. The first session was held at the William Morris Gallery on 4th December 2008 and then has been held subsequently at the Horizon Café as an on going event. There was also a staffed session on a Saturday afternoon (with Ellie Mortimer and Sarah Reid of LBWF). A link on the council’s website also allows the viewing of plans and the opportunity to download the user survey and submit it electronically. In addition to providing the surveys, post- it notes were also made available at the consultation events for community members who preferred to contribute their feedback in a briefer format.

8

The council has also provided various opportunities to email responses to the redevelopment plans. Contact details have been displayed at the consultation sessions, through the council’s free magazine (WFM) and on the website. All emails have been saved and collated to include in the survey data. The results of this consultation have been recorded in a separate report. However the main themes that can be picked out of the qualitative responses include:

• Great concern at the plan to knock down the indoor theatre to create an outdoor performance space. Many expressed very strong views against this. The main reasons were that the British weather is not good enough to put on many outdoor performances and the space would be wasted, the noise may affect local residents and also that there is no other indoor theatre or cinema in the local area;

• Fear that the children’s play areas will be very small and a reduction from what they have now, not serving the needs of the local community.

• A significant amount of respondents feel that priority has been given to bowling facilities over space for children’s play.

• There is significant support for play areas for different age groups and for incorporating informal play spaces and natural play features;

• There is also general support for improvement of the skate park for teenagers;

• A significant amount of replies called for the toilet facilities to be made independent of the café so that they are available for as long as the park is open;

• Concern that established plants and trees will be removed for aesthetic purposes even if there is nothing wrong with them;

• The aviary appears to be a valued feature of the park and the majority of respondents feel that it should be kept or improved for the benefit of children;

• The general view was that the ‘fields’ part of the park is a little out of the way and should be made to be an area of interest;

• A significant amount of those surveyed feel that parking should be improved;

• Improvements in lighting and fencing were mentioned several times in the survey responses;

• Respondents would like to see more staff on site to make the park feel more secure;

5.4 Other user surveys 5.4.1 GreenSTAT GreenSTAT is a visitor survey system, which records users' views of their local parks and green spaces. The GreenSTAT questionnaires were sent to residents in the local wards (all households within 10 minutes of the park).

9

The GreenSTAT website was also promoted at the end of the deign consultation, on signs at the café exhibition and on the LBWF website. 913 responses were received between May 2006 and August 2008 and the results are represented in full in the Audience Development Plan. However the following information contains some of the key findings:

• 82% visit more than three times a year, a further 12% between two and three times a year;

• 98% travel from home and 96% walk to the Park; • 4% of respondents had a disability; • In the winter (both weekdays and weekends) most people spend up to

an hour in the Park; • In the summer people stay longer (up to two hours); • 27% come alone, 41% in a group; • For those in a group, 43% come with their partners, 38% with children,

20% with other family members and 30% with friends; • Most people come for the peace and quiet and to get some fresh air; • Other most popular reasons for visiting were cited as visiting the

William Morris Gallery (36%) visiting the Exhibition Gallery (25%), exercise (16%) and sport (12%);

5.4.2 Observational Survey The Observational Survey was conducted by a team of volunteers, under the supervision of London Borough of Waltham Forest’s Community Project Officer. It was conducted from the 1st September 2008 until 3rd April 2009 and took samples across weekdays and weekends at all times of day, from 8.00am until 5.00pm. During this period 4,206 individuals were observed who were recorded once and the activity they were engaged in at the time. The results of this survey can be found Audience Development Plan, although the following points represent some of the main findings:

• 18% of people were alone; • 82% were in groups; • 1.17% of visitors (49 people) had a visible disability.

In addition, the observers recorded the activity that the person was engaged in when they first saw them:

Activity Percentage Actual number

Walking 38.23 1604 Playing 19.26 808 Football 6.34 266 Walking the dog 6.01 252 Sitting on a bench 4.79 201 Hanging out 4.15 174 Cycling 3.10 130 Jogging 2.74 115

10

Outside cafe 2.41 101 Basketball 1.81 76 Tennis 1.93 81 Bowling 1.64 69 Misc 1.41 59 Feeding ducks 1.53 64 School trip 0.98 41 Picnic 0.91 38 Skating 0.86 36 Lloyd Park Centre 0.41 17 William Morris Gallery 0.24 10 Drinking 0.12 5

Conclusions The following bullet points summarise the key points from the different surveys, building up a profile of users.

• Most users live within 15 minutes of the Park; • Most arrive on foot, but a significant number drive; • Most visit more than three times a year; • Most people come in groups, but a significant number come

alone; • The ethnicity of users follows the profile of the 15 minute

catchment area, but Black British groups are under-represented; • People aged between 40 and 74 and over 75 are under-

represented, compared to the profile of the 15 minute walk catchment area;

• Children under 16 are over-represented amongst users, compared to the 15 minute walk catchment area;

• Disabled people are under-represented amongst users; • Women are under-represented, in comparison to the 15 minute

walk profile; • The most popular reason to use the Park is for walking, relaxing

and playing. 5.4.3 Activities Consultation Produced initially as a template for when council officers first met with community groups, it was not designed specifically to generate information for the lottery bid, but as an ongoing tool for audience development work. In addition, from April 2009 onwards the original user survey questionnaire, used at the exhibition at the Horizon Café, was replaced with the activities questionnaire. As well as the general responses, there were two targeted questionnaires at older and younger people.

11

5.4.3.1 Young people The questionnaire was filled in on behalf of the 3rd Walthamstow Scout Group. The Group used the Park for football, rounders and general sports activities on a Friday evening, but stopped doing so because the children were being approached by gangs of older children demanding money and mobile telephones. The activities that the Scout Group would be most interested in participating in were:

• Sports activities; • Educational activities, such as achieving Scout badges; • Skills workshops, such as painting, willow weaving.

5.4.3.2 Older people The questionnaire about activities was filled in by older people living in local housing trust accommodation (Circle 33 Housing). Below is a summary of their joint response: The activities they most commonly did in the Park were bowling, walking their dogs and attending one off events, such as the Jazz Festival or volunteering to plant bulbs in the Park (organised by the Friends of Lloyd Park). However, many did not use the Park at all because of mobility problems. The residents were interested in participating in were:

• Guided walks about history or nature of the Park; • health walks; • conservation activities; • sports activities; • social activities; • gardening.

They suggested the following additional activities:

• Woodcraft (e.g. bird boxes); • outdoor gym equipment for older people; • bowling; • archery; • Tai Chi; • gardening (advice on window boxes, food growing, composting).

None of them felt equipped to organise any of the above activities, but would be happy to help out.

12

Their barriers to participation included transport, noisy school children and hospital appointments meant that it was difficult to sign up to regular activities. One off and drop in events suited them best. 5.4.3.3 Local residents These forms were filled in by people coming to see the exhibition about the proposed plans in the gallery as the initial user survey that was based around design issues was replaced by the activities survey. 29 forms were completed. Most respondents (30%) use the Park for walking, relaxation and for the peace and quiet, 22% for play and for a range of sporting activities. Other activities included attending the theatre and William Morris Gallery, attending events, using the café, skateboarding, visiting the Aviary and feeding the ducks. When asked which activities they would be interested in:

11% expressed an interest in guided walks; 7.6% in health walks; 8.5% in sport; 12% in conservation activities; 13.6% in cultural activities; 9.4% in school holiday activities; 12% in creative and skills workshops; 5.1% in social activities; 11% in gardening activities; 9.4% in becoming a volunteer.

Other specific ideas they had for activities included:

• Summer learning courses; • Tai Chi and Yoga; • drama workshops; • cycling group; • athletics.

Many people expressed an interest in organising and helping with these activities and there is clearly a reservoir of skills on the Park’s doorstep, which include wildlife expertise, gardening and horticultural skills, conservation expertise, photography skills. There were people interested in setting up a pre-school playgroup with social networking, another who wanted to be involved in the design of the play area and someone else who wanted to organise health and fitness regimes. There were also plenty of explicit offers of help at events and for gardening. The two barriers that stood out that prevented people from using the Park more often were parking and security. For the latter, many people cited a feeling of unease when gangs of children were in the Park and most wanted

13

to see more Park staff visible. Other barriers cited was poor maintenance, poor information about availability of sports facilities and lack of events and activities to attract them to visit. In addition, the activities questionnaire has also been used to gather information from Task Group attendees. See section 11. 5.4.4 Consensus Survey As advised by HLF, a consensus survey will be performed with 200 people both on site and off site to gather further evidence on the levels of satisfaction around the latest development plans. This is planned to be carried out in July. 5.5 Non- User Consultation Consultation with non- user families in the community was performed as part of focus group work. This is described in section 6 due to ethnic minorities also being part of the make up of this group. 5.6 Design Focus Workshops The following design focus workshops have been held:

• 2 special workshops to inform the detailed designs for the play area (attended by members of the Play, Youth Engagement, Sports and Schools Task Group and the Friends committee).

• Youth Services led a project for local young skaters to visit other skate parks, interview users and produce mood boards. These were presented to Plincke and LBWF in a meeting with young skaters and youth services (details in ADP). There will be more consultation with young skaters, if LBWF is successful in the bid (at which point detailed designs for skate park will be drawn up).

• 2 workshops regarding the William Morris Gallery gardens with Friends of William Morris Gallery, LBWF Conservation Officer and WMG staff, LBWF Green Spaces, Friends of Lloyd Park and Interpretation Consultant.

5.7 Ward Forums The Head of Green Spaces attended the Community Council meeting to discuss the plans for the park. 5.8 Residents Groups The following are the ways in which residents groups have been consulted:

• Residents have been invited to all general consultation opportunities. • A meeting was held with the Friends of Lloyd Park (11th March 09) to

enable them to view the new consultation exhibition and ask questions. Their contribution to the Stage 2 bid was also discussed.

14

• A special mail out was conducted to neighbouring streets notifying them of the updated exhibition. Winns Terrace residents also received detailed information about the proposals for the theatre and outdoor performance space (operations and type of events outlined).

• The authority also respond to individual enquiries from resident’s groups.

6. Minority Groups 6.1 Focus Groups A range of targeted work has taken place to consult with and engage typically hard to reach groups. As such, five focus groups were arranged with a range of users and non-users of Lloyd and Aveling Park. They included:

• Disabled • Non – user families • Local user and non-user young people (Year 10) • Local non-user older people • User families

The inclusion of ethnic minorities was achieved across the range of focus groups, rather than running a separate one. All groups discussed:

• Preferred leisure activities; • General impressions of the Park; • Park activities; • Barriers to entry; • Response to the proposed development; • Effective communication.

In addition to this, Ellie Mortimer of the London Borough of Waltham Forest did an introductory tour and or talk for each group, outlining the development plans for the Park. The following describes each session and the key issues raised: 6.1.1 Disabled A workshop was arranged at Lloyd and Aveling Park to meet local disabled people to talk about their access needs at the Park. The session was led by specialist access consultant, Phil Chambers. Although a wide number of individuals and local organisations were invited to attend the workshop there was a disappointing response on the day with only June Bretherton and David Whitehead, local residents and highly respected inclusive design consultants in attendance outside of the project team.

15

The workshop took the form of a ‘walk and talk’ session around the Park, discussing the key access issues. The key issues to emerge included:

• Fences and railings – It was felt that the railings and fences do not provide a welcoming Park environment;

• Way marking. There is some way-marking in the Park, but it was felt that a clear concise and consistent system should be introduced. The main way-marking is to be found near to the Museum, but it is not provided at other gateways to Lloyd Park;

• Tactile plan. A tactile plan of the Park should be provided at the main entrance to assist people with a range of impairments to orientate and navigate on their own terms around the Park. A tactile plan that meets a range of sensory needs was recommended;

• Vehicles. There was some concern that during the visit there were several vehicles, official and non-official in the Park. Also some dogs were allowed to run around off lead;

• Undulating paths. Tree root damage is main cause of most of the undulation in the paths and damaged tarmac. Although these issues will be addressed during the development plan, the consensus was that the uneven surfaces are part and parcel of a Park environment and providing that the paths are safe then it is acceptable. The Park is relatively level and most paths are more then two metres wide;

• Accessible parking. It was felt that additional accessible parking might be provided and that opportunities for providing blue badge parking bays exist at Brettenham Road;

• Adventure playground. There appears to be new play equipment in the adventure playground and although the equipment is very bright and welcoming the designs are “no where near inclusive”. There is little low level equipment and no ramped access onto the apparatus. There is an opportunity to produce multi-sensory play equipment including sound enhanced and tactile play equipment;

• Unofficial gateways. It was felt that the new schemes provide an opportunity to improve some of the unofficial gateways into the Park and improve the quality of the paths along desire lines which cut across the grass;

• Events and activities. Both June and David felt that there has been good marketing to disabled people and their advocacy organisations by the Council regarding Park events and this has encouraged many people with impairments to attend. David made the point that this would be further enhanced by providing a volunteer recruitment scheme with an assurance that event volunteers would receive disability awareness training. June made the point that there are schools in nearby Newham where children with visual impairments are always seeking opportunities to visit Parks and that outreach work should occur to engage people with a mix of impairments in the Park’s leisure and recreational programmes;

• Key gateway. The poor quality of access at the Bedford Road Car Park was identified. The Council has recently introduced a parking charge,

16

free to blue badge users, but the bays are not clearly marked out and the access ramp is obscured. The entrance into the Park is through a dark and shadowy path and there is not a dropped kerb once in the Park. Additional blue badge parking is proposed in the future next to the Museum, but this is not yet available. It was felt that the car park should be redesigned to meet the needs of disabled visitors.

6.1.2 Non-User Families A focus group session for local non – user adults with at least one dependent child living at home was run on 4th March by Emma Courtney of Courtney Consulting. The group included two Muslim women and two Black Caribbean women. Two of the women had severely disabled children as well as able bodied children. They were given a tour of the Park prior to the discussion. The key points gleaned from the session were: • Outrage at the theatre going – as an open air venue is completely

impractical for the climate here and getting rid of the theatre means having to travel a long way for an alternative.

• The museum is too imposing and needs more welcoming signs etc • More facilities for disabled children which can be as easy as extra

harnesses on swings and better play surfaces. • Use churches as a way to communicate with families especially BME

groups. • Feeling safe is an important priority. • Overall the audience were pleasantly surprised at what the park had to

offer but they had not been to date because the offer had not been communicated to them and in the case of the disabled families there is not much other than a walk.

6.1.3 Young People (14-15) The focus group session for young people of 14- 15 years old was run on 4th March by Emma Courtney. It consisted of Year 10 pupils from Frederick Bremer School (Waltham Forest) were invited to attend a discussion group held at their school. 12 pupils took part, a mix of male and female students and ethnicities. The main issues emerging from this session were: • Safety-with 4 out of the 10 having been mugged in the park • They wanted to see CCTV and less places to hide; • They hoped that the new performance space would cater for things like

concerts they could attend; • They felt the moat was disgusting and needed cleaning up; • They also felt the quality of the cafe offering was very low; • They wanted to see the tennis courts significantly improved and some

football facilities in the field areas; • They had little interest in the gallery;

17

• They were interested in being kept up to date with events relevant to them through text messaging;

• They felt the bowling greens were important for their future; • They were particularly keen on seeing some sort of outdoor gym

equipment installed or an adventure playground; • They did state they’d be interested in volunteering and all gave their email

addresses; 6.1.4 Older Non-Users A group of local non-user older people aged over 65 years were recruited to attend a discussion group led by Emma Courtney. Eight respondents, a mixture of males and females and ethnicities, took part and were given a talk through the proposals prior to the discussion. Recruitment stated that they weren’t to have used the park within the last two years or more but some of the group had used it a lot when they were younger. The following summarises the main issues raised in this session: • Safety did come up but interestingly was not as big an issue as for the

other groups; • Visible park wardens were considered to be desirable; • The loss of the theatre was deemed a missed opportunity as it could have

been a meeting place for the elderly involved in clubs; • A good quality, reasonably priced cafe with clean toilets is of importance to

pensioners in the park; • It was suggested that those with failing eye sight should be catered for

with large type signs and a sensory garden; • Good parking and transport links are also important; • The free paper appears to be a popular method for the elderly to gain

information on local facilities/events; • There was enthusiasm for volunteering and all gave contact details. 6.1.5 User Families A group of local user adults, with at least one dependent child living at home, were recruited to attend a discussion group led by Emma Courtney. Thirteen respondents took part with a mix of males and females and ethnicities. All were given a talk through the development proposals prior to the discussion. The main issues raised were: • Their views from previous consultation had not been acknowledged or

incorporated to date; • Concern that the entire project is being led around the premise of not

knocking down the artists’ studios as the council is keeping those that would shout the loudest happy rather than taking a design led best practice approach;

• Confusion as to why the pine trees were being moved and how that could be justified;

18

• Feel strongly against losing a tennis court which they insist the current plans imply;

• Feel that the new play area is actually smaller and want to see more concrete plans about this;

• Want to see segregation of areas for different age groups with an range of equipment for the age groups from very young to teenagers;

• Strongly in favour of a dedicated park warden and CCTV; • The group feel that a ‘decent’ cafe would make a fortune and would be

used as a meeting point; • More events such as opera would be welcomed; • Tighter restrictions on dogs was considered important; • The group would like to see bigger notice boards in the park keeping them

up to date on upcoming family activities; • Using schools as a way of communicating forthcoming events would be a

good idea; 6.2 Depth Interviews Depth interviews also were carried out with individuals who represented specialist audiences and other key audiences for whom a focus group was difficult to convene. Those interviews were conducted by consultants and by LBWF project officers: 6.2.1 People with disabilities Two meetings were held with Disability Action Waltham Forest and also with two people who are visually impaired from JBC London, an access consultancy. Disability Action Waltham Forest and JBC London examined the plans and made many suggestions for improvements. They stressed the need to make all areas and all activities accessible to everyone; the need for consultation and involvement and suggested many examples of best practice. Specific recommendations are listed in the Audience Development Plan.

19

7. Internal Stakeholders/Staff 7.1 Project Board The Project Board meets once monthly and includes LBWF staff and councillors, Plincke, friend’s group representatives (Chair and Secretary), park stakeholder representatives (bowling groups, Lloyd Park Centre) partner representatives (Waltham Forest College, William Morris Gallery). The representation on the board was broadened following feedback from HLF. At the meetings Task Group representatives present their briefs, concerns and wishes. 7.2 Staff meetings LBWF Green Space has regular team meetings at which the redevelopment project is discussed and issues raised. 7.3 Members Briefings LBWF Green Space provides regular briefings to Council Members regarding the progress and issues involved in the redevelopment work.

8. Education establishments 8.1 Depth Interviews: Five educational establishments were interviewed:

• Pre school: Lloyd Park Centre • Primary: Winns Primary; Roger Ascham Infants and Junior • Secondary special: Whitefield • FE: Waltham Forest College

8.1.1 Pre School The Lloyd Park Centre is a charity with 190 pupils aged from 3 months - 3 years including special needs, low income groups, travellers, new arrivals and refugees. The curriculum emphasis is on extending learning and experience through creative play. Located in the centre of Lloyd Park, it is ‘very embedded into the parks through play, walks visual and sensory exploration’. The Centre does not currently use the WMG but in 2004, a local artist-in-residence worked with children to provide ideas for a frieze now incorporated in the building. However regular contact has been maintained with the Lloyd Park Centre regarding the design for the play area and the design links with the proposed Lloyd Park Centre natural play area.

20

8.1.2 Primary schools Teachers from two primary schools within the 15 minute walk time catchment area were interviewed. Roger Ascham Infant and Primary School has 451 pupils and Winns Primary has over 700 pupils. Roger Ascham pupils represent 14 different ethnic groups who speak over 30 different languages. The largest group is White British (73). The largest single ethnic groups are Pakistani (61), Black Caribbean (44) Black Somali (38) and Turkish/Turkish Cypriot (32). Winns Primary is one of the largest primary schools in the Borough. The largest single ethnic groups are White British (134), Pakistani (76), Black Caribbean (55), Turkish/Turkish Cypriot (29), Serbian (29), Bangladeshi (21) and Black Somali (17). Both schools visit Vestry House on a regular basis, primarily for Victorian Britain and at least once a year take whole year groups to central London national museums and London Zoo. Both schools also used Lea Valley Park and Epping Forest Education Centre for science related activities. The schools particularly valued information packs and worksheets, handling sessions and talks by museum and gallery staff. Roger Ascham use the Lloyd and Aveling Park sensory garden “occasionally for environmental studies and sports”. However, Winns Primary who are located within five minutes walk of the park and who have no grassed area within the school grounds, perceive it to be “dangerous with gangs of youths hanging around the gate, drunks and bad language, especially in the summer”. The Park keepers have explicitly told them that “it’s a park not a sports ground”. Neither school currently visit William Morris Gallery. Both schools cited barriers such as “you have to pre-book”, “there’s no information”, “I had no idea that they were developing a loan box”, “we only get to hear about the changing displays (temporary exhibitions) which may or may not be relevant”, “there used to be a curator there who didn’t like school groups”, “it’s an unfriendly, precious atmosphere”, “it’s always closed” and “there’s nothing for children”. 8.1.3 Special needs school Whitefield is special school for pupils aged 11-19 with learning difficulties ranging from mild to severe autism to multi-handicaps and delayed cognitive development. It is the largest special school in the country and currently located in premises located on the edge of Aveling Fields. The curriculum is more relaxed in special schools and with the exception of sport is not taught by subject specialists, as in other secondary schools. Part of the curriculum requires pupils to go out into the community as much as possible so the William Morris Gallery, the park and café are well used.

21

Whitefield use Lloyd and Aveling Park for tennis and field sports and also uses the park for environmental studies e.g. looking at trees in autumn and use the aviary for pupils with sensory impairment. All pupils make at least one visit a year to the William Morris Gallery. Several pupils took part in a half day workshop with an artist-in-residence which was much appreciated by both staff and pupils. 8.1.4 Further / Higher Education Establishment Waltham Forest College (WFC) runs the Horizon Café in Lloyd and Aveling Park, using it as work experience for students with moderate to severe learning difficulties. WFC’s Curriculum Manager for Services Industries recognises there is considerable potential as part of the curriculum for the BTEC qualifications in Travel and Tourism. This course normally uses ‘the village’ (the conservation area of Waltham Forest consisting of a church, old police station and jail and Vestry House) as the basis for investigative studies but sees the William Morris Gallery and Lloyd and Aveling Park as the means to open up new opportunities, such as work placements, on-site lessons and case studies. Currently, this course is highly focused on Bridging the Gap to provide staff for the Olympics Games in 2012 8.2 Other Contact with local schools A session was held with children aged 10 – 11 years of Chapel End Junior School, who had been studying Lloyd and Aveling Park. As part of their school project, they wrote a letter to their MP expressing their concerns about their local Park and the points listed below are taken from those letters. Main concerns

• Vandalism • Graffiti • Safety: crimes against young people leading to fear of using park,

teenage gangs • Other anti-social behaviour • Would like there to be more staff in the park, so they feel safer • Kier staff are not very friendly • Cleanliness e.g. dog mess, litter, chewing gum on skate park ramps • Play equipment is old and unsafe • Lack of play equipment, play equipment is not very exciting • Older children use toddler’s play equipment and scare them off • Dogs off the lead, dogs in play areas • Signs should be better, so the park is more welcoming.

22

Good things about Lloyd and Aveling Park

• Tennis courts • Aviary • Café • Moat and ducks • Theatre • Venue for school sports days • Space for playing – Aveling Fields • Bowls clubs – ‘good for old people’ • Basketball courts • Picnic venue – Aveling Fields.

8.3 Other contact with Further Education Establishments A meeting was held on 12th November 2008 at Waltham Forest College with the Vice Principal and the Catering Operations Manager and members of LBWF’s green space team and project consultants. The key points and concerns raised were:

• The college is fully supportive and buys into the Park project. The College’s only concern is coordinating the facility in the park with their own campus redevelopment and funding bid to the Learning and Skills Council;

• The college can see potential in links with the artist’s studios as the college is seeking to widen and enhance its art faculty and opportunities for links with working artists in the area;

• The college could potentially use the outdoor performance on the island for their annual fashion show which, is very popular and over subscribed;

• The scope for operating diploma level courses and offering choices in food menus in the café depends on the size of the kitchen;

• It was mentioned that storage is important – for equipment, plates, cups etc and for food;

• Refuse storage and recycling facilities also need consideration and incorporation into the design;

• It was emphasised that flexibility is a key factor for the training room as the room is likely to be used by different groups for teaching different curriculum areas. It is likely that any computers will be laptops/portable and not fixed. Secure storage for laptops is needed;

• It was queried whether the toilet provision is adequate.

23

9. Other stakeholders / business community Stakeholder groups have been involved through Project Board, Task Groups and general consultation. 9.1 Depth Interview: Tourism London Borough of Waltham Forest’s 2012 Project Manager confirmed that tourism was insignificant in the Borough, but acknowledged the importance of the William Morris Gallery in attracting day trip visitors from outside the Borough. There are just three hotels in Waltham Forest. Apart from the William Morris Gallery, the majority of the tourism is centred on visiting friends and relatives (VFR), particularly among the Asian communities who have their relatives from Pakistan and India to stay. The impact of 2012 will be concentrated in the north of the Borough and the emphasis is upon lasting improvements to infrastructure, facilities and housing, rather than attracting tourists (although it is hoped that people will stay with friends and relatives when the Games are on). It is unlikely that these legacy improvements will stretch down to the middle belt of the Borough, which is where Lloyd and Aveling Park is located. Hence it is concluded that the Olympic Games will have very little impact on Lloyd and Aveling Park and that collaboration with the William Morris Gallery will encourage tourists to venture out into the Park and that local people will continue to bring their visiting friends and relatives.

10 Statutory Consultees / Special Interest Groups 10.1 Task Groups In the autumn of 2008, at the request of HLF,LBWF set up three Task Groups made up from local residents and stakeholders, specifically to contribute to and comment on the development of the designs, facilities and activities. The task groups were advertised in the café exhibition and WFM as part of consultation process, and also members were approached directly. The Task Groups are:

• Inclusion, Volunteers, Training, Activities, Arts and Culture Task Group;

• Play, Youth Engagement, Sport and Schools Task Group; • Conservation and Environment Task Group.

24

The following is a description of the task groups and their key points: 10.1.1 Inclusion, volunteers, training, activities, arts and culture The Group is made up of representatives from the artists’ studios, local amateur dramatics groups, arts groups, Friends of Lloyd Park, LBWF’s Head of Arts, Entertainment and Music, Volunteer Co-ordinator for Children’s Services, Director of Young People’s Learning, plus the project’s landscape architects and the LBWF project officers. The Group made many useful suggestions about the design of the island theatre space, the hub buildings (including the exhibitions space and artists’ studios), play area and use of the stable building as a volunteer base. The Group was particularly concerned to ensure that the outdoor performance space was a suitable venue for community activities. They recognised that many excellent activities already took place in the Park and were keen to build on their success and track record. Particular discussion points were the involvement of schools with the exhibition space, involvement of local artists and crafts people in workshops and encouraging young volunteers in conservation and working in the café. The Group recognised the need to diversify the volunteer base, potentially learning from the Boundary Estate project, which helps Bengali women to grow produce. 10.1.2 Play, youth engagement, sport and schools The Group is made up of representatives from the sports users of the Park, a resident skateboarder, a resident with particular play development experience and skills, the Lloyd Park Centre, LBWF Early Years Development Officer, LBWF Youth Service and Friends of Lloyd Park, Police Crime Prevention and Design Adviser, plus the project landscape architects and LBWF project officers. The Group made many useful comments about the play area, skate park, sports facilities and picnic areas, which influenced the development of the designs. In terms of activities, the Group wished to see an audit of current activities delivered in the Park and to build on those strengths. However, specific activities under discussion included involving young people in volunteering, coaching for girls wanting to skate, the use of the Park for orienteering and the possibility of using the Park as a venue for sports activities and training organised by the Police over the summer months, such as basketball and skateboarding. The Group also acknowledged the proposed new Bowls Pavilion as a venue for use by community groups, schools, nurseries, artists and the Friends of Lloyd Park. 10.1.3 Conservation and the environment The Group is made up of representatives from local community and nature conservation groups, BTCV, Police Crime and Prevention and Design Advisor, Friends of Lloyd Park, LBWF Conservation Officer, the project’s landscape architects and LBWF project officers.

25

The Group commented on sustainable buildings, the location of the skate park and improvement of the nature conservations area. They suggested a mini arboretum be included in the scheme, new tree trail leaflets and the possibility of people growing their own food. They also saw heavy involvement of volunteers helping with the conservation of the Park and suggested founding a Young Friends of Lloyd Park and actively attracting Black and Minority Ethnic groups to participate in the conservation and environmental work. BTCV would consider having a base in the Park. LBWF are currently consulting with members about the future of these groups, which are due to finish at the end of Stage 2. It is possible some groups will continue, more as working groups to continue to inform development, management or activities of the park. Alternatively members may join the friends group in order to continue their involvement. 10.2 Depth Interviews 10.2.1 Skateboarders A consultation was held with representatives from London Borough of Waltham Forest’s (LBWF) Youth Services and local skateboarders with Plincke, the project landscape architects, and LBWF project officers. The meeting agreed some basic principles on the design of the skate park, including good drainage, lighting and that the skate park should be suitable for beginners and advanced skaters. The skaters did not want a graffiti wall nearby as it encouraged people to draw on the ramps. They wanted it elsewhere in the Park. 10.2.2 Graffiti artist The graffiti artist requested that there should be an official graffiti wall in the Park and, out of preference, would have liked it to be located near to the skate park. He suggested that an official wall would discourage unofficial graffiti on other parts of the site. He had suggestions for discouraging anti-social behaviour around the wall, such as CCTVs and signage asking artists to respect the space. Conversely, the wall should not be too enclosed so that the artists feel safe. It would not be necessary to advertise the wall as artists were in contact through internet networking. He thought that artists would be happy to run graffiti workshops for schools and young people. 10.3 Special Interest Groups 10.3.1 Bowling Club Walthamstow Borough Bowling Club has been consulted in the following ways:

• Primary contacts for both clubs are on Project Board

26

• Lily Mack, Treasurer of the Synthetic Green Bowling Club is on the Play, Youth Engagement, Sports and Schools task group and in addition, LBWF regularly communicate on a one-to-one basis with Lily Mack;

• Members have been made aware of all consultation opportunities and have participated, for example the synthetic bowlers came to the Saturday staffing session at café exhibition;

• Regular contact has been made with bowling club on the location and design of new community pavilion;

• Going forward, LBWF will offer the bowling club the opportunity to engage in the education/volunteering programmes for the park. If this opportunity is taken up, LBWF will be doing skills audits with key members and supporting them to participate in and deliver learning and volunteering activities.

10.3.2 Skateboarders In addition to the depth interview conducted with the skateboarders the following actions have been taken to involve skateboarders as a group in the consultation process:

• Ellie Mortimer of LBWF has a skate boarders mailing list, to keep them up-to-date with consultation opportunities;

• A local skater is part of the Play, Youth Engagement, Sports and Schools task group.

Also, detailed design work for the skate park, will take place if we are successful with our Stage 1 bid. At this point LBWF will consult further with all the young skaters and other local skaters who are on the mailing list, and also a specialist designer and the Police Crime Prevention & Design Adviser.

10.3.3 Artists A meeting was held on 6th November 2008 between representatives of the project team (LBWC green space team and consultants) and artists who use the artist’s studios in the park. The following points were raised at this meeting:

• There was concern as to how night-time access to the studios will be arranged if the night path is closed or re routed. The artists work in the studios till late at night @10.30 -11pm and then use the night path to exit the park, as it is the most direct and well-lit route;

• It is likely that there will be an increase in the number of night-time activities in the hub area and this will also increase the need for lighting and security;

• All present raised concern that the skate area will be too close to the studios block and that this could be disruptive. Fumes from Graffiti may be a problem;

27

• After demolition of the old changing room block the toilets in the hub building will be the toilets for the artists to use. All present raised concern about this as it will mean that they have to leave and lock the studio block at night to use the toilets;

• The artists using the studios require internal storage space for materials;

• It was recommend that the new exhibition space requires good lighting, a public toilet and extended hours;

• The artist group reported that the buildings management was improved when there was one ‘house manager’ with total responsibility for the building and the park. A person with this role does not existing any more;

• Artists using the studios currently need vehicles to make deliveries and drop off materials to the studios e.g. stone for sculpture. The max load is currently ¾ tonne and is delivered on an articulated lorry.

A representative from the studios was invited to join a task group so that they can feed into the consultation and design process. This was taken up by the group and they will take it in turns to attend. All present said that they would be interested and willing to get involved in the park renovation project.