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