Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Kensington Gardens: Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment

Consultation Report

Alice Bigelow and Associates 1

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Kensington Gardens Equalities Impact Assessment Consultation Report

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Findings

4. Conclusions

Appendix A – Summary of Consultation

Appendix B – Questionnaire Results by Group

Appendix C – Older People’s Focus Group Summary

Alice Bigelow and Associates 2

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Kensington Gardens Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Studio Walk Trial The Royal Parks recognizes the importance of cycling as a recreational activity and a contribution to environmentally sustainable transport in London. The Royal Parks has been working with Transport for London to trial a shared-use pedestrian and cycle route in Kensington Gardens on Studio Walk, to encourage Londoners to cycle for leisure their health and wellbeing. The Royal Parks is committed to engage with Parks users and to work in partnership and consult them on new initiatives, as described in The Royal Parks corporate objectives,

“Understand and respond to the needs of our diverse audiences and stakeholders, working with partner organisations to enrich lives1”

Map of Studio Walk Trial

The Royal Parks have carried out various studies on cycling since the shared-use Trial of the Kensington Gardens Broad Walk in 2002, and are carrying out consultation on the proposed shared use of Studio Walk. The Studio Walk route connects Studio Gate

1 The Royal Parks Corporate Objectives, Objective 2

Alice Bigelow and Associates 3

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

(western boundary of the Gardens) to the Broad Walk, linking existing cycle routes in Kensington Gardens, and will offer cyclists an alternative route to the busy Kensington Gore and Bayswater Roads.

1.2 Other Studies Recent studies on shared-use paths are as follows: • Kensington Gardens Shared-Use Assessments (Atkins, 2007) • Kensington Gardens North Walk Combined Report (Atkins, 2008) • Kensington Gardens Studio Walk, Shared-Use Level of Service Technical Note for The Royal Parks (Atkins Intelligent Space, 2008) • Kensington Gardens Studio Walk Shared-Use Trial Monitoring Summary report (Atkins Intelligent Space, December 2010) • The Regent’s Park Broad Walk Shared-Use Cycle Project Summer Trial Report and Extended Trial Criteria (Atkins, August 2008) • Regent’s Park Broad Walk Trial Monitoring Technical Report Part 1 (Atkins Intelligent Space, 2009) • Regent’s Park Broad Walk Trial Monitoring Technical Report Part 2 (Atkins Intelligent Space, 2009) • Broad Walk Trial Monitoring Summary Report (Atkins Intelligent Space, January 2010) • Broad Walk Monitoring Summary Report (Atkins Intelligent Space, December 2010)

An 18 month shared-use trial has been introduced to run from August 2010 until January 2012, over two peak cycling seasons. The route will not be permanently implemented if the analysis of results demonstrate unacceptable safety issues or a detrimental effect on visitors that cannot be mitigated through the design of the shared-use pathway. This project has been made possible with funding and support from the Transport for London Greenways Programme.

1.3 Methodology for Trial The trial comprises a number of consultation methodologies:

1. Data collection: questionnaires, video surveys, input from stakeholders. 2. Notice boards, website and leaflets: responses via letters or emails. 3. Equality issues: groups representing people who have been identified by Transport for London as those who may be adversely affected by cycle routes. 4. Questionnaires: for pedestrians and cyclists 5. Quantitative analysis 6. Qualitative analysis 7. Video Surveys 8. Visual Impact Assessment

1.4 Criteria for Studio Walk Trial This is to be based on analysis of qualitative and quantitative data collected across the range of methodologies. The critical success factors are:

• CRITERON 1 - Customer Research Survey: anything more than 2% drop in respondents finding the ‘quality of their visit excellent or good’, with ‘cycling in the park’ as a stated reason. Benchmarked against the customer research studies

Alice Bigelow and Associates 4

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

carried out by Synovate where 97% of respondents found the ‘quality of their visit excellent or good’ (2005 & 2006 surveys). Any responses other than ‘excellent or good’ will be qualified in the questionnaire. Limit: if less than a 2% drop then passes criteria. If drop between 2% and 7% (95% plus or minus 5% based on the statistical analysis carried out by Intelligent space on a sample size of 383 respondents) then a review of the responses will take place. (Limit <90%).

• CRITERON 2 - Shared-Use Study: the level of service for Studio Walk is B or above for peak pedestrian/cycle flows based on CCTV footage and the physical attributes of the route. (Benchmarked against the Kensington Gardens Share-Use Study carried out by Intelligent Space 2008 – Levels are from A to F; A is the ability to freely move with little interaction or conflict – F is found when conditions are similar to crossing the road on Oxford Circus on a very busy Saturday. Current Level of Service on Studio Walk without cycling is Level of Service B). (Limit

• CRITERON 3 - Conflict Study Result: based on at least six days of CCTV footage – more than 95% of cycle journeys to involve neither minor conflict nor major conflict. (Benchmark developed from the research on Palace Walk – for two days Friday and Saturday there was a 3518 cycle flow – 137 involved minor or major conflict – 3 were major conflict situations – in line with Countryside Agency research). Minor Conflict defined as – ‘cyclist or pedestrian has to brake or change direction but the movement is calm and controlled. Major conflict as – ‘cyclist or pedestrian has to take emergency action, in what is considered to be a near miss’. (Limit <96%)

• CRITERON 4 - Customer Research Survey: 75% of pedestrians surveyed are ‘satisfied, comfortable or very comfortable’ with cycling on Studio Walk (agreed number of pedestrians to be surveyed). (Bench marked against the Kensington Gardens Surveys where 74% of pedestrians thought the cycle routes worked OK, Well, or Very Well). The data collected will be further analysed with information on vulnerable users (classified and registered disabled, elderly and people with children under 5 years of age.) If there is a higher proportion of this group who are ‘uncomfortable’ with the scheme this will be a critical failure. Dog walkers will also be considered in a separate category. Further analysis will be carried out and considered if the percentage falls between 95% and 75% (one in twenty to one in four ‘uncomfortable’ with the trial). (Limit <75%)

• CRITERON 5 - Customer Research Survey: 94% of cyclists surveyed are ‘satisfied, comfortable or very comfortable’ with cycling on Studio Walk (agreed number of cyclists and pedestrians surveyed). (Bench marked against the Kensington Gardens Surveys where 94% of cyclists thought the cycle routes worked OK, Well, or Very Well). (Limit <94%)

Note: To assess criteria 4 and 5, surveys will use the following five categories: very uncomfortable, uncomfortable, satisfied, comfortable, very comfortable. This is adapted from an equivalent range of five categories (very well, well, OK, badly, very badly) used in Kensington Gardens Share-Use Study 2008

Alice Bigelow and Associates 5

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Failure of any of the Criteria means automatic failure of the trial.

1.4 This Research The Royal Parks commissioned Framework contractor Alice Bigelow to carry out research as part of an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) of the Kensington Gardens Studio Walk Trial. The focus of the research is to speak to people who use or who might potentially use Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park and who may be particularly vulnerable to impacts caused by an increase in cycling provision.

The Royal Parks has identified four groups that may be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of the shared-use cycle and pedestrian pathways. They are: • People with disabilities • People with young children • Frail older people • People with dogs

The aim of the research is to carry out consultation with approximately 20 individuals, a minimum of 5 in each ‘vulnerable’ category to gather views on shared-use pathways in The Royal Parks, and to produce a report on the research findings to contribute to the Studio Walk Trial.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 6

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 The Consultancy Team Alice Bigelow is a framework contractor for Consultation and Community Engagement with The Royal Parks. She has worked extensively for The Royal Parks on the Bushy Park Restoration Project, the development of The Lookout Centre and Senior Playground in Hyde Park, and is currently involved in the Heritage Lottery Fund Isabella Plantation Access Project in Richmond Park. She has brought in colleague Sara Hoskins who worked with her on the Bushy Park Audience Development Plan and on consulting older people for the Hyde Park Senior Playground in 2010. In addition, associate Michelle Frank has supported the work, bringing experience of statistical analysis and consultation involving dogs as a volunteer for Battersea Dogs’ Home.

Between them, they bring extensive experience of working in a community context, consulting people on the development of green space and other environmental initiatives.

2.2 The Approach The work was carried out in March and April 2011, and the intention was to do a combination of individual and group interviews, some to be carried out within Kensington Gardens, and some to take place in local community centres and schools. It was anticipated in particular, that approaches to older people and people with disabilities would be more effective if carried out through organisations in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea working directly with these groups. Contacts established in 2010 for the consultation on the Hyde Park Senior Playground enabled good access to community groups concerned with older people and people with disabilities. A nearby primary school, St. Mary Abbots that works with The Royal Parks Education and Community Engagement Team agreed to assist with access to parents with young children.

The research was also intended to include a number of interviews in Kensington Gardens itself. The purpose of this was partly to ensure that at least some of those consulted regularly use the Park, and to make contact with people walking dogs.

2.3 Limitations The research was limited by both budget and time – there was a need to consult a spectrum of people during a short period, and consequently, it was necessary to take a pragmatic approach to securing the appropriate range of interviews.

The interviews at St. Mary Abbots’ proved problematic. Despite assurances from the school that they were willing to take part, they were slow to respond to requests for a date, and the Easter Holiday period meant that other means to speak with parents of young children needed to be considered. Unfortunately, investigation into other primary schools and Children’s Centres did not result in identification of any suitable institutions close to Kensington Gardens, particularly given that schools require a longer lead-in than was possible within the confines of this research. Consequently, a decision was taken to interview parents in Kensington Gardens itself.

2.4 Research Locations The consultancy team spent a day in Kensington Gardens interviewing people, including all of the people with dogs and parents with young children. Four older people were interviewed in the Park. Further interviews were carried out with older people, both

Alice Bigelow and Associates 7

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

individually and a group of twelve in two older people’s centres.2 Additional interviews were carried out with people with disabilities at a third centre.3 No people with disabilities were interviewed in the Park, and during the day spent in the Park only two people with disabilities were identified, both with large groups and en route to another destination, and consequently not available for interview.

It was originally the intention to carry out interviews in Kensington Gardens near the Round Pond. However, this is an area where the Park regulations require dogs to be kept on a lead, and people with dogs were more willing to stop and talk to an interviewer if their dog was off lead and they were waiting for the dog. Consequently interviews were carried out in the vicinity of the junction between Mount Walk (Cycle Path) and Lancaster Walk.

Parents with young children and older people interviewed were primarily those who were resting on benches or on the grass.

Studio Walk – junction with Broad Walk

A risk assessment and proposal for the interviews were prepared to secure permission from Parks management.

2.5 Interviews and Focus Group The interviews in Kensington Gardens were carried out by approaching groups and individuals appearing to fit the target groups. People were generally more willing to take part if were stationary – sitting on a bench or the grass, waiting for a dog, and so on. In

2 Open Age Hub (Westminster) and New Horizons Centre (RBKC) 3 Greater London Action for Disability Social Club in Westminster

Alice Bigelow and Associates 8

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

each case, the project was explained and the person or group asked if they would be prepared to be interviewed. Some people gave more fulsome answers than others, and everyone was encouraged to add additional information or explain anything not clear. The categories on the questionnaires for things such as ‘reasons for visiting the park’ and ‘barriers’ were used as prompts so that individuals were encouraged to give their own reasons. Laminated maps were available to show people the location of the Studio Walk, although not everyone examined them fully. All interviewees were invited to make additional comments, and thanked for their time and assistance. Some engaged more fully with the process than others.

Those interviewed in Community Centres were treated similarly, although most gave somewhat more fulsome responses, having been prepared for the interviews by community workers in advance. The maps were available, and most people looked carefully at the map and the location of the Studio Walk.

The group of 12 older women who took part in the group interview were asked a similar range of questions, however, the group took on its own dynamic and had a conversational style, with people feeding off of each other. They looked at the map, and showed a high level of interest in the process.

2.5 Profile of Those Consulted A total of 59 individuals took part in the research. This was represented by 47 people completing questionnaires (see Appendix B) 31 individuals and 8 couples, and a further 12 older people taking part in a focus group discussion (see Appendix C).

Tables 1-4 below show a profile of those consulted.

Table 1Breakdown by Group

27% 25%

Parents Older People Disabled People People w Dogs 10%

38%

Table 2 Breakdown by Gender P O D DW TOT Male 8 4 3 8 23 Female 7 18 3 8 36 Total 15 22 6 16 59

Alice Bigelow and Associates 9

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Table 3 Breakdown by Age P O D DW TOT Under 18 11% 18-30 5 5 24% 31­40 31-40 7 6 13 41­50 41-50 8 3 11 22% 51­60 51-60 2 2 61­70 61-70 7 3 10 20% 71­80 71-80 10 2 12 81+ 19% 4% 81+ 5 1 6 Total 15 22 6 16 59

Table 4 Breakdown by Ethnicity P O D DW TOT White British 12 19 6 7 44 Black British Asian British 1 1 Other White 3 3 8 14 Other Black Other Asian Total 15 22 6 16 59

Notes 1. Variances in totals on tables are due to some participants not responding to certain questions. All people with dogs and parents of young children were interviewed in Kensington Gardens. All people with disabilities, and the majority of older people were interviewed in Community Centres. 2. Couples interviewed together did not always respond individually. Eight couples completed shared questionnaires. Each couple has been counted as two people.

Comments 1. Gender – 61% of participants in this study were female. The gender balance is reasonable for all categories other than older people, which is 82% female as compared to 2001 census statistics showing 60% that the population over the age of 70 is female. This imbalance may be explained by the location of interviews: the older people interviewed in Kensington Gardens were couples, whilst the older people interviewed in community centres were predominantly female. 2. Age Spread - 51% of those interviewed were over the age of 60, representing 100% of the older people interviewed, as well as 100% of those with disabilities. 3. Ethnicity – only 1 non-white person was represented amongst those interviewed. Observation of those visiting Kensington Gardens on the date of the research showed a mix of ethnicity, however, the majority of those from BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) groups were visitors to London, did not speak English, and consequently, were not suitable for interview.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 10

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

3. FINDINGS

3.1 Park Usage The first set of questions within the questionnaire related to the participants’ use of parks. Graphs/Tables 5-7 below show a breakdown by group of the parks they use, frequency of use, and the reasons for going to the Park. Although a high percentage of those interviewed use a number of different parks, the responses they gave to questions about, for instance, specific barriers to using parks, referred to Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. It should be noted that many people don’t differentiate between these two parks.

Table 5

Table 6

Park Usage Summary Table 7 Table 4 What park(s) do you visit? Frequency Reasons for going Pilot Total numbers Seasonal? responding to these HP/ TRP TRP Oth Wk+ less s/ Exerc w/ friend Dog Aware questions = 38 KG Cent Bus/ w child s Rch/Gr Older People 6 4 1 3 3 5 2 8 2 3 1 0 Disabled People 4 6 2 4 1 5 2 6 2 1 6 Parents 12 1 1 5 7 4 1 7 10 1 1 1 People with Dogs 5 8 1 6 15 0 1 5 1 2 15 2 Totals 27 19 5 18 26 14 6 26 13 7 17 9

Alice Bigelow and Associates 11

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Key 1. Parks you visit: information compiled as follows: Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens; Other Central Royal Parks; Other outer Royal Parks; Other parks 2. Wk+ = once a week or more; Less = less than weekly; S/W = visit less frequently in winter/poor weather 3. Reason for visit – Exercise + Fresh air; Accompanying Children; Meeting Friends; Accompanying dogs 4. Trial – numbers aware of trial– see comments below

Notes 1. Discrepancies in numbers are due to some individuals not commenting on certain questions. 2. People with disabilities – all interviewed in Community Centres 3. Older People – two couples interviewed in Kensington Gardens; 6 individuals interviewed in Centres; group of interviewed 12 in Centre 4. Parents – all interviewed in Kensington Gardens 5. Dog Walkers – all interviewed in Kensington Gardens; 12 walk their own dogs, 3 walk their own and others’ dogs

Comments: 1. As many interviews were carried out in Kensington Gardens, there is a high incidence of people responding that they use Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. 2. Older and disabled people interviewed in Centres were shown map with Studio Walk, and consequently responded they are familiar with Studio Walk, few other people were familiar with the Studio Walk unless it was pointed out to them, and a very small number were aware of the pilot scheme (2), other than those who indicated their awareness as a result of information provided by the research team. 3. Additional reasons for visiting the Park – Disabled people said: green space in the middle of London; easy to reach; peaceful atmosphere. One parent said they also used the Park for commuting. 4. People with dogs use the Parks most frequently, with the majority responding that they use a park more often than once a week. 5. People accompanying children responded that they most often visit the Park with children, and people with dogs responded that they most often visit the Park with their dog.

3.2 Barriers to Using Parks All groups were asked if there were issues that discouraged them from using the Parks. Below is a summary of responses in this area. A number of people identified cyclists amongst the barriers to using the Park. Most responses related to barriers perceived to visiting Kensington Gardens, although some of those interviewed did not differentiate between Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. These responses have been analysed further in the section below on ‘Perceptions of Cyclists’.

a) Weather - All groups visit the Parks most in the warmer weather and don’t visit when the weather is bad, though dog walkers reported least weather impact, as they need to exercise their pets on a daily basis.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 12

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

b) Facilities • Parents with young children and older people both raised the issue of the lack of benches or other places to sit when visiting. • Both of these groups and people with disabilities identified the lack of cafes and the fact that existing cafes are too expensive and the limited number of toilets facilities available as issues. These remarks can be understood to relate to Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, as people specifically identified when they were talking about another location. One person with a disability did strongly express the view that fewer facilities and more natural surroundings was her preference, this person regularly visits Bushy Park and loves its natural atmosphere.

c) Paths - Parents of young children said that uneven pathways were a concern to them.

d) Mobility • Some older people and people with disabilities said that their own mobility restrictions made it difficult to get to the Park and then get around it once there. One man in a wheelchair explained that while he had an electric scooter for going longer distances, he can’t get onto a bus to reach the Park. He had been a regular visitor to Kensington Gardens prior to needing a wheelchair to get about. • Lots of older people who previously used Parks regularly said that they now felt that the Park was too far and so they either don’t visit anymore or visit only when they are with relatives or friends who can take them in cars.

e) No one to go with - Some older people and people with disabilities said that having no one to visit the Parks with and not knowing where to go in the Park were also factors that discouraged them from visiting.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 13

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

f) Dogs • Dogs not on leads and not • Even some dog walkers brought properly controlled worried some up concerns about large parents with children, and there aggressive dogs not being kept were those who reported that under control by other dog their children were frightened by owners. dogs not on leads. Others wanted to see a dog free area in the Kensington Gardens/Hyde Park. • Some older people and people with disabilities also expressed concern about dogs running around out of control, some feeling that these could be a hazard if chasing cyclists and also that there are a limited number of poop scoop bins.

g) Anti social behaviour was raised by all groups • Some people in all groups mentioned inconsiderate behaviour by cyclists, one parent stressing that cyclists on pedestrian paths discouraged them from going to the Park. • Some parents with young children and dog walkers cited the behaviour of some young people around the Diana Fountain and the Round Pond. • Older people and people with disabilities found that noisy children, those kicking footballs, runners, roller skaters and skateboarders, loud music or other noise put them off visiting.

• Some people felt that adults skating fast on paths is problematic

Alice Bigelow and Associates 14

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

• Older people and people with disabilities said that young children on bikes, scooters or skateboards should not be restricted and should be allowed to use all areas of the Park freely and that there should be more play areas and places for children to play football/ball games. • Some dog walkers were unhappy about horses in the Parks as their dogs were scared by them. • A number of people across all groups identified anti social behaviour - things going on in the Park that are in conflict with the desire to come to the Park to relax and be quiet – as a problem, and for some, this was associated with cycling.

h) Events - One older person and several dog walkers felt that unhappy about events and fairs being held in the Parks, they expressed concern about the lack of tranquility created by these events and damage to the grass areas caused by them.

i) Litter - Dog walkers raised the problem of litter being left in the Park, particularly during the summer months.

Studio Walk junction with Studio Gate

3.3 Perceptions of Cyclists and Shared Use of Paths The tables and graphs below (8-12) relate to the respondents’ attitude to cycling and shared-use pathways. The total number of responses to the questions in Tables 8 and 9 are from 47 participants in 38 questionnaires and does not include the older people interviewed in a group. However, not all those interviewed answered all questions. Percentages are calculated in relation to the total number of completed questionnaires. Further discussion of these findings can be found in Section 3.4 below.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 15

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

How comfortable are you about shared use of paths?

Summary of all Responses Table 8

14 12 Very uncomfortable 10 uncomfortable 8 neutral 6 comfortable 4 very comfortable 2 No response 0 TOTAL

Breakdown of Responses by Group Table 9 Comfort re shared paths? 1 2 3 4 5 NR Older People 0 1 1 1 0 5 Disabled People 1 1 1 0 0 3 Parents 1 2 2 3 2 0 People with Dogs 1 1 2 4 0 6 Non Response Assumptions 1 3 5 5 Totals 3 5 6 8 2 14 Key How comfortable are you about shared paths between pedestrians and cyclists 1= very uncomfortable; 2=uncomfortable; 3=neutral; 4=comfortable; 5=very comfortable; NR=did not wish to respond to this question

Comments on Tables 8-11 1. Parents scoring 1 or 2 – also said, ‘some cyclists don’t observe the rules, the clamp down recently has helped’, and ‘(there should be) dedicated cycle paths’. 2. Older People scoring 2 – suggested that the most important factor is behaviour. 3. People with Dogs scoring 1 or 2 – suggested that they were ‘not happy about shared paths, want cycle only paths’.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 16

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Table 10

4. Table 10 shows a summary of all responses to this question: 21% of those responding were ‘uncomfortable’ or ‘very uncomfortable’ with shared-use pathways. However, 37% did not respond to these questions. Table 11 shows the same information with the ‘no response’ people allocated on the basis of their responses to other questions, showing a projected 32% ‘uncomfortable’ or ‘very uncomfortable’ with shared-use pathways. Table 11

How Do You Feel About Cyclists? Table 12 P O D DW Tot Cycling is good for the environment 8 7 5 13 33 More cycling would help traffic and congestion 7 3 5 10 25 Cyclists take a lot of risks and I worry they might get hurt 5 1 5 8 19 Cyclists are a traffic hazard 2 0 4 6 12 Cyclists shouldn’t ride on any paths in parks 1 2 3 Cyclists frighten me sometimes when I’m out in the park 1 1 2 3 6 Cyclists are fine as long as they stay on designated cycle paths 9 5 3 13 30

Do you cycle? (Yes) 6 3 1 5 15 Have you ever been a cyclist? (Yes) 7 8 6 5 26

Alice Bigelow and Associates 17

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Notes and Comments on Table 12 1. Generally responses show a positive attitude about cycling (87% cycling is good for the environment, 66% feel cycling is good for traffic and congestion). 2. 68% are now or have been cyclists at some point in their lives. 3. Attitude to Cyclists: This shows some conflict between the data in Tables 7-10 which shows that 79% feel that cyclists are fine as long as they stay on designated cycle paths, a much higher ‘comfort’ level than the responses to the questions about shared- use use paths. This may be in part about the ‘shared-use’ factor, but additional comments, and discussion in the group session with older people suggest that it may be more about the behavior of cyclists, and the degree to which cyclists are ‘policed’ may be a significant factor in the perception of shared use pathways. 4. Only 8% of respondents felt that cyclists shouldn’t ride on any paths in the Park. 5. 32% felt that cyclists are a traffic hazard to vehicles, and 16% are frightened by cyclists.

3.5 Discussion of Perception of cyclists and Shared Path Use Parents with young children were particularly keen that young children should be able to ride on all paths in the Parks, some parents feel adult cyclists on the paths are a risk to young children learning to ride. Parents had mixed views on shared use of the paths, the dominant view with this group was that inconsiderate behaviour by cyclists - riding fast or not sticking to designated cycle paths is problematic.

Views are divided over whether cyclists should be able to share the paths with other users, some felt that where the pathways is wide enough there could be shared use, but others felt that none of the paths should be for shared use. One person felt that shared use was very confusing. A number of parents wanted to see very clear marking, possibly dividing the path into a cycling and pedestrian side, others talked about some sort of physical barrier between grass and path, which would lessen the risk of children or dogs straying into the path of cyclists.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 18

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Parents Said “Cycling kids should be able to use paths.”

“All wide enough paths should be for shared use.”

“I’m in favour of shared use of paths. There should be more shared use, as long as people are careful. “

“I don’t see any problems with sharing paths with bicycles.”

“The shared cycle path isn’t a great idea, with kids about.”

“Cyclists need to be kept in well-marked areas.”

“Cyclists are fine on designated cycle paths.”

“I cycle a lot myself, but shared paths are just confusing.”

“Some cyclists don’t observe the rules. Recent clamp down has really helped.”

Older people did have concerns about shared use, but this mainly related to cyclists being inconsiderate. While some did express concern about the possibility of being hit by cyclists, and were concerned about this risk to young children, there was also empathy with cyclists and the feeling that there should be provision for them. Overall, while they thought provision for cyclists should be made, they also felt the priority should be for pedestrian users of the Park and that people should be able feel safe walking about, since they see the Park as a place for relaxation away from the hustle and bustle of London streets.

Older People Said “I have some concerns about inconsiderate cyclists, some of them cause problems for others.”

“Cyclists should only ride on pathways wide enough. The paths should have clearly defined cycle routes.”

“It shouldn’t be an issue as long as cyclists are careful. Need to have consideration and people need to look out for themselves as well.”

“I’m supportive of cycling. I think cycling proficiency in schools should be brought back.”

“You don’t see cyclists coming. Cyclists on pavements are a real worry. I would be concerned about being knocked over, but if they are careful I don’t really have a problem.”

People with disabilities also had very mixed views on shared-use of the paths and while agreeing that cyclists should be able to use the Parks, they were more negative about shared-use than other groups, though one person with disabilities, who still rides a bike when well enough, wanted to see more provision for cyclists and for them to be allowed to ride on the grass areas. Interestingly, people with disabilities felt less at risk of being hit by a cyclist than other groups, but one person did express concern about the risk to young children from cyclists.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 19

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

People with Disabilities Said “There need to be designated places for cyclists.”

“Paths need to be wide enough and clearly marked.”

“… unhappy about risk to children from cyclists and roller skaters.”

“Bikes should be on the roads, not on the pavement and not in the parks.”

“I’m very keen for more cycling.”

“Bikes should be allowed to cycle freely over the grass, like in Bushy Park.”

People with dogs gave their feedback in the Park and all were regular Kensington Gardens visitors. Dog walkers had the strongest opinions about cyclists, several of the participants stated that they had either had dogs hit by cyclists or witnessed other dogs being hit, so were unhappy about cyclists riding too fast with lack of consideration for other Park users. One person was vehemently against the Studio Walk scheme stating, ‘The pilot scheme is a blueprint for disaster’. Many felt that the unpredictable behaviour of some cyclists and flouting of rules about where they can ride is the key problem. More people in this group wanted specifically designated cycle paths. One person expressed particular concern about early morning cycling commuters in great numbers travelling at speed, and another was concerned about large groups on ‘Barclay’s London Cycle Hire’ bikes cycle through the Park. However, this group, while expressing most concern about inconsiderate cyclists, also articulated overall support for cycling and an understanding that cycling is positive and environmentally friendly transport for the future.

People Walking Dogs Said

Alice Bigelow and Associates 20

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

“I don’t mind cyclists because I walk my dog off the path on the grass most of the time.”

“One of my dogs was hit by a cyclist. They use the walking paths as short cuts through the park and race past you, without warning. You can’t hear them and they don’t use their bells. It spoils the park experience for other people.”

“As long as cyclists are mindful and aware it’s ok. There should be a speed limit. I have seen a dog getting hit by a cyclist. At the same time I believe that cycling is the transport of the future.”

“I know people whose dog has been hit by a cyclist. I get upset by people cutting across the park, now that I have a dog, but I also used to cycle and I used to go off the paths to cut through the park so I understand both sides. I think parks are for people to slow down and relax, not to be on their guard. But I also think cycling is important. Other countries seem to manage so why shouldn’t we?”

“This park is better than others. People stick to designated paths and I know where I have to be careful with my dogs. But generally more and more cyclists don’t stick with the rules. They pretend they are cars, cycles or pedestrians whenever it suits them. One of my dogs has been hit by a cyclist.”

“Some cyclists go too fast. Speed bumps or low barriers along the cycle path would be a help. They would stop dogs or small children running into the cycle paths and people would pay more attention at the actual road crossings. “

“On workday mornings, around 8:30, people go too fast and cut across the park to get to work.”

“I’m not happy about the idea of shared paths; cyclists should have their own paths.”

“Everyone should be able to use all paths.”

“Cyclists are scary if they go off the cycle paths, when you don’t expect them to. Mostly however it is up to dog owners to control their dog and keep an eye on them.”

“Designated pathways are important. Cyclists shouldn’t be on all paths.”

“Cyclists need to stay on cycle paths.”

“I’ve never had any accidents, never had any problems. I sometimes have problems with badly behaved dogs, never cycles.”

4. CONCLUSIONS

Although the nature and make up of the groups consulted varied considerably, there was a similarity in the things people said, and in particular, in their attitude to cyclists and cycling.

4.1 Attitude to Cycling All four groups felt positively towards cycling and cyclists in general. 87% of those responding felt cycling is good for the environment, and 66% feel cycling is good for traffic and congestion. 68% are now or have been cyclists at some point in their lives. Only 8% of respondents felt that cyclists shouldn’t ride on any paths in the Park.

People walking dogs stand out as being most hostile to cyclists, but, in common with other respondents, extremely supportive of cycling in principle, and the hostility was directly linked to a number of respondents aware of dogs being hit by bikes.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 21

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

A number of people across all groups identified anti social behaviour - things going on in the Park that are in conflict with the desire to come to the Park to relax and be quiet – as a problem, and for some, this was associated with cycling.

4.2 Shared-Use Paths There is some slightly contradictory information gathered about shared-use paths. Those responding that they were ‘uncomfortable’ or ‘very uncomfortable’ with shared use pathways varied between 21% and 32% depending on whether those who did not respond are discounted from the percentage calculation, and whether people with dogs are counted or not (people with dogs increase the ‘uncomfortable’ percentage). However, Table 11 shows that 79% of participants feel that cyclists are fine as long as they stay on designated cycle paths, a higher ‘comfort’ level than the most analysis of responses to the questions about shared-use paths. This may be in part about the ‘shared-use’ factor, but additional comments, and discussion in the group session with older people, suggest that it may be more about the behavior of cyclists, and the degree to which cyclists are ‘policed’ that is the most significant factor in the perception of shared use pathways.

4.3 Cyclist Behaviour and Management The dominant theme from all target groups in relation to cyclists was concern about inconsiderate cyclists. This includes not respecting other Park users and ignoring rules about where and when they can ride. Although for some people, this translates into wanting no cycling in the Park, or wanting cyclists to be restricted to ‘cycle only’ paths, this is a minority view. Some people expressed a feeling that cyclists are scary if they go off paths, and unpredictability is seen as an issue. The ‘morning commute’ period was identified as a particular problem, as are cyclists ‘en masse’ – 20 or more bikes together – and this has been associated with ‘Barclay’s London Cycle Hire’ bikes.

However, although concern about cyclist behaviour was widespread, many people offered constructive solutions to this including path markings, speed humps, physical barriers to prevent children and dogs running into cyclists and signage.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 22

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

The research suggests that even more significant than physical organisation of shared pedestrian and cycle routes is finding management solutions to enforcing rules – to create a culture where responsible cycling is the only acceptable form of cycling.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 23

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Appendix A - Consultation Summary

Older People Use parks much more in summer than winter. Most use central parks regularly. Exercise and fresh air main reason for using parks, some taking family/children.

1. General • 1/3 feel uncomfortable or very uncomfortable about shared use pathways. • There was a majority view that cycling is a good thing, that cyclists should be encouraged to be in the park, and that issues arising from cycling are about where cyclists go, levels of consideration and how cycling is policed. • Pedestrians should have priority in the parks but cyclists should be catered for too.

2. Barriers to Using the Parks • Too far/ mobility restrictions • Lack of cafes/ expensive cafes • Not enough toilets or places to sit (not enough poop scooper bins) • Noisy kids, noisy music, kids with footballs • Kids on rollerskates, runners, cyclists, dogs running around free • No one to go with

3. Pathways, Markings and Policing • Cyclists should only ride on pathways wide enough. • The paths should have clearly defined cycle routes. • Designated areas important and many people would like more markings to indicate cycle routes and non cycle routes. • Cyclist NO GO spaces should be more clearly marked and policed • Concern about cyclist behavior and how it is policed/ monitored

4. Consideration • Shared use shouldn’t be an issue as long as cyclists are careful. • Need to have consideration and people need to look out for themselves as well. • Cyclists expect pedestrians to move – ‘you don’t see them coming, and I am concerned about being knocked over, but if they are careful it’s fine’.

5. Other conflicts: Children, Dogs, etc. • It is often difficult to always keep an eye on young children, particularly if you have more than one child with you. • Adults and young people on roller skates can be more problematic than cyclists. • Children on bikes and skateboards are not a problem: the park should allow children the chance to play freely. • Some concern about dogs running free: they could be a problem, including to cyclists, if they chased bikes.

Disabled People Most use central parks regularly at least monthly. Bad weather identified by most as reason not to use park. Exercise and fresh air main reason for using parks, some taking family/children.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 24

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

1. General • Several people felt there should be no cycling in the park ‘Bikes should be on the roads, not on the pavement and not in the parks’. • Although there was a 50% non response to this question, 2 of 3 of those who did respond felt uncomfortable or very uncomfortable about shared use pathways • Overall positive views on cycling - all have cycled in the past. One person thought bikes should be allowed anywhere on the grass as in Bushy Park. • Unhappy about risk to children, from cyclists and roller skaters

2. Barriers to using the parks • Mobility restrictions, getting to the park • Expensive prices at cafes, boats, etc. – although one said they don’t want more facilities, want nature! • No one to go with • Don’t know where to go • Cyclists, dogs, kids on skateboards and roller blades • Not enough play areas for kids, especially for football

3. Paths and markings • There need to be designated places for cyclists • Paths need to be wide enough and clearly marked

4. Other • Kids on bikes are ok but they must have helmets. • Most bicycles haven’t got mud guards. All bikes should have them.

Parents of Young Children 50% use central parks weekly or more. 50% use other parks, including Richmond, Holland Park, Streatham Common. Main reason for using parks is accompanying children. 50% also use parks for fresh air and exercise. About 1/3 uncomfortable or very uncomfortable about shared use pathways. Most positive or neutral about shared use.

1. General Generally positive attitude to cyclists. 2/3 are also cyclists.

2. Barriers to using parks • Lack of toilets, benches, cafes • Getting to the park • Cyclists on pedestrian paths • Lack of dog control • Would like a dog free area • Young people’s anti social behaviour around Diana Fountain especially in summer

3. Shared Use paths

Alice Bigelow and Associates 25

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

• All wide enough paths should be for shared use, some suggested that there should be increased shared use, however, some people felt that shared use is not a good idea at all with kids about and that all cycle paths should be specifically designated. • A number of people felt that specifically designated cycle paths were appropriate and would make things safer and less confusing.

4. Markings • Good markings on the pathways are needed. • There should be a physical barrier on the side of the cycle paths • Cyclists need to be kept in well-marked areas

5. Policing • Some cyclists don’t observe the rules. Recent clamp down has really helped

6. Special Comments relating to children • Cycling kids should be able to use paths. • Pedestrians have to be careful.

People With Dogs 2 aware of pilot scheme. 10 aware of Studio Walk. One person commented that the pilot was ‘a blueprint for disaster’. All go more than once a week. Use a range of parks, including central parks regularly. All go primarily to walk dogs.

1. General • This group included the only responses actively hostile to cyclists, mainly relating to dogs being hit in the park by cyclists (see below). • A number of people reflected on the conflict between dogs and cyclists, and felt that cycling is a good thing, and should be encouraged, including in the park, but that inconsiderate cyclists are a hazard to their dog. • A number of people commented that being allowed to take dogs off the lead is a prime reason for choosing to use Kensington Gardens. • People with dogs seem to be quite aware of the need to control their dogs and that conflict is not just about cyclists.

2. Barriers to Using the Park • Horses • Lots of rubbish in the summer from picnics and similar. • Too many events and fairs. The grass is always damaged. • Inconsiderate cyclists • Big aggressive dogs off the lead. Dog owners that don’t control their dogs.

3. Designated Pathways • As with most groups, a significant number of people spoke about the importance of cyclists being on designated pathways and some pointed out that cyclists shouldn’t be on all paths. Several suggested cyclists shouldn’t be on all paths. • One person suggested that cyclists should have their own paths, another that cyclists should be able to use all paths. • Designated pathways are important. Cyclists shouldn’t be on all paths.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 26

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

4. Cyclist Behaviour • As with most respondents, there was concern about cyclists not obeying the rules or behaving inconsiderately. One person observed that, the ‘Recent clamp down has noticeably helped’. • Weekday mornings were identified as a particularly problematic time – cyclists were felt to go too fast at that time. • Suggestions for increasing safety included: speed humps, barriers on the edge of paths and a speed limit. Cycling speed is seen as a particular hazard for dogs and small children.

5. Dogs Getting Hit by Cyclists • Six people reported that they had a dog, or had seen a dog being hit by a cyclist. • One person reported: ‘I know that I need to control my dog around the cycle path, but one of my dogs has been hit by a cyclist cutting across, and just now, I saw a dog being hit by a cyclists by the round pond and the cyclist was yelling at the dog owner and blaming the dog. It was awful to watch. ‘

Alice Bigelow and Associates 27

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Appendix B – Questionnaire Responses by Group Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Consultation Older People’s Questionnaire Interviews took place in the New Horizons Centre and the Open Age Hub Westminster and Kensington Gardens Interviewees: 10 total, 8 questionnaires returned 6 individuals, 2 couples

1. Do you go to the Yes 8 No park?

Hyde Park 5 If Yes, which one(s) Kensington Gardens 6 The Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill 1 Richmond Park 1 Green Park 2 St James Park 1 Holland Park 1 Battersea Park 2

Once or twice a year 4 How often do you go to the park? About monthly 1 About once a week 1 Several times a week 1 Every Day 1 Less often in winter or bad weather 2

Main reasons for going to park? Exercise 4 Fresh air 4 Walking dog 1 Accompanying children 2 Meeting friends 1 Other: Friends and relatives visit and we go to the park (2) Kite Flying Star Gazing Boating Sunshine

Are you familiar with the Studio Walk in Kensington Yes No 8 Gardens?

Are you aware of the current pilot scheme where Yes No 8 pedestrians and cyclists share the Studio Walk?

How do you feel about this pilot scheme? 1 1 1 DNR 5 Very Not Satisfactory Comfortable Very Helen 3 uncomfortable comfortable Perception Conflicts comfortable Betty 3 – perception – that are rare no Graham 4 of frequent perception conflicts and mostly perception Bob 3 conflicts, near of rarely result without of conflict Rosemary 2

Alice Bigelow and Associates 28

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

misses occasional in near incident conflicts, misses near misses 2. Barriers to going to the park

Things that discourage you from going to the park

Mobility restriction (3) Too far (3) - Used to spend a lot of time in parks Bad Weather (3) Not enough places to sit (4) They have taken away lots of benches – I have to pay for deckchairs to sit down Dogs that run around and aren’t under control Not enough poop scooper bins Not enough toilets Noisy kids Kids kicking around footballs Kids on rollerskates are problematic Noise/Music (2) Not having someone to go with I have other things to do Cafes are too expensive (2) so I take my own packed lunch Not enough cafes (2) Runners Cyclists (2)

3. Cyclists

Do you cycle? Yes 3 No 5

Have you ever been a Yes 8 No cyclist?

How do you feel about cyclists? Tick the statements you agree with… Cycling is good for the environment 7 More cycling would help traffic and congestion 3 Cyclists take a lot of risks and I worry they might get hurt 1 Cyclists are a traffic hazard Cyclists shouldn’t ride on any paths in parks 1 Cyclists frighten me sometimes when I’m out in the park 1 Cyclists are fine as long as they stay on designated cycle paths 5

Other comments on cyclists I have some concerns about inconsiderate cyclists, some of them cause problems for others. Cyclists should only ride on pathways wide enough. The paths should have clearly defined cycle routes. (2) Cyclists need to be considerate. They can be annoying when jumping lights.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 29

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

It shouldn’t be an issue as long as cyclists are careful. Need to have consideration and people need to look out for themselves as well I’m supportive of cycling. I think cycling proficiency (bikability) in schools should be brought back Cyclists expect pedestrians to move – Russian roulette. You don’t see cyclists coming. Cyclists on pavements are a real worry. I would be concerned about being knocked over, but if they are careful I don’t really have a problem. 4. About You Open Age Hub Profile 12 older women all white 10 uk, 2 other Youngest person 69, oldest person 86 + 3 80+ 7=70-80

Male 4 Female 6 12 T18

Under 18 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 6 1 T7 71-80 3 7 T10 81+1 1 4 T5

White British 9 10 T19 Black British Asian British Other white1 1 2 T3 Other black Other asian

Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Yes No 10 12

Are you registered disabled? Yes No 10 12

Alice Bigelow and Associates 30

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Consultation Disabled People Questionnaire Interviews took place in New Horizons Centre, Open Age Hub Westminster and Greater London Action for Disability Social Club in Westminster Interviewees: 6 individuals

1. Do you go to the Yes 6 No park?

Hyde Park 3 If Yes, which one(s) Kensington Gardens 4 The Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill 3 Richmond Park 2 Green Park 2 Battersea Park 3 St. James Park 3 Hampstead Heath 1

Once or twice a year How often do you go to the About monthly 5 park? About once a week Several times a week 1 Less often in winter or bad weather 2

Exercise 3 Main reasons for going to park? Fresh air 4 Walking dog

Accompanying children 2

Meeting friends 1

Other: Nice walk. Green space in the middle of London, easy to reach. Peaceful.

Are you familiar with the Studio Walk in Kensington Yes 4 No 2 Gardens? Participants were shown a map with Studio Walk on it Are you aware of the current pilot scheme where Yes No 6 pedestrians and cyclists share the Studio Walk?

How do you feel about this pilot scheme?

1 1 1 0 0 DNR 3 Very Not Satisfactory Comfortable Very uncomfortable comfortable Perception Conflicts comfortable – perception – that are rare no of frequent perception conflicts and mostly perception conflicts, near of rarely result without of conflict misses occasional in near incident conflicts, misses near misses

Alice Bigelow and Associates 31

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

2. Barriers to going to the park

Things that discourage you from going to the park

Mobility Restrictions (3) I have to drives to the park I’m in a wheel chair and can’t use an electric wheelchair on the buses Cafes are too expensive Prices are too high for boats I used to picnic in the park all the time before my wife died and I got ill myself. I don’t want more facilities, I want nature!! No one to go with (2) Don’t know where in the park to go Bad weather (3) Kids on skateboards and rollerblades There’s not enough proper play areas for kids, especially to play football Dogs running freely (2) Cyclists Can’t get out unless there’s transport, my family takes me to the park, otherwise don’t’ get out at all Used to visit KG regularly with children and grandchildren but don’t now (2) Too far Availability of transport (2) Not enough places to sit (2) Dogs attacking birds Events and loud music

3. Cyclists

Do you cycle? Yes 1 No 5

Have you ever been a Yes 6 No cyclist?

How do you feel about cyclists? Tick the statements you agree with… Cycling is good for the environment 5 More cycling would help traffic and congestion 5 Cyclists take a lot of risks and I worry they might get hurt 5 Cyclists are a traffic hazard 4 Cyclists shouldn’t ride on any paths in parks 2 Cyclists frighten me sometimes when I’m out in the park 2 Cyclists are fine as long as they stay on designated cycle paths 3

Other comments on cyclists There need to be designated places for cyclists (2) Paths need to be wide enough and clearly marked Unhappy about risk to children, from cyclists and roller skaters Bikes should be on the roads, not on the pavement and not in the parks. Kids on bikes are ok but they must have helmets. Most bicycles haven’t got mud guards. All bikes should have them.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 32

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

I’m very keen for more cycling. Bikes should be allowed to cycle freely over the grass, like in Bushy Park. Boris bikes are a good idea but people riding them should wear helmets to send right message to children and YP Cycling in Battersea Park is well managed and monitored Cyclists must give way to pedestrians in parks – priority is pedestrians

4. About You Male 3 Female 3

Under 18 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 3 71-80 2 81+ 1

White British 6 Black British Asian British Other white Other black Other asian

Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Yes 6 No

Are you registered disabled? Yes 5 No 1

Alice Bigelow and Associates 33

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Consultation Parents Questionnaire Interviews took place in Kensington Gardens, in the vicinity of Mount Walk (Cycle Path) and Lancaster Walk. 10 questionnaires returned Interviewees: 5 individuals with children, 5 couples with children (including one family with dog) - couples answered together, discussed and agreed on answers, but were logged individually in the ‘about you’ section.

1. Do you go to the Yes 10 No park?

Hyde Park 3 If Yes, which one(s) Kensington Gardens 9 The Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill 1 Richmond Park 1 Holland Park 2 Streatham Common 1 Local Park 2

Once or twice a year 3 How often do you go to the About monthly 1 park? About once a week 6 Several times a week 1 Less often in winter or bad weather 1

Exercise 5 Main reasons for going to park? Fresh air 2 Walking dog 1

Accompanying children 10

Meeting friends 1

Other: I commute to work through the park daily, but take my kids to the park on weekends once a month.

Are you familiar with the Studio Walk in Kensington Yes 1 No 9 Gardens?

Are you aware of the current pilot scheme where Yes No 10 pedestrians and cyclists share the Studio Walk?

How do you feel about this pilot scheme?

1 2 2 3 2 Very Not Satisfactory Comfortable Very uncomfortable comfortable Perception Conflicts comfortable – perception – that are rare no of frequent perception conflicts and mostly perception conflicts, near of rarely result without of conflict

Alice Bigelow and Associates 34

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

misses occasional in near incident conflicts, misses near misses

2. Barriers to going to the park

Things that discourage you from going to the park

There are not enough benches (2) Not enough cafes Uneven pathways Bad weather There are not enough toilets in the park, especially if you’re with children Lack of control of dogs is a problem. Dogs that aren’t on the lead are frightening to children. I would like a dog free area Young people’s anti-social behaviour around the fountain in the summer is a discouragement Cyclists on pedestrian paths discourage me from going to the park Availability of transport is a problem I like the park but I live outside London Kensington Gardens is too far from home, we generally go to Richmond Park

3. Cyclists

Do you cycle? Yes 6 No 4

Have you ever been a Yes 7 No cyclist?

How do you feel about cyclists? Tick the statements you agree with… Cycling is good for the environment 8 More cycling would help traffic and congestion 7 Cyclists take a lot of risks and I worry they might get hurt 5 Cyclists are a traffic hazard 2 Cyclists shouldn’t ride on any paths in parks Cyclists frighten me sometimes when I’m out in the park 1 Cyclists are fine as long as they stay on designated cycle paths 9

Other comments on cyclists

Cycling kids should be able to use paths. All wide enough paths should be for shared use I’m in favour of shared use of paths. There should be more shared use, as long as people are careful. I don’t see any problems with sharing paths with bicycles

The shared cycle path isn’t a great idea, with kids about Pedestrians have to be careful.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 35

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

There need to be designated cycle paths. Cyclists need to be kept in well-marked areas Cyclists are fine on designated cycle paths. I cycle a lot myself, but shared paths are just confusing. Some cyclists don’t observe the rules. Recent clamp down has really helped

There should be a physical barrier on the side of the cycle paths Good markings on the pathways are needed.

4. About You Male 8 Female 7

Under 18 18-30 31-40 7 41-50 8 51-60 61-70 71-80 81+

White British 12 Black British Asian British Other white 3 Other black Other asian

Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Yes No 15

Are you registered disabled? Yes No 15

Alice Bigelow and Associates 36

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Consultation Dog Walkers’ Questionnaire

Interviews took place in Kensington Gardens, in the vicinity of Mount Walk (Cycle Path) and Lancaster Walk. 14 questionnaires returned, 16 interviewees Interviewees: 12 individuals, 2 couples

1. Using the park?

Hyde Park 5 St. James’ 1 Do you use other Local Park 3 Green Park 3 parks? Regent’s Park 2 Holland Park 1 Hampstead Heath 2 Battersea Park 2 Richmond Park 1 Local Park 3

Once or twice a year About monthly How often do you go to the About once a week 3 park? Several times a week 6 Every day 6 Less often in winter or bad weather 1

Do you primarily go to the park to walk Yes 15 No dog(s)?

Do you walk your own dog(s) or for Own 12 Others Both 3 others?

Do you go to the park for other reasons? Exercise 4 Fresh air 1 Accompanying children 1 Meeting friends 2

Are you familiar with the Studio Yes 10 No 5 Walk?

Are you aware of the current pilot scheme where Yes 2 No 13 pedestrians and cyclists share the Studio Walk?

How do you feel about this?

1 1 2 4 0 6 DNR 1. Very 2. Not 3. Satisfactory 4. Comfortable 5. Very uncomfortable – comfortable – Perception that Conflicts are comfortable perception of perception of conflicts rarely rare and mostly no frequent occasional result in near without incident perception conflicts, near conflicts, near misses of conflict misses misses

Alice Bigelow and Associates 37

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

2. Barriers to going to the park

Things that discourage you from going to the park:

It’s too far Bad weather Horses – our dog is scared of them Lots of rubbish in the summer from picnics and similar. Too many events and fairs. The grass is always damaged. The dog needs to go, so there’s no choice (4) Dog needs a walk every day. There’s nothing discouraging. Inconsiderate cyclists are a big discouragement. Big aggressive dogs off the lead. Dog owners that don’t control their dogs. Anti social behaviour of young people around fountain in the summer.

3. Cyclists

Do you cycle? Yes 5 No 9

Have you ever been a Yes 5 No 9 cyclist?

How do you feel about cyclists? Tick the statements you agree with…

Cycling is good for the environment 13 More cycling would help traffic and congestion 10 Cyclists take a lot of risks and I worry they might get hurt 8 Cyclists are a traffic hazard 6 Cyclists shouldn’t ride on any paths in parks Cyclists frighten me sometimes when I’m out in the park 3 Cyclists are fine as long as they stay on designated cycle paths 13

Other comments on cyclists:

I don’t mind cyclists because I walk my dog off the path on the grass most of the time

Slow cyclists are ok. It’s horrible and dangerous when they’re racing

One of my dogs was hit by a cyclist. They use the walking paths as short cuts through the park and race past you, without warning. You can’t hear them and they don’t use their bells. It spoils the park experience for other people.

As long as cyclists are mindful and aware it’s ok. There should be a speed limit. I have seen a dog getting hit by a cyclist. At the same time I believe that cycling is the transport of the future.

I know people whose dog has been hit by a cyclist. I get upset by people cutting across the park, now that I have a dog, but I also used to cycle and I used to go off the paths to cut through the park so I understand both sides. I think parks are for people to slow down and

Alice Bigelow and Associates 38

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

relax, not to be on their guard. But I also think cycling is important. Other countries seem to manage so why shouldn’t we?

The pilot scheme is a blueprint for disaster

This park is better than others. People stick to designated paths and I know where I have to be careful with my dogs. But generally more and more cyclists don’t stick with the rules. They pretend they are cars, cycles or pedestrians whenever it suits them. One of my dogs has been hit by a cyclist.

Some cyclists go too fast. Speed bumps or low barriers along the cycle path would be a help. They would stop dogs or small children running into the cycle paths and people would pay more attention at the actual road crossings.

On workday mornings, around 8:30, people go too fast and cut across the park to get to work. I know that I need to control my dog around the cycle path, but one of my dogs has been hit by a cyclist cutting across, and just now, I saw a dog being hit by a cyclists by the round pond and the cyclist was yelling at the dog owner and blaming the dog. It was awful to watch.

I always use this park because my dogs are allowed to be off lead. I don’t have a problem with cyclists on a wide path, but if there’s 20 Boris Bikes, it’s too much.

I’m not happy about the idea of shared paths; cyclists should have their own paths.

People who cycle tend to be careful, so it’s ok. Cyclists need to be careful, whether or not they cut across paths.

Everyone should be able to use all paths

Cyclists are scary if they go off the cycle paths, when you don’t expect them to. Mostly however it is up to dog owners to control their dog and keep an eye on them.

Designated pathways are important. Cyclists shouldn’t be on all paths.

Cyclists need to stay on cycle paths

I’ve never had any accidents, never had any problems. I sometimes have problems with badly behaved dogs, never cycles.

Some cyclists don’t observe the rules. Recent clamp down has noticeably helped.

Male 8 Female 8 Under 18 18-30 5 31-40 6 41-50 3 51-60 2 61-70 71-80

Alice Bigelow and Associates 39

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

4. About You 81+

White British 7 Black British Asian British 1 Other white 8 Other black Other asian

Do you consider yourself to have a Yes 1 No 15 disability?

Are you registered Yes No 16 disabled?

Alice Bigelow and Associates 40

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Appendix C – Older People Focus Group Summary Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Consultation

Focus Group with Older people at April 21st Open Age Hub, Glastonbury House SW1

12 older women all white 10 UK, 2 other Youngest person 69, oldest person 86

1 Person <70 7 People 70-79 4 People 80+

The discussion was led through a sequence of topics: • Use of parks • Shared-use paths • Views on cyclists • Barriers and issues around using parks

Introduction Short talk about Kensington Gardens and the Studio Walk Pilot Scheme

Use of Kensington Gardens and Parks Members of this group have been visiting Kensington Gardens recently, as they have been involved in embroidery project about Kensington Palace, otherwise most visit the Gardens in the summer months only.

People also use St James’ Park and Green Park, several particularly like Green Park as they find it much more peaceful than the other Royal Parks and they like St James’ as there are plenty of benches. Several also regularly visit Battersea Park, particularly with grandchildren to play ball games.

There main reasons for visiting the parks were exercise and fresh air, but also taking family including grandchildren.

Although people recognised the Studio Walk path, they did not know it by that name and no one was aware of the pilot scheme for shared use of the Walk.

Shared-use of paths Opinions were mixed about shared use, but most people thought that cyclists should stick to a designated lane on the Walk. People suggested that one side of paths should be marked out for cyclists and the other should be for pedestrians. This would make it a lot clearer where cyclists could not go and that if people cycled outside designated areas they would be challenged.

In the main the group did not want to stop cyclists and felt they should be catered for, but some were very concerned particularly about children and risk of them being hit by cyclists. They said it is often difficult to always keep an eye on young children, particularly if you have more than one child with you.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 41

Studio Walk Equalities Impact Assessment Report of Consultation April 2011 v3

Barriers and Issues in Parks Use Some people were also discouraged by adults on roller skates, discussion seem to feel that these could be more problematic than cyclists as they often go very fast.

They weren’t particularly concerned about children on bikes or skateboards, as they felt that the park should allow children the chance to play freely.

Some of the group were unhappy about dogs running free and thought they could be a problem, including to cyclists, if for instance they chased bikes.

Most people felt that the priority should be for pedestrians in the parks, and that people should feel safe walking about in the park as they are places for relaxation away from the hustle and bustle of London streets

One person in particular did not like the parks being used for events at all, but the majority agreed that the Parks did need to try and cater for everyone and some recognised that holding events might be a good way of the Parks raising income.

Some people felt that there should be more presence by Parks staff to monitor cyclist behaviour, and that cyclists should have a code and should not ride fast through the parks.

A discussion was had about the ‘Boris’ bikes, which most people agreed were a very good thing, but they also thought that this would increase numbers of people using these bikes in the Parks, particularly as the weather gets warmer, so it is especially important to make sure that cyclists are considerate of other parks users.

Alice Bigelow and Associates 42