wormholt park consultation report

Wormholt Park Consultation Report

Groundwork London, August 2011

Wormholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2011

Contents Table Page

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction

3. Survey Analysis

4. Open Space Community Consultation Event

5. Feedback from Stakeholder Groups

a) Consultation with regular park users

b) Hammersmith and Fulham Parks Constabulary

c) Community and residents group meeting

d) Friends of Wormholt Park Survey

e) Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum

f) White City Community Information Day

6. Youth Focus

a) Introduction, background and aims

b) Methodology

c) Timetable of Activities

d) Wormholt Primary School

e) Canberra Primary School

f) SAFE (Shepherds Bush, Activities For Everyone) holiday

programme at Phoenix High School

g) Conclusion of No Particular Place to Go

7. Consultation Conclusion

8. Contact details

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’

2

3

5

21

29

31

33

35

37

38

42

43

44

45

47

66

67

68

70

71

1


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

http://www.wormholtpark.org.uk/


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


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



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



Ages:

What are the ages of people in your household?

107

5335

1629 34 42

155

10879

55

13

0

50

100

150

200

0-5 6-10. 10-13. 13-16 16-19 20-25 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?

179

43

1913

2314

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

White Britishand other

British Mixed Asian or AsianBritish

Black or BlackBritish

Chinese orother ethnic

White group

6


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


Q1: How often do you go into the park

in Autumn/Winter?

Q2: How often do you go into the

Spring/Summer?

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.

How often do you go into the park in Spring/Summer?

8490

4147 45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Most days Once ortw ice aw eek

Once ortw ice amonth

Less thanonce amonth

Never

How often do you go into the park in Autum/Winter?

49

80

5955

67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Most days Once ortw ice aw eek

Once ortw ice amonth

Less thanonce amonth

Never

Q3: How does the park meet your needs?

58% of people asked thought that the park

‘partially meets my needs’, whilst only 11%

thought it fully met their needs. This

demonstrates that improvement is a priority

for Wormholt Park.

How does the park meet your needs?

It meets my needs fully

11%

It partially meets my my needs

58%

It doesn't meet my needs31%

8


Q4: What do you currently use Wormholt Park for?

There is a lot of variety in the

responses to the question; “What

do you currently use Wormholt

Park for?” Of the 318 people who

returned the survey, 44 people

(13%) said they did not use the

park at all. There were 569

answers given for the reasons for

using the park. Of those that do

use the park, the majority were

for ‘play for children’ (22%) with

‘going for a walk’ (21%) being a

close second. Other highly

marked reasons are ‘relaxation’

(17%) and ‘as a cut through’

(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.

What do you currently use Wormholt Park for?

44

130

57

123

98

35

55

71

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

I don't use thepark

Play for children

Sports

Go for a w alk

Relaxation/aplace to sit

Picnic w ith familyand f riends

Walking dogs

As a cut through

9


Q5: How do you get to the park?

Results from this question shows

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

people do not tend to travel very

far to get to the park.

How do you get to the park?

By car2%

By foot90%

By bike8%

10


Q6: How satisfied are you with the features of the park?

How satisfied are you with features of the park?

98

1

79

20

15

8

33

30

16

18

14

14

11

5

125

131

57

54

64

73

75

77

94

86

108

75

60

11

25

78

77

48

27

47

84

75

85

56

86

77

3

5

64

49

47

33

29

48

31

45

27

71

85

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

The amount of open space

The trees

The play area

The tennis courts

The cricket nets

The space for dog walking

The multi-use game area

The flower planting

The bins

The seating

The railings

The general appearance

Security

very satisfied quite satisfied not very satisfied not satisfied at all

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


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?

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.

Why don't you use the park?

50 47

88

61

119

41

1 0

135

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

There is nothing there for me

The grass, plants and trees are badly maintained

The facilities are poorly ma intained/broken

The sport fields/courts a re poorly m

ainta ined/b roken

I find it u

nfriendly or in

timidating

I have had a bad experience there

Getting to the park is diffic

ult (public tra

nsport)

Getting into th

e park is difficult (a

ccess)

I am worried by th

e dogs oof the lead and dog mess

12


How important do you consider the improvements of the features listed?

158

151

139

88

79

43

128

45

34

64

138

130

170

170

103

62

86

115

139

70

69

60

62

67

52

98

32

47

55

85

81

72

79

78

51

44

69

61

20

21

35

36

64

80

39

96

106

77

16

24

17

12

61

62

55

54

48

11

11

13

51

33

65

3

63

44

46

4

3

3

1

20

59

51

25

27

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

More play provision for under 5s

More play provision for 5-8 years

More play provision for 8-13 years

Youth provision (e.g. youth shelter, skate park)

Outdoor fitness equipment

A pond

More flowers/shrubs/trees

Food growing spaces

Walled garden

Artwork/sculpture/water feature/ Mounds or hills

Grassland/lawn

Paths

Lighting

Bins

Drinking fountain

More dog exercise areas

More dog free space

A kiosk/café

Toilets

180

very important quite important not very important would not want

Q8: How important do you consider the improvement of the features listed?

13


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


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


Which other parks do you use and why?

What other parks people use?

147

5847

2229

17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

RavenscourtPark

Hammersmith/BBC Park

Holland Park Acton Park Hyde Park Richmond Park

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

What is the reason for using other parks?

15

79

41

21

52

8

46

8

39

62

32

90

68

412

178

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Be

tter

Lo

cate

d

We

ll M

ain

tain

ed

Big

ge

r

Be

tter

Pla

ntin

g

Mo

re th

ing

s to

do

Ha

s d

og

fre

ea

rea

s Ca

fé

To

ilets

Fri

en

dlie

r

Be

tter

Se

curi

ty

Mo

re N

atu

re

Be

tter

Fa

cilit

ies

for

you

ng

er

child

ren

B

ette

r fa

cilit

ies

for

old

er

child

ren

Le

ssin

itmid

atin

g

Be

tter

for

fam

ilie

s

Be

tter

for

spo

rts

Be

tter

pa

thin

g

Be

tter

for

cycl

ing

/sco

otin

g

16


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

n two poor ones”

idating youths hanging out in groups”

”

arrives in

rly”.

l as I have

t used so can get rid of this to make more space for

spruced up”.

ited about the idea of regeneration”.

s improvements and

for families”.

“It has one good big play area tha

“We need more dog free zones”

“I don’t use it because of intim

“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

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 prope

“I would feel safer if it was policed more even by park patro

Parkinson disease and walk around the park for exercise”.

“Cricket area is no

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

“The layout of the park is very good but needs maintaining”.

“We love Wormholt Park and are exc

“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 seriou

17


more security to crack down on people smoking weed.”

to know what schools think about the park and how they

the new NHS building at

hat use drugs; have an operation in place to reduce drug

ctivities?”

CTV or every few hours the park officer

seats for the elderly people and an area for people only over 50

way from housing area

y physical things so

fragrance of the flowers will be pleasing.”

er as mums can have a chat and coffee

n from lawn and path so then it stops the alcoholics urinating in

it away from the back of the park”.

ung children”

“A dog warden needs to be in place”

“Maybe have a focus on the park being for families?”

“It would be nice

could use it”

“The park has lots of potential but is poorly maintained”

“I think that even though we are getting money for

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 t

taking in the park”

“Could have an area where youth groups could run a

“Us2 it as a place to learn new skills once a week?”

“Have security presence in terms of C

or police come in for a few minutes”

“Need more

with CCTV”

“The dog run area should be moved a

“High iron fencing for the dogs area”

“Need more flowers for the elderly as they cannot do man

the visual and

“Picnic area”

“Private garden for elderly people”

“Play area and café close to each oth

while children play in the play area”

“The areas that youth can hide and smoke drugs should be eradicated”

“Visual divisio

the bushes”

“There should be more bins for the dog bags and a bigger dog area”.

“Change location of the football. Take

“Swimming area for yo

18


“Resurface the path”

“Need a bin near the play area”

19


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


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


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.


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Observational visits and playground visits

Presentation of findings

c) Timetable of activities

Date Activity Group

2009/2010 Play Sessions with Hammersmith and

Fulham’s Play Development Officer and

Hammersmith and Fulham Urban

Studies Centre

Wormholt Primary School

20th June 2011 Session 1: Project introduction and play

audit

Canberra Primary School

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

Session

Canberra Primary School

4th July 2011 Session at SAFE (Shepherds Bush,

Activities For Everyone) holiday

programme

Phoenix High School

43


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


45

Voting Play Features

6

8

13

6

8

10

4

15

9

3

8

9

1

4

20

2

5

10

7

10

3

10

10

18

2

4

12

8

12

6

7

6

8

7

6

7

5

15

5

2

2

6

0

5

9

0

3

4

5

9

11

6

3

16

0

4

10

11

12

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Rock Climbing

Log Climbing

Cimbing Frame

High Sw ing

Bird Nest Sw ing

Hammock Sw ing

Bouncing Disc Sw ing

Revolving Discs

Disc Roundabout

Bird Nest Roundabout

Chair Roundabout

Tunnels

Sand Pit

Witches Hat

Bike Play

Normal Sw ing

Zip Wire

Climbing Rocks

Wood Chairs

Log Stepping

Bolder Climbing

Mounds

Maze

Tyres

Wobbling Bridge

Hanging Frame

Floor Art

Wall Art

Fruit Art

Greenery/Gravel Garden

Girls Boys


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


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


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


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?


Main Question: Is the space clean and well looked after?

Sub questions:

49


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?


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?


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?


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


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:


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


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”


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


Comments: Maybe not, because the signs had been burnt, the railings look bad.

“Different things are broken and children can hurt themselves”.


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.


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


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”.


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


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


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


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”


“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


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”


“The different animals that were kept in the cage but not let free”

“I did not like the grass because it was slippery”

58


“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”


“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


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


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


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


‘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

Wo 011

64

rmholt Park Consultation‐ Groundwork London, August 2How important do you consider the improvements of

the features listed?

8

6

8

9

10

4

8

9

3

9

8

11

8

12

11

9

10

12

13

5

7

4

3

3

3

5

2

7

3

4

1

4

0

2

4

3

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

4

0

1

3

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14More play provision for

under 5s

More play provision for5-8 years

More play provision for8-13 years

Youth provision (e.g.youth shelter, skate

Outdoor f itnessequipment

A pond

Moref low ers/shrubs/trees

Food grow ing spaces

Walled garden

Artw ork/sculpture/w aterfeature/ Mounds or hills

Grassland/law n

Paths

Lighting

Bins

Drinking fountain

More dog exerciseareas

More dog f ree space

A kiosk/café

Toilets

Very important Quite important Not very important Would not w ant


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


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


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


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


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.

[email protected]

69


70

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’

wormholt park consultation report

Documents

youthfocus aintroduction